Christchurch City Council

Agenda

 

 

Notice of Meeting:

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

 

Date:                                    Thursday 10 February 2022

Time:                                   9.30am

Venue:                                 Council Chambers, Civic Offices,
53 Hereford Street, Christchurch

                                                            Under the current provisions of the Covid-19 Protection Framework (traffic lights) people holding a current vaccine pass may attend the meeting in person. The meeting will be broadcast live: http://councillive.ccc.govt.nz/live-stream

 

 

Membership

Chairperson

Deputy Chairperson

Members

Mayor Lianne Dalziel

Deputy Mayor Andrew Turner

Councillor Jimmy Chen

Councillor Catherine Chu

Councillor Melanie Coker

Councillor Pauline Cotter

Councillor Mike Davidson

Councillor Celeste Donovan

Councillor Anne Galloway

Councillor James Gough

Councillor Yani Johanson

Councillor Aaron Keown

Councillor Sam MacDonald

Councillor Phil Mauger

Councillor Jake McLellan

Councillor Tim Scandrett

Councillor Sara Templeton

 

 

4 February 2022

 

 

 

Principal Advisor

Dawn Baxendale

Chief Executive

Tel: 941 6996

 

 

Jo Daly

Council Secretary

941 8581

jo.daly@ccc.govt.nz

www.ccc.govt.nz

Note:  The reports contained within this agenda are for consideration and should not be construed as Council policy unless and until adopted.  If you require further information relating to any reports, please contact the person named on the report.
Watch Council meetings live on the web:
http://councillive.ccc.govt.nz/live-stream

 


Council

10 February 2022

 

 


Council

10 February 2022

 

TABLE OF CONTENTS

 

Karakia Tīmatanga................................................................................................... 4 

1.        Apologies Ngā Whakapāha................................................................................. 4

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

3.        Public Participation Te Huinga Tūmatanui............................................................ 4

3.1       Public Forum Te Huinga Whānui.......................................................................................... 4

3.2       Deputations by Appointment Ngā Huinga Whakaritenga...................................................... 4

4.        Presentation of Petitions Ngā Pākikitanga............................................................ 4

Council

5.        Council Minutes - 27 January 2022....................................................................... 5

Community Board Monthly Reports

6.        Monthly Report from the Community Boards - December 2021.............................. 13

Community Board Part A Reports

7.        203 Alderson Ave - Disposal of Land for Private Access.......................................... 55

8.        Wigram & Hayton Intersection Improvement...................................................... 65

9.        372 Riccarton Road (Upper Riccarton War Memorial Library) - Future Use Issues and Options.......................................................................................................... 77

Te Pae Pīkari Youth Advisory Committee

10.      Youth Advisory Committee Minutes - 1 December 2021....................................... 145

11.      Youth Audit Tool - Future Actions..................................................................... 151

Staff Reports

12.      Mayor's Monthly Report - December 2021/January 2022..................................... 195

13.      Christ's College Temporary Access Easement Through Hagley Park...................... 201

14.      Extension of Te Tira Kāhikuhiku - Christchurch Red Zones Transformation Land Use Consultative Group........................................................................................ 231

 

15.      Notice of Motion............................................................................................ 235

16.      Resolution to Exclude the Public...................................................................... 236

Karakia Whakamutunga

 

 


Council

10 February 2022

 

 

Karakia Tīmatanga

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.   Public Participation Te Huinga Tūmatanui

3.1   Public Forum Te Huinga Whānui

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

3.2   Deputations by Appointment 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. 

4.   Presentation of Petitions Ngā Pākikitanga

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


Council

10 February 2022

 

 

5.     Council Minutes - 27 January 2022

Reference Te Tohutoro:

22/118735

Report of Te Pou Matua:

Jo Daly, Council Secretary, jo.daly@ccc.govt.nz

General Manager Pouwhakarae:

Dawn Baxendale, Chief Executive, dawn.baxendale@ccc.govt.nz

 

 

1.   Purpose of Report Te Pūtake Pūrongo

For the Council to confirm the minutes from the Council meeting held 27 January 2022.

2.   Recommendation to Council

That the Council Confirm the Minutes from the Council meeting held 27 January 2022.

 

Attachments Ngā Tāpirihanga

No.

Title

Page

A

Minutes Council - 27 January 2022

6

 

 

 

Signatories Ngā Kaiwaitohu

Author

Jo Daly - Council Secretary

  


Council

10 February 2022

 








Council

10 February 2022

 

 

6.     Monthly Report from the Community Boards - December 2021

Reference Te Tohutoro:

22/77798

Report of Te Pou Matua:

The Chairpersons of all Community Boards

General Manager Pouwhakarae:

Mary Richardson, General Manager, Citizens and Community
mary.richardson@ccc.govt.nz

 

1.   Purpose of Report Te Pūtake Pūrongo

The purpose of this report is to provide the Council with an overview of initiatives and issues recently considered by the Community Boards.  This report attaches the most recent Community Board Area Report included in each Boards public meeting. Please see the individual agendas for the attachments to each report.

Each Board will present important matters from their respective areas during the consideration of this report and these presentations will be published with the Council minutes after the meeting.

2.   Community Board Recommendations

That the Council:

1.         Receive the Monthly Report from the Community Boards December 2021.

 

Attachments Ngā Tāpirihanga

No.

Title

Page

a

Waikura Linwood-Central-Heathcote Community Board Area Report December 2021

14

b

Waipapa Papanui-Innes Community Board Area Report December 2021

19

c

Te Pātaka o Rākaihautū Banks Peninsula Community Board Area Report December 2021

24

d

Waitai Coastal-Burwood Community Board Area Report December 2021

31

e

Waimāero Fendalton-Waimairi-Harewood Community Board December 2021

40

f

Waipuna Halswell-Hornby-Riccarton Community Board Area Report December 2021

44

 

 


Council

10 February 2022

 






Council

10 February 2022

 






Council

10 February 2022

 








Council

10 February 2022

 










Council

10 February 2022

 





Council

10 February 2022

 












Council

10 February 2022

 

Report from Linwood-Central-Heathcote Community Board  – 2 December 2021

 

7.     203 Alderson Ave - Disposal of Land for Private Access

Reference Te Tohutoro:

21/1707599

Report of Te Pou Matua:

Sarah Stuart, Property Consultant, sarah.stuart@ccc.govt.nz

General Manager Pouwhakarae:

Jane Davis, GM Infrastructure, Planning & Regulatory Services

 

 

1. Linwood-Central-Heathcote Community Board Recommendation to Council

 

(Original officer recommendations accepted without change.)

Part A

That the Council:

1.         Approves the disposal of the land, being circa 11m2 from Lot 1 DP 54330 held in record of title CB32F/856, as outlined in the officer’s report on the meeting agenda; and

2.         Authorises and delegates authority to the Manager Property Consultancy to finalise documentation to implement the disposal.

 

Attachments Ngā Tāpirihanga

No.

Report Title

Page

1  

203 Alderson Ave - Disposal of Land for Private Access

56

 

No.

Title

Page

a

Factors to Consider When Dealing Unilaterally

62

 

 


Council

10 February 2022

 

 

203 Alderson Ave - Disposal of Land for Private Access

Reference Te Tohutoro:

21/1568029

Report of Te Pou Matua:

Sarah Stuart, Property Consultant, sarah.stuart@ccc.govt.nz

General Manager Pouwhakarae:

Jane Davis, GM Infrastructure, Planning & Regulatory Services

 

 

1.   Purpose of the Report Te Pūtake Pūrongo

1.1       The purpose of this report is to seek the Community Board’s recommendation that the Council approve the disposal of a small corner splay of the Rocky Point Reservoir site (“the land”). This report has been written in response to a request by the adjoining owner who seeks to purchase the land. The purchase will enable him to formalise the historic use of an existing access track across Council land and proceed with plans for residential development.

1.2       The decision in this report is of low significance in relation to the Christchurch City Council’s Significance and Engagement Policy. The level of significance was determined by considering: the impact on the small number of people affected by the decision and on the environment; the risk to Council; and the permanence (reversibility) of the decision. The decision carries no risk to Council and has positive benefits for both the purchaser and the environment.

1.3       A Council decision is required to dispose of the land.

 

2.   Officer Recommendations Ngā Tūtohu

That the Waikura Linwood-Central-Heathcote Community Board recommend the Council:

1.         Approves the disposal of the land, being circa 11m2 from Lot 1 DP 54330 held in record of title CB32F/856, as outlined in this report; and

2.         Authorises and delegates authority to the Manager Property Consultancy to finalise documentation to implement the disposal.

 

3.   Reason for Report Recommendations Ngā Take mō te Whakatau

3.1       The proposed disposal of the land is the most practical option in the circumstances. It formalises the historic use of an existing access track through Council land, enables development of land zoned for residential use, and avoids the need to construct an alternative track which would have negative environmental and geotechnical effects.

 

4.   Alternative Options Considered Ētahi atu Kōwhiringa

4.1       The grant of a right of way easement over the part of the existing access track that runs through the Council’s reservoir site. An advantage of this option is that it is simpler from an administrative perspective. The key disadvantage is that the owner would not assume responsibility for the track nor liability for any retaining structure on the track. The issue of liability is considered to make the right of way option an unattractive alternative. 

4.2       Not to dispose of the site or grant a right of way easement. This was the response initially adopted by staff. It was reconsidered after an appeal by the applicant, the provision of detailed plans, and an onsite meeting to discuss the proposal. Upon review, staff supported the disposal of the land subject to several conditions (see Point 5.6 below).  A key reason to dismiss this option is that it would force the adjoining owner to construct an alternative track at a higher contour. This outcome would be undesirable from both an environmental and geotechnical perspective, in addition to being a complicated and costly alternative.

5.   Detail Te Whakamahuki

5.1       Council owns the land addressed 203 Alderson Ave, Hillsborough, shown outlined red below. 

5.2       The site is used to access and house the Rocky Point Reservoir.  An existing access track to the adjoining property cuts through the corner of the Council’s land in the area circled yellow in the plan above.

5.3       The owner of the adjoining property has asked to purchase the 11m2 triangle of land occupied by the existing track, and shaded orange in the plan below:

5.4       Council staff from both asset management and water and wastewater operations support the disposal of the land as the best and most pragmatic solution. This is because it formalises the existing use and avoids the negative environmental and geotechnical consequences of a new track needing to be constructed. It also enables development – being the proposed subdivision of the adjoining lot for which a resource consent has been approved (see Point 5.9 below). 

5.5       The proposed disposal does not compromise access to the reservoir site in any way. The existing track that serves the adjoining property runs at a higher level than the lower access track to the reservoir.  The photos below depict the land and its position alongside the reservoir access track.

Figure 1 Staff stand within land for disposal and look down on reservoir track below     Figure 2 Gate to reservoir track - land for disposal below orange arrow (approx)

 

 Figure 3 Land for disposal within orange triangle (approx)                            Figure 4 Reservoir track at lower level below orange arrow

  

5.6       The proposed disposal will be subject to several conditions, namely that:

-     Barriers (e.g. wooden stakes) are placed on the side of the initial section of the driveway that will be close to the edge of the reservoir track, and that

-     There is no parking in front of the gate to the reservoir. Council may add signage stating that this is a tow away zone.

5.7       Should Council approve the proposed disposal the land will be sold at the value assessed by an independent registered valuer appointed by the Council. The purchaser will pay all valuation, staff, survey and legal costs associated with the transaction.

5.8       The land for disposal is not subject to any offer-back obligations under Section 40 of the Public Works Act 1981 (PWA). This is on the grounds that the size, shape and situation of the land at 11m2 is such that the Council could not expect to sell the land to any person who did not own land adjacent to the land to be sold. It is therefore able to be sold to the adjoining landowner under the legislative provisions of the PWA.

5.9       Only part of the adjoining site (outlined blue) is zoned for Residential Hills use as shaded yellow in the plan below.  Resource consent has been granted for the subdivision of the adjoining lot into two parcels shown as Lots 1 and 2 in the diagram below.

5.10    The land proposed for disposal is part of the fee simple Lot 1 DP 54330 held in record of title CB32F/856.

5.11    The effects (in this case benefits) of the proposed disposal of the land are restricted to the adjoining owner who wishes to subdivide the site in accordance with his resource consent.  There are considered to be no wider effects on the community therefore the views and preferences of the community have not been sought in relation to this proposal.

5.12    The decision affects the Heathcote ward and the Waikura Linwood-Central-Heathcote Community Board areas.

6.   Policy Framework Implications Ngā Hīraunga ā- Kaupapa here

Strategic Alignment Te Rautaki Tīaroaro

6.1       The proposed disposal fits with the Council’s Strategic Framework because it involves a project that results in the transfer of property rights.

6.2       This report supports the Council's Long Term Plan (2021 - 2031):

6.2.1   Activity: Facilities, Property and Planning

·     Level of Service: 13.4.10 Acquisition of property right projects, e.g. easements, leases and land assets to meet LTP funded projects and activities. - At least 90% projects delivered to agreed timeframes per annum

Policy Consistency Te Whai Kaupapa here

6.3       The decision is consistent with Council’s Plans and Policies.  Although a unilateral dealing, there is a clear reason to depart from the general policy requirement to publicly tender property for sale. The reason being that there is only one logical purchaser and that the proposed disposal enables development and formalises historic use of the existing track through Council land. The fact that there is a clear reason implies that the Council policy is being adhered to.

6.4       Similarly the unsolicited nature of the proposal is considered to be in line with MBIE’s Guidance on Unsolicited Proposals for the reasons outlined in ‘Factors to Consider When Dealing Unilaterally’ provided as Attachment A.

Impact on Mana Whenua Ngā Whai Take Mana Whenua

6.5       The decision does not involve a significant decision in relation to ancestral land or a body of water or other elements of intrinsic value, therefore this decision does specifically impact Mana Whenua, their culture and traditions.

6.6       The proposed disposal of the land will not specifically impact Mana Whenua because there is no perceptible change to the status quo.

Climate Change Impact Considerations Ngā Whai Whakaaro mā te Āhuarangi

6.7       The decisions in this report do not have any impact on climate change.

Accessibility Considerations Ngā Whai Whakaaro mā te Hunga Hauā

6.8       The decisions in this report do not have any impact on public accessibility.

7.   Resource Implications Ngā Hīraunga Rauemi

Capex/Opex Ngā Utu Whakahaere

7.1       Cost to Implement – All costs will be borne by the purchaser.

7.2       Maintenance/Ongoing costs – No ongoing maintenance costs.

7.3       Funding Source – N/A.

Other He mea anō

7.4       N/A

8.   Legal Implications Ngā Hīraunga ā-Ture

Statutory power to undertake proposals in the report Te Manatū Whakahaere Kaupapa

8.1       Local Government Act 2002, and Public Works Act 1981.

Other Legal Implications Ētahi atu Hīraunga-ā-Ture

8.2       There is a legal context relating to the disposal of land which has been discussed in this report.

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

9.   Risk Management Implications Ngā Hīraunga Tūraru

9.1       No risk has been identified.

 

 

Attachments Ngā Tāpirihanga

No.

Title

Page

a  

Factors to Consider When Dealing Unilaterally

 

 

 

Additional background information may be noted in the below table:

Document Name

Location / File Link

 

 

 

 

 

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

Sarah Stuart - Property Consultant

Approved By

Angus Smith - Manager Property Consultancy

Mark Johnson - Manager Planning & Delivery

Helen Beaumont - Head of Three Waters & Waste

Jane Davis - General Manager Infrastructure, Planning & Regulatory Services

 


Council

10 February 2022

 



Council

10 February 2022

 

Report from Halswell-Hornby-Riccarton Community Board  – 30 November 2021

 

8.     Wigram & Hayton Intersection Improvement

Reference Te Tohutoro:

21/1697699

Report of Te Pou Matua:

Chris Strydom, Project Manager, chris.strydom@ccc.govt.nz

General Manager Pouwhakarae:

Jane Davis, General Manager Infrastructure, Planning and Regulatory Services, jane.davis@ccc.govt.nz

 

 

1. Halswell-Hornby-Riccarton Community Board Consideration Te Whaiwhakaarotanga

 

It was clarified by staff that there is no proposal to incorporate access to Ngā Puna Wai or the development of new stormwater drains in to the Wigram and Hayton Intersection improvement project currently proposed.

 

Members discussed the importance of a connection with Ngā Puna Wai being addressed separately.

 

The Officer Recommendation for Board approval, paragraphs 1 to 7 was moved, seconded and carried.

 

The Officer's Recommendation for the Board's recommendation to Council, paragraphs 1 to 3 with the addition of a note that options for developing connectivity with Ngā Puna Wai should be investigated as a high priority was moved, seconded and carried.

 

2.   Officer Recommendations Ngā Tūtohu

 

That the Waipuna Halswell-Hornby-Riccarton Community Board:

1.         Approves the detailed design for the Wigram Road / Hayton Road intersection upgrade and pedestrian & cycle linkages between Awatea Road and Hayton Road in accordance with Attachment A (Wigram and Hayton Upgrade Plan- Oct 2021) to the Officer’s report on the meeting agenda.

2.         Approves, pursuant to Clause 7 of the Christchurch City Council Traffic and Parking Bylaw 2017, that the stopping of vehicles be prohibited at any time:

a.         On the North West side of Wigram Road commencing at its intersection with Hayton Road and extending in a south westerly direction for a distance of 83 metres.

b.         On the South West side of Hayton Road commencing at its intersection with Wigram Road and extending in a north westerly direction for a distance of 33 metres.

c.         On the North West side of Wigram Road commencing at its intersection with Hayton Road and extending in a north easterly direction for a distance of 34 metres.

d.         On the North East side of Hayton Road commencing at its intersection with Wigram Road and extending in a north westerly direction for a distance of 33 metres.

e.         On the South East side of Wigram Road commencing at a point 390 metres north east of its intersection with Musgrove Close and extending in a north easterly direction for a distance of 143 metres.

3.         Approves, pursuant to Clause 21 of the Christchurch City Council Traffic and Parking Bylaw 2017, that a 2.5 – 3 metre wide shared path be installed:

a.         Along the North West side of Wigram Road, commencing at its intersection with Hayton Road and extending in a south westerly direction for a distance of 237 metres (to connect with the existing shared path).

b.         Along the South West side of Hayton Road, commencing at its intersection with Wigram Road and extending in a north westerly direction for a distance of 33 metres (to connect with the existing footpath).

c.         Along the North West side of Wigram Road, commencing at its intersection with Hayton Road and extending in a north easterly direction for a distance of 25 metres (to connect with the existing footpath).

d.         Along the North East side of Hayton Road, commencing at its intersection with Wigram Road and extending in a north westerly direction for a distance of 27 metres (to connect with the existing footpath).

e.         Along the South East side of Wigram Road, commencing at a point 449 metres north east of its intersection with Musgrove Close and extending in a north easterly direction for a distance of 76 metres (to connect with the existing shared path).

4.         Approves the installation of a pedestrian refuge island on Wigram Road, South West of its intersection with Hayton Road.

5.         Approves the installation of a pedestrian refuge island on Hayton Road, North West of its intersection with Wigram Road.

6.         Approves that these resolutions take effect when the signs and markings described in the Officer report on the meeting agenda are in place or removed, in the case of revocations.

7.         Revokes any previous resolutions pertaining to traffic controls made pursuant by any bylaw to the extent that they are in conflict with resolutions 2-6 above.

That the Waipuna Halswell-Hornby-Riccarton Community Board recommends that the Council:

1.         Approves, pursuant to Clause 18 of the Christchurch City Council Traffic and Parking Bylaw 2017, that a cycle lane be installed:

a.         Along the North West side of Wigram Road, commencing at a point 17 metres north east of its intersection with Hayton Road and extending in a south westerly direction for a distance of 473 metres (to connect with the existing cycle lane).

b.         Along the South East side of Wigram Road, commencing at a point 70 metres north east of its intersection with Musgrove Close and extending in a north easterly direction for a distance of 533 metres (to connect with the existing cycle lane).

2.         Approves that these resolutions take effect when the signs and markings described in the Officer report on the Board meeting agenda are in place or removed, in the case of revocations.

3.         Revokes any previous resolutions pertaining to traffic controls made pursuant by any bylaw to the extent that they are in conflict with the resolutions 1-2 above.

 

3. Halswell-Hornby-Riccarton Community Board Decisions Under Delegation Ngā Mana kua Tukuna

 

Part C

That the Waipuna Halswell-Hornby-Riccarton Community Board:

1.         Approves the detailed design for the Wigram Road / Hayton Road intersection upgrade and pedestrian & cycle linkages between Awatea Road and Hayton Road in accordance with Attachment A (Wigram and Hayton Upgrade Plan- Oct 2021) to the Officer’s report on the meeting agenda.

2.         Approves, pursuant to Clause 7 of the Christchurch City Council Traffic and Parking Bylaw 2017, that the stopping of vehicles be prohibited at any time:

a.         On the North West side of Wigram Road commencing at its intersection with Hayton Road and extending in a south westerly direction for a distance of 83 metres.

b.         On the South West side of Hayton Road commencing at its intersection with Wigram Road and extending in a north westerly direction for a distance of 33 metres.

c.         On the North West side of Wigram Road commencing at its intersection with Hayton Road and extending in a north easterly direction for a distance of 34 metres.

d.         On the North East side of Hayton Road commencing at its intersection with Wigram Road and extending in a north westerly direction for a distance of 33 metres.

e.         On the South East side of Wigram Road commencing at a point 390 metres north east of its intersection with Musgrove Close and extending in a north easterly direction for a distance of 143 metres.

3.         Approves, pursuant to Clause 21 of the Christchurch City Council Traffic and Parking Bylaw 2017, that a 2.5 – 3 metre wide shared path be installed:

a.         Along the North West side of Wigram Road, commencing at its intersection with Hayton Road and extending in a south westerly direction for a distance of 237 metres (to connect with the existing shared path).

b.         Along the South West side of Hayton Road, commencing at its intersection with Wigram Road and extending in a north westerly direction for a distance of 33 metres (to connect with the existing footpath).

c.         Along the North West side of Wigram Road, commencing at its intersection with Hayton Road and extending in a north easterly direction for a distance of 25 metres (to connect with the existing footpath).

d.         Along the North East side of Hayton Road, commencing at its intersection with Wigram Road and extending in a north westerly direction for a distance of 27 metres (to connect with the existing footpath).

e.         Along the South East side of Wigram Road, commencing at a point 449 metres north east of its intersection with Musgrove Close and extending in a north easterly direction for a distance of 76 metres (to connect with the existing shared path).

4.         Approves the installation of a pedestrian refuge island on Wigram Road, South West of its intersection with Hayton Road.

5.         Approves the installation of a pedestrian refuge island on Hayton Road, North West of its intersection with Wigram Road.

6.         Approves that these resolutions take effect when the signs and markings described in the Officer report on the meeting agenda are in place or removed, in the case of revocations.

7.         Revokes any previous resolutions pertaining to traffic controls made pursuant by any bylaw to the extent that they are in conflict with resolutions 2-6 above.

 

 

4. Halswell-Hornby-Riccarton Community Board Recommendation to Council

 

Part A

That the Council:

1.         Approves, pursuant to Clause 18 of the Christchurch City Council Traffic and Parking Bylaw 2017, that a cycle lane be installed:

a.         Along the North West side of Wigram Road, commencing at a point 17 metres north east of its intersection with Hayton Road and extending in a south westerly direction for a distance of 473 metres (to connect with the existing cycle lane).

b.         Along the South East side of Wigram Road, commencing at a point 70 metres north east of its intersection with Musgrove Close and extending in a north easterly direction for a distance of 533 metres (to connect with the existing cycle lane).

2.         Approves that these resolutions take effect when the signs and markings described in the Officer’s report on the Board meeting agenda are in place or removed, in the case of revocations.

3.         Revokes any previous resolutions pertaining to traffic controls made pursuant by any bylaw to the extent that they are in conflict with the resolutions 1-2 above.

4.         Notes that options for developing connectivity with Ngā Puna Wai should be investigated as a high priority.

 

Attachments Ngā Tāpirihanga

No.

Report Title

Page

1  

Wigram & Hayton Intersection Improvement

70

 

No.

Title

Page

a

Wigram and Hayton Upgrade Plan Oct 2021

76

 

 


Council

10 February 2022

 

 

Wigram & Hayton Intersection Improvement

Reference Te Tohutoro:

21/1318376

Report of Te Pou Matua:

Chris Strydom, Project Manager, Chris.strydom@ccc.govt.nz

General Manager Pouwhakarae:

Jane Davis, General Manager Infrastructure, Planning and Regulatory Services, Jane.davis@ccc.govt.nz

 

 

1.   Purpose of the Report Te Pūtake Pūrongo

1.1       The purpose of this report is to seek the Halswell-Hornby-Riccarton Community Board’s approval of the Wigram and Hayton Intersection Improvement project and to request that the  Board recommend to Council the approval of a special vehicle lane (cycle lane) and shared pedestrian/cycle path on Wigram Road as part of the Wigram/Hayton intersection improvement project, as shown in Attachment A (Wigram and Hayton Upgrade Plan- Oct 2021)

1.2       The decisions in this report is of low significance in relation to the Christchurch City Council’s Significance and Engagement Policy.  The level of significance was determined by the low level of impact and low number of people affected by the recommended decision.

 

2.   Officer Recommendations Ngā Tūtohu

That the Waipuna Halswell-Hornby-Riccarton Community Board:

1.         Approves the detailed design for the Wigram Road / Hayton Road intersection upgrade and pedestrian & cycle linkages between Awatea Road and Hayton Road in accordance with Attachment A (Wigram and Hayton Upgrade Plan- Oct 2021) to the Officer report on the meeting agenda. .

2.         Approves, pursuant to Clause 7 of the Christchurch City Council Traffic and Parking Bylaw 2017, that the stopping of vehicles be prohibited at any time:

a.         On the North West side of Wigram Road commencing at its intersection with Hayton Road and extending in a south westerly direction for a distance of 83 metres.

b.         On the South West side of Hayton Road commencing at its intersection with Wigram Road and extending in a north westerly direction for a distance of 33 metres.

c.         On the North West side of Wigram Road commencing at its intersection with Hayton Road and extending in a north easterly direction for a distance of 34 metres.

d.         On the North East side of Hayton Road commencing at its intersection with Wigram Road and extending in a north westerly direction for a distance of 33 metres.

e.         On the South East side of Wigram Road commencing at a point 390 metres north east of its intersection with Musgrove Close and extending in a north easterly direction for a distance of 143 metres.

3.         Approves, pursuant to Clause 21 of the Christchurch City Council Traffic and Parking Bylaw 2017, that a 2.5 – 3 metre wide shared path be installed:

a.         Along the North West side of Wigram Road, commencing at its intersection with Hayton Road and extending in a south westerly direction for a distance of 237 metres (to connect with the existing shared path).

b.         Along the South West side of Hayton Road, commencing at its intersection with Wigram Road and extending in a north westerly direction for a distance of 33 metres (to connect with the existing footpath).

c.         Along the North West side of Wigram Road, commencing at its intersection with Hayton Road and extending in a north easterly direction for a distance of 25 metres (to connect with the existing footpath).

d.         Along the North East side of Hayton Road, commencing at its intersection with Wigram Road and extending in a north westerly direction for a distance of 27 metres (to connect with the existing footpath).

e.         Along the South East side of Wigram Road, commencing at a point 449 metres north east of its intersection with Musgrove Close and extending in a north easterly direction for a distance of 76 metres (to connect with the existing shared path).

4.         Approves the installation of a pedestrian refuge island on Wigram Road, South West of its intersection with Hayton Road.

5.         Approves the installation of a pedestrian refuge island on Hayton Road, North West of its intersection with Wigram Road.

6.         Approves that these resolutions take effect when the signs and markings described in the Officer report on the meeting agenda are in place or removed, in the case of revocations.

7.         Revokes any previous resolutions pertaining to traffic controls made pursuant by any bylaw to the extent that they are in conflict with resolutions 2-6 above.

That the Waipuna Halswell-Hornby-Riccarton Community Board recommends that the Council:

1.         Approves, pursuant to Clause 18 of the Christchurch City Council Traffic and Parking Bylaw 2017, that a cycle lane be installed:

a.         Along the North West side of Wigram Road, commencing at a point 17 metres north east of its intersection with Hayton Road and extending in a south westerly direction for a distance of 473 metres (to connect with the existing cycle lane).

b.         Along the South East side of Wigram Road, commencing at a point 70 metres north east of its intersection with Musgrove Close and extending in a north easterly direction for a distance of 533 metres (to connect with the existing cycle lane).

2.         Approves that these resolutions take effect when the signs and markings described in the Officer report on the Board meeting agenda are in place or removed, in the case of revocations.

3.         Revokes any previous resolutions pertaining to traffic controls made pursuant by any bylaw to the extent that they are in conflict with the resolutions 1-2 above.

 

3.   Reason for Report Recommendations Ngā Take mō te Whakatau

3.1       To create safe connectivity for cyclists along Wigram Road between Awatea Road and Hayton Road by the provision of on road cycle lanes.

3.2       Connecting shared pedestrian and cycle off road paths to existing paths on Wigram Road.

3.3       To improve the Wigram Road & Hayton Road intersection by creating safe pedestrian and cycle crossing points.

 

4.   Alternative Options Considered Ētahi atu Kōwhiringa

4.1       The Do Nothing approach considered:

1.1.1    Advantages:

·    Nil.

1.1.2    Disadvantages:

·    Lack of continuity of level of service for pedestrians and cyclists.

·    Maintains existing low safety conditions.

4.2       Preferred option:

The key features of the preferred option include the installation of an on road special vehicle lane (cycle lane) on both sides of Wigram Road between Awatea Road and Hayton Road and pedestrian and cycle crossing facilities.

1.1.3    Advantages:

1.1.4    Improve safety by;

·    Provision of a right hand turning bay.

·    Construction of safe pedestrian and cyclist crossing points.

·    Improving on road cycle safety.

·    Improving off road cycle and pedestrian safety.

·    Connecting pedestrian and cycle paths on the east and west of Hayton Road on Wigram Road, giving connection to communities.

·    Reducing the safety risk for pedestrians and cyclists. 

1.1.5    Disadvantages:

·    Nil.

1.1.6      

5.   Detail Te Whakamahuki

5.1       The road upgrade is in response to the growth occurring in the South West of the City. The upgrade was identified in the City Transport Strategy and the capital programme in 2015/2016.  A report was presented to the Riccarton/Wigram Community Board for recommendation to Council on 18/08/2015 for this project (RWCB_18082015). This new report seeks to update the resolutions presented in 2015 based on the detailed design that has been undertaken since then.

5.2       The proposed road upgrades for the Wigram/Hayton intersection consists of two vehicle lanes and two on road cycle lanes. To improve pedestrian and cycle connections through this area, the project proposes to install a shared pedestrian/cycle path along the north side of Wigram Road with a connection to the existing cycleway along the Southern Motorway. The upgrades also include painted flush median, turning bays and the installation of two pedestrian/cycle refuges.  This upgrade work also completes the link to Magdala Overbridge and to the city road network in the east.

5.3       If approved, construction will commence once the funds has been confirmed. 

Community Views/Preferences

5.4       No community views have been received given that the decision affects mainly the industrial development to the north and the residential community to the west. Consideration of the existing use of the site frontage footpath formed part of the road safety audit. Analysis of observed pedestrian and cycle usage of the area highlighted that there is a requirement to improve this intersection.

6.   Policy Framework Implications Ngā Hīraunga ā- Kaupapa here

Strategic Alignment Te Rautaki Tīaroaro

6.1       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.

6.2       This report supports the Council's Long Term Plan (2021 - 2031):

6.2.1   Activity: Transport

·     Level of Service: 10.5.1 Limit deaths and serious injury crashes per capita for cyclists and pedestrians - ≤ 12 crashes per 100,000 residents Level of Service: 10.5.1 Limit deaths and serious injury crashes per capita for cyclists and pedestrians - ≤ 12 crashes per 100,000 residents

Policy Consistency Te Whai Kaupapa here

6.3       The decision is consistent with Council’s Plans and Policies.

Impact on Mana Whenua Ngā Whai Take Mana Whenua

6.4       The decision does not involve a significant decision in relation to ancestral land or a body of water or other elements of intrinsic value, therefore this decision does not specifically impact Mana Whenua, their culture and traditions.

Climate Change Impact Considerations Ngā Whai Whakaaro mā te Āhuarangi

6.5       This proposal does not have any significant effect upon carbon emissions and Climate Change, although the improvement to cycle and pedestrian linkages should encourage further active travel.

Accessibility Considerations Ngā Whai Whakaaro mā te Hunga Hauā

6.6       The effects of this proposal upon accessibility are expected to be moderate. The provision of pedestrian crossing facilities will enable those with limited mobility opportunities to travel further on the pedestrian and cycle network.

7.   Resource Implications Ngā Hīraunga Rauemi

Capex/Opex Ngā Utu Whakahaere

7.1       Cost to Implement – Cost estimate for delivery of this project is $791, 291.

7.2       Maintenance/Ongoing costs – The on-going maintenance of the additional road marking and infrastructure has been calculated at $3445 per annum. This has been planned for in future road maintenance budgets.

7.3       Funding Source – This project is identified in the Council's Long Term Plan (2021 - 2031)- Wigram/Hayton intersection improvement CPMS ID: 42027 with a budget of $558,085, additional funding is being sourced as part of the annual plan review and from within the wider Transport programme. Waka Kotahi/NZTA subsidy has been approved.

Other He mea anō

7.4       None identified

8.   Legal Implications Ngā Hīraunga ā-Ture

Statutory power to undertake proposals in the report Te Manatū Whakahaere Kaupapa

8.1       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.

8.2       The Council have delegated authority to approve Special Vehicle Lanes as set out in the register of delegations.

8.3       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.

8.4       The installation of any signs, markings and central islands associated with traffic control devices must comply with the Land Transport Rule: Traffic Control Devices 2004.

Other Legal Implications Ētahi atu Hīraunga-ā-Ture

8.5       There is no legal context, issue or implication relevant to this decision.

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

9.   Risk Management Implications Ngā Hīraunga Tūraru

9.1       There is a risk of increase costs when there are delays in the project design and project scheming.  To minimise risk and increased costs, estimates have been regularly updated to remain current.  Tenders for the project will be advertised as soon as possible once Council approval has been obtained.

 

 

Attachments Ngā Tāpirihanga

No.

Title

Page

a  

Wigram and Hayton Upgrade Plan Oct 2021

 

 

 

Additional background information may be noted in the below table:

Document Name

Location / File Link

 RWCB_18082015

https://christchurch.infocouncil.biz/Open/2015/08/RWCB_18082015_MIN.PDF

 

 

 

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

Chris Strydom - Project Manager

Approved By

Ekin Sakin - Manager Planning & Delivery

Lynette Ellis - Head of Transport

 


Council

10 February 2022

 


Council

10 February 2022

 

Report from Halswell-Hornby-Riccarton Community Board  – 30 November 2021

 

9.     372 Riccarton Road (Upper Riccarton War Memorial Library) - Future Use Issues and Options

Reference Te Tohutoro:

21/1697736

Report of Te Pou Matua:

Barry Woodland, Property Consultant, barry.woodland@ccc.govt.nz; Angus Smith, Manager Property Consultancy, angus.smith@ccc.govt.nz

General Manager Pouwhakarae:

Mary Richardson, General Manager Citizens & Community, mary.richardson@ccc.govt.nz

 

 

1. Halswell-Hornby-Riccarton Community Board Consideration Te Whaiwhakaarotanga

 

Members indicated support for the surrender of the lease held by the Upper Riccarton War Memorial Library Incorporated and demolition of the severely earthquake damaged building.

Members discussed possibility of retention of the site as an ongoing war memorial with it being developed as a pocket park and agreed that they would like to have the options for this investigated.

Officer Recommendation 1, with an additional request that staff investigate options for development of the site as a memorial reserve was moved, seconded and carried.

In regard to the Board's recommendations to the Council on the proposal the officer’s recommendation 2, a b d e f, (excluding c) were moved, seconded and carried.

 

2.   Officer Recommendations Ngā Tūtohu

 

That the Waipuna Halswell-Hornby-Riccarton Community Board, noting that it holds the delegated authority from Council to agree to the cancellation or surrender of leases or licences of reserves to other parties,

1.         Resolves to accept the surrender of the Upper Riccarton War Memorial Library Incorporated’s ground lease dated 4 March 2016 over 372 Riccarton Road (described as Reserve 4720 and contained in Record of Title CB327/121), subject to Council approval of recommendations 2(a) and 2(b) below:

Noting that the following consequential decisions are required to be made by the Council.

 

2.         Recommends that Council resolves to:

a.         Receive the Upper Riccarton War Memorial Library Incorporated’s resolution dated 8 August 2018 and subsequent Minutes of the Special General Meeting dated 15 June 2021  (appended as Attachments A and D respectively).

b.         Acknowledge and accept:

i.          the Community Board resolution to surrender of the Upper Riccarton War Memorial Library Incorporated‘s ground lease as noted in (1) above;

ii.         the consequential vesting of the Library and Annex buildings in Council, and;

iii.        the demolition of the Library and Annex buildings at a cost of $85,000 excluding GST with funding from the Community Facilities Rebuild OPEX fund.

c.         Following completion of the steps in 2(b), approve the commencement of the process under section 24 Reserves Act 1977 to revoke the reserve status over the land (subject to there being no sustainable objections received during the public notification process), the subsequent return of the land to the Crown and negotiation of Council’s share, if any, of any proceeds arising from any subsequent sale of the land.

d.         Authorise the Manager Property Consultancy to negotiate and conclude all the agreements and actions necessary to facilitate 1 and 2 (a to c) above on terms and conditions acceptable to him, and in doing so make any decisions necessary to give effect to this. 

e.         Authorise staff to work with the Upper Riccarton War Memorial Library Incorporated to assist it in honouring the sacrifice of the service people and commitment of the Library volunteers in a meaningful way, together with the repatriation and / or disposal of the Upper Riccarton War Memorial Library Incorporated’s memorial artefacts, within the Upper Riccarton area. 

f.          Acknowledge that the public excluded attachment which is the financial information from Upper Riccarton War Memorial Library Incorporated is not released until the gift of the buildings to Council has been completed and documented and the Trust has been formally wound up, as it is commercially sensitive incorporating as yet undisclosed financial information.

 

3. Halswell-Hornby-Riccarton Community Board Decisions Under Delegation Ngā Mana kua Tukuna

 

Part C

That the Waipuna Halswell-Hornby-Riccarton Community Board, under delegated authority from Council: agrees to the cancellation or surrender of leases or licences of reserves to other parties,

1.            Accepts the surrender of the Upper Riccarton War Memorial Library Incorporated’s ground lease dated 4 March 2016 over 372 Riccarton Road (described as Reserve 4720 and contained in Record of Title CB327/121), subject to Council approval.

2.            Requests that staff investigate options for development of the site as a memorial reserve.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

4. Halswell-Hornby-Riccarton Community Board Recommendation to Council

 

Part A

That the Council:

1.         a.            Receives the Upper Riccarton War Memorial Library Incorporated’s resolution dated 8 August 2018 and subsequent Minutes of the Special General Meeting dated 15 June 2021 (appended as Attachments A and D respectively to the officer’s report).

b.         Acknowledges and accepts:

i.          the Community Board resolution to surrender the Upper Riccarton War Memorial Library Incorporated‘s ground lease;

ii.         the consequential vesting of the Library and Annex buildings in Council, and;

iii.        the demolition of the Library and Annex buildings at a cost of $85,000 excluding Goods and Services Tax with funding from the Community Facilities Rebuild Operational Expenditure fund.

c.         Authorises the Manager Property Consultancy to negotiate and conclude all the agreements and actions necessary to facilitate surrender of the lease and the actions set out in 1a and 1b above on terms and conditions acceptable to him, and in doing so make any decisions necessary to give effect to this. 

d.         Authorises staff to work with the Upper Riccarton War Memorial Library Incorporated to assist it in honouring the sacrifice of the service people and commitment of the Library volunteers in a meaningful way, together with the repatriation and / or disposal of the Upper Riccarton War Memorial Library Incorporated’s memorial artefacts, within the Upper Riccarton area. 

e.         Acknowledges that the public excluded attachment which is the financial information from Upper Riccarton War Memorial Library Incorporated is not released until the gift of the buildings to Council has been completed and documented and the Trust has been formally wound up, as it is commercially sensitive incorporating as yet undisclosed financial information.

 

Attachments Ngā Tāpirihanga

No.

Report Title

Page

1  

372 Riccarton Road (Upper Riccarton War Memorial Library) - Future Use Issues and Options

81

 

No.

Title

Page

a

A Trust Resolution

100

b

B Title

101

c

C Structural Commentary, Cost, EPB Notice

109

d

D Constitution, Financial Statement 2017, Minutes of Special General Meeting

114

e

E Lease

126

f  

F Trust's Indicative Financial Position (Under Separate Cover) - Confidential

 

 

 


Council

10 February 2022

 

 

372 Riccarton Road (Upper Riccarton War Memorial Library) - Future Use Issues and Options

Reference / Te Tohutoro:

21/312946

Report of / Te Pou Matua:

Barry Woodland, Property Consultant, barry.woodland@ccc.govt.nz; Angus Smith, Manager Property Consultancy, angus.smith@ccc.govt.nz

General Manager / Pouwhakarae:

Mary Richardson, General Manager Citizens & Community, mary.richardson@ccc.govt.nz

 

 

1.   Purpose of the Report / Te Pūtake Pūrongo

1.1       The purpose of this report is in response to a request from the current steward / asset owner / sponsor (Community Support Governance & Partnership Unit - CSGP) and the Waipuna/Halswell-Hornby-Riccarton Community Board to review future use options for the Upper Riccarton War Memorial Library site at 372 Riccarton Road. 

1.2       Council administer and lease the land to the Upper Riccarton War Memorial Library Incorporated (the Trust) who own the two buildings on the site (the War Memorial ‘Library’ and ‘Annex’).

1.3       The Library building is subject to a time sensitive Earthquake Prone Building (EPB) notice and has been closed and cordoned off since November 2017.

1.4       In response to financial and operational difficulties the Trust subsequently proposed, by way of a formal resolution in August 2018, that Council accept: a surrender of the Trust‘s ground lease; ownership of the two buildings, and; financial responsibility for the demolition of the library building and maintenance and / or demolition of the Annex building, all at no cost to the Trust.

1.5       The Annex building has been closed for the intervening period and the Trust is now in the process of formally winding up as an incorporated entity.

1.6       There is currently no specific LTP capital or operational budget allocated to the property.

1.7       A key outcome from this report is for Council to respond formally to the Trust’s resolution and, in doing so, approve a strategy for: assuming ownership of the buildings; funding the demolition of the Library and Annex buildings, and; the future use of the land.

1.8       This outcome requires cognisance of the Trust’s desire to preserve its memorial ethos and the Community Board’s desire to ‘advocate for a decision on the future use of the building and / or site that will recognise and honour the memorial values of the site and the Upper Riccarton War Memorial Library Trust’.  

1.9       The decisions in this report are of low significance in relation to the Christchurch City Council’s Significance and Engagement Policy given that the recommendations are essentially of a local nature.

 

2.   Officer Recommendations / Ngā Tūtohu

That the Waipuna Halswell-Hornby-Riccarton Community Board, noting that it holds the delegated authority from Council to agree to the cancellation or surrender of leases or licences of reserves to other parties,

1.         Resolves to accept the surrender of the Upper Riccarton War Memorial Library Incorporated’s ground lease dated 4 March 2016 over 372 Riccarton Road (described as Reserve 4720 and contained in Record of Title CB327/121), subject to Council approval of recommendations 2(a) and 2(b) below:

Noting that the following consequential decisions are required to be made by the Council.

 

2.         Recommends that Council resolves to:

a.         Receive the Upper Riccarton War Memorial Library Incorporated’s resolution dated 8 August 2018 and subsequent Minutes of the Special General Meeting dated 15 June 2021  (appended as Attachments A and D respectively).

b.         Acknowledge and accept:

i.          the Community Board resolution to surrender of the Upper Riccarton War Memorial Library Incorporated‘s ground lease as noted in (1) above;

ii.         the consequential vesting of the Library and Annex buildings in Council, and;

iii.        the demolition of the Library and Annex buildings at a cost of $85,000 excl GST with funding from the Community Facilities Rebuild OPEX fund.

c.         Following completion of the steps in 2(b), approve the commencement of the process under section 24 Reserves Act 1977 to revoke the reserve status over the land (subject to there being no sustainable objections received during the public notification process), the subsequent return of the land to the Crown and negotiation of Council’s share, if any, of any proceeds arising from any subsequent sale of the land.

d.         Authorise the Manager Property Consultancy to negotiate and conclude all the agreements and actions necessary to facilitate 1 and 2 (a to c) above on terms and conditions acceptable to him, and in doing so make any decisions necessary to give effect to this. 

e.         Authorise staff to work with the Upper Riccarton War Memorial Library Incorporated to assist it in honouring the sacrifice of the service people and commitment of the Library volunteers in a meaningful way, together with the repatriation and / or disposal of the Upper Riccarton War Memorial Library Incorporated’s memorial artefacts, within the Upper Riccarton area. 

f.          Acknowledge that the public excluded attachment which is the financial information from Upper Riccarton War Memorial Library Incorporated is not released until the gift of the buildings to Council has been completed and documented and the Trust has been formally wound up, as it is commercially sensitive incorporating as yet undisclosed financial information.

 

 

3.   Reason for Report Recommendations / Ngā Take mō te Whakatau

3.1       The key considerations influencing the review of options in this report include:

3.1.1   The Upper Riccarton War Memorial Library has been situated at 372 Riccarton Road since 1919, the original library having been established in Hansens lane, Upper Riccarton.

3.1.2   Council administer the land only. The two buildings on the land (the Library and Annex) are owned by the Upper Riccarton War Memorial Library Incorporated (the Trust).

3.1.3   The Library building has been closed since 2017, is subject to an Earthquake Prone Building (EPB) notice requiring strengthening / demolition by 2025 and is considered prone to sudden collapse. At an estimated cost of $350,000 to $400,000 (excluding GST, consultant and unknown costs) it is considered uneconomic to strengthen / repair / refurbish and is currently a risk to public safety.

3.1.4   The Annex building is not currently in use. It has limited utility (having a floor area of only 30m2), is poorly located and considered uneconomic to upgrade. Strengthening and repair costs are estimated to be in the order of $60,000 - $100,000 excluding GST, consultant and known costs. It is, similarly, considered uneconomic to strengthen and repair.  

3.1.5   The cost to demolish the two buildings and grass down the site is in the order of $85,000 excl GST. 

3.1.6   Due to financial constraints, and by way of a formal resolution in late 2018, the Trust proposed a surrender of its ground lease and transfer of ownership of the two buildings to the Council (and the associated funding liabilities), at no cost to the Trust.

3.1.7   The Trust is now in the process of winding up and, although no longer able to operate from the site or as an incorporated entity, has expressed a desire for its memorial ethos and objective of honouring the commitment and sacrifice of service people in the local area to be conserved in some form in the Upper Riccarton area.

3.1.8   A range of initiatives designed to commemorate the original and current sites of the library, together with the memorial ethos of the Trust (and its memorial artefacts), are currently being considered in consultation with the Trust.

3.1.9   The land (372 Riccarton Road) is no longer required for its intended purpose as a memorial library.

3.1.10 The current asset owner (CSGP) has no alternative use, or funding, for the site and none of the Council’s other operational units require the land for an alternative public work.

3.1.11 The property does not meet the ‘Criteria for retaining Council property’.

3.1.12 Currently there is no LTP capital or operational budget specifically allocated to the property (land or buildings). Funding for the demolition of the two buildings is available from the Community Facilities Rebuild OPEX fund.

3.1.13 The land is Crown derived and administered, not owned, by Council. As such, its actual asset value to Council is diminished given that the return of the land to, and potential sale by, the Crown would result in Council receiving only a share of the sale proceeds.

3.1.14 Prior to accepting the return of the land from Council the Crown has confirmed that it will require the buildings to be demolished and the site reinstated, at Council’s cost. 

3.1.15 In context, the land is considered a minor component of the Council’s Community Facilities (and Parks and Reserves) network and would not be considered strategic, while any disposal of the land would not significantly alter the level of service delivered by Council.

3.2       The recommended option is as follows:

Council accepts the Trusts’ proposal, the two buildings are demolished, the Trust’s memorial artefacts are repatriated off-site and the land is handed back to the Crown.

3.2.1   The Library and Annex Buildings: Council accepts the surrender of the Trust’s ground lease and assumes (vested) ownership of the Library and Annex buildings. The two buildings are demolished and the land grassed down at a cost of $85,000 excl GST. The memorial values of the original (Hansens Lane) and current (Riccarton Road) War Memorial sites are commemorated and the Trusts memorial artefacts are repatriated and displayed at various community locations within the Upper Riccarton area.

3.2.2   The Land: Council resolves to request the approval of the Crown to revoke the reserve status of the land (subject to public notification) and, if no sustainable objections are received, to hand the cleared site back to the Crown (with a (requested) condition that a memorial plaque is placed on the site to recognise its commemorative status). If the Crown subsequently decide to revoke the land’s reserve status the land could then be disposed of by the Crown subject to any section 40 offer-back obligations and subsequent first right of refusal to Ngai Tahu. The Council may/may not receive a residual sum from the resulting sale.

3.3       Advantages and Disadvantages

Advantages for Council:

3.3.1   It enables Council to respond positively, and empathetically, to the Trust’s proposal.

3.3.2   Demolition of the library ensures EPB notice compliance and removes a significant risk to public safety and perception of ongoing inaction by Council.

3.3.3   Demolition of the Library and Annex buildings avoids ongoing, unbudgeted, buildings repair and strengthening, capital and operational building / land maintenance, graffiti removal and site security costs.

3.3.4   The site is cleared, tidied and remediated to the Crown’s requirements.

3.3.5   It responds to the Trust’s desire to preserve its memorial ethos in the Upper Riccarton area and is consistent with the Board’s objective that ‘the future use of the site is identified which recognises and honours the memorial values of the property’.

3.3.6   It enables the existing asset owner (CSGP) to divest itself of an asset for which it has no future use or budgeted operational funding.

3.3.7   It recognises that no other operational Council unit has an alternative use for the site.

3.3.8   Public consultation would be addressed through the revocation / ‘sale’ process.

3.3.9   If revocation is approved some residual income may accrue to Council from any future sale of the land by the Crown.

Advantages for the Trust

3.3.10 Their building and leasehold obligations and liabilities are formally extinguished.

3.3.11 Their memorial ethos is conserved and on public display within the Upper Riccarton community.

3.3.12 The memorial status of the Riccarton Road and Hansons Road library sites is recognised and preserved.

Disadvantage

 

3.3.13 The major disadvantage with this option is that it requires Council approval to fund the demolition of the two buildings from the Community Facilities OPEX Rebuild Fund. Operational funding would also be required to cover the costs of: holding / maintaining the land and buildings for the period of time prior to demolition; holding / maintaining the land until the land is handed back to the Crown, and; the revocation process (public notification, Crown costs etc). A combination of Trust / Community Board Discretionary / Council operational funding will be required to assist the Trust with the cost of repatriating its memorial artefacts. Also, by handing the site back to the Crown its retention for memorial purposes is lost. 

 

4.   Alternative Options Considered / Ētahi atu Kōwhiringa

A number of alternative options have been considered including:

Retain the Status Quo: The Trust continue to own the buildings and lease the land

4.1       The Trust: have formally resolved to wind up as an incorporated entity; has no capability to operate the voluntary Library from the Annex building, and; inadequate funds to meet their lease obligations or to comply with the requirement (as current building owner) to repair / strengthen / demolish the Library building before 2025. Conversely, CSGP (as asset owner) would be required to retain an asset for which it has no future use and no budgeted operational income moving forward. The library will present an ongoing public safety risk, the site will continue to be a relative eyesore and, in the absence of any ongoing maintenance, the Annex building will further deteriorate. As perceived ‘owners’ of the site Council will likely receive public criticism for any ongoing inaction.

Doing nothing is not considered a tenable option for the Council or the Trust. 

Land and / or buildings retained by the Trust

4.2       Any options which contemplate the Trust retaining an interest in the land or buildings have been discounted as the Trust are winding up (subject to its memorial ethos being preserved). A potential sale of the buildings by the Trust is equally impractical (and unattractive to potential purchasers) given the current state of the buildings, the land being Crown derived, the dependence on a ground lease from Council and the current restriction on the use of the land to ‘Municipal Buildings’. 

Continued ‘ownership’ by the Trust, in whatever form, is not considered practical or feasible.

Land administered by, and building(s) ownership transferred to, Council

4.3       The following options assume Council continues to administer the land, accepts a surrender of the Trust’s lease and assumes (vested) ownership of the buildings and the associated financial liabilities.

4.3.1   Clear the Site and retain the land as a memorial park

The site would be grassed down as part of the demolition process and cost. Subsequent development of the site as a park would require unbudgeted funding to cover design, site development (landscaping, seating, foundation stone placement etc) and ongoing operational / maintenance costs. Some funding would also likely be required to assist the Trust with the repatriation and display of their other memorial artefacts offsite. Asset ownership would need to be transferred from CSGP to the Parks Unit (noting that Parks consider there is no network justification (or funding) for establishing additional parks in the immediate locality (refer paragraph 5.75).

Although potentially desirable from a memorial perspective this option is not considered financially or operationally feasible given the absence of any allocated LTP funding or network justification from an asset owning Council Unit.

(An alternative ‘No Cost to Council’ option would involve: a ground lease with the tenant being responsible for all development, capital and operational costs; a notional asset owner assuming stewardship of the asset at no cost, and; the tenant (as an incorporated body) presenting a sustainable business case requiring no financial support from Council).

4.3.2   Clear the site / retain the land / retain the Annex building

As 4.3.1 above plus retaining the Annex building for community / other use in conjunction with the memorial park (noting that estimated initial repair and strengthening costs are in the order of $60,000 - $100,000 excl GST, consultant and unknown costs).

This option is not considered viable given the immediate and ongoing unbudgeted development and operational / maintenance costs associated with the land, the repair / strengthening and ongoing maintenance costs associated with the Annex building and absence of any network justification for an alternative use   Any revenue to Council from leasing the Annex building would be nominal and inconsequential. 

4.3.3   Strengthen / repair / refurbish both buildings and re-activate as a community facility

Strengthen, repair and refurbish both buildings at a cost in the order of $450,000- $550,000 (excl GST, consultant and unknown costs). Retain the land and lease to a community group or groups for ‘municipal buildings’ use.

Not considered a practical option given the prohibitive unbudgeted repair / strengthening costs, unspecified network need or use and lack of a steward / asset owner / sponsor.

4.3.4   Sale of the Land and buildings by Council

Council assume ownership of the buildings and elect to sell the land and buildings.

As the land is Crown derived (not owned by Council) the Council does not have a land interest to sell other than to return the land to the Crown and potentially receive a nominal sum from any subsequent sale of the land by the Crown (refer paragraphs 5.78 – 5.84). Prior to taking the land back the Crown will require Council to demolish the buildings and reinstate the land.

5.   Detail / Te Whakamahuki

Background

5.1       By way of an 1898 gazette notice, land donated by Sir Charles Bowen in Hanson’s Lane, Upper Riccarton was reserved for the original Riccarton Library site.

5.2       To facilitate the relocation of the library to a ‘more suitable’ site in 1919 the land was then exchanged for a new site owned by J E Hanson. Ownership of the new site (372 Riccarton Road) was transferred to the Crown and set aside as a reserve for a public library. The purpose of the reserve was then changed by gazette in 1951 to ‘municipal buildings’ and vested in Waimairi County Council.

5.3       The location of the existing site at 372 Riccarton Road is illustrated in the plan below.

 

 

5.4       The Council administer (but do not own) the land. The two buildings on the land (referred to as the ‘Library’ and ‘Annex buildings) are owned by the Upper Riccarton War Memorial Library Incorporated (the ‘Trust’) who occupy the land on a ground lease from Council.

5.5       Fronting Riccarton Road, the Library building was the first of seven war memorial libraries in New Zealand built as a memorial to those from the Riccarton district who gave their lives in WW1. A foundation stone was laid in 1919 and the building was extended out to the footpath, and to the rear, more recently.

5.6       At the rear of the site the Annex building was built in 1963 by the then Waimairi County Council. Ownership of the building was transferred to the Library Trustees who initially leased the building to the Plunket Society.

5.7       The Library building has been closed and fenced off since November 2017 and is subject to an Earthquake Prone Building (EPB) Notice requiring the owner (the Trust) to strengthen or demolish the building prior to April 2025.

5.8       Although the Trust subsequently decanted their war memorial library function to the Annex building for a short time, they no longer operate from that building which itself is a tired, poorly located, deteriorating, building with limited utility (having a floor area of only 30m2).

5.9       Following the closure of the Library building, and recognising the financial implications of the EPB notice, the Trust submitted a formal resolution to Council in August 2018 which proposed:

·    The surrender of the Trust’s ground lease and transfer of ownership of the two buildings (including financial liability for the demolition of the library building) to the Council, at no cost to the Trust.

·    The possible use of the Annex building by the Trust for a period of time, at no cost to the Trust.

·    A desire to preserve the Trust’s memorial charitable ethos in some form, in consultation with Council.

·    Council’s assistance to remove the foundation stone and other artefacts from the library.

5.10    An unabridged copy of the Trust’s 2018 resolution is appended as Attachment A.

5.11    At a more recent Special General Meeting on 15 June 2021, the Trust formally resolved to wind up its incorporated status. The Minutes of that meeting outline a package of initiatives designed to preserve the Trust’s memorial ethos in the Upper Riccarton area for further development in consultation with Council staff (refer paragraph 5.58-5.61).

5.12    These factors, and the absence of an allocated LTP budget to fund ongoing capital, operational and maintenance costs for the land and / or buildings, prompted CSGP, as current asset owner, to initiate this future options review.

5.13    The intent of the recommended option in this report is to provide: a positive, empathetic, response to the Trust’s resolution to Council; prioritise demolition of the Library and Annex buildings to mitigate the public safety risks and perception of inaction by Council, and; commit to a process for dealing with the future use of the land while preserving the Trust’s memorial ethos.

The Property

5.14    372 Riccarton Road is a fee simple Crown derived property which Council administers subject to the Reserves Act 1977. It is described as Reserve 4720 contained in Record of Title CB327/121) and is held in Trust for the purpose of Municipal Buildings. The title is subject to a Part 9 Ngai Tahu Claims Settlement Act 1998 notation.

5.15    Copies of the Record of Title and related gazette notices are appended as Attachment B.

5.16    The site extends to some 506m2 and occupies a prominent commercial retail location on Riccarton Road close to its intersection with Hanson’s Lane and Waimairi Road and the nearby Bush Inn shopping centre.

5.17    Library Building (Figure 1)– this single level building extends to some 160m2 comprising an original unreinforced claybrick wall and concrete foundation structure built in c 1920 with later largely unreinforced front and rear flat roof extensions. As a building considered ‘at risk of collapse’, it has been closed and fenced off since November 2017, is subject to a time sensitive EPB notice and is currently a risk to public safety.

Figure 1

 

5.18    Annex Building (Figure 2) – this 30m2 single level unreinforced blockwork building comprises one principal room and lobby with wash-basin area. Although previously operated by the Trust as a temporary voluntary library it is currently not in use. Given its size and regular plan shape it performed satisfactorily in the Canterbury earthquake sequence. However, it is considered that it may not meet current seismic codes and, as such, is likely to be an earthquake prone building (ie less than 34% NBS). 

 

Figure 2

 

Figure 3

 

5.19    A passageway along the western side of the library building provides access from Riccarton Road through to the rear of the building and to the balance of the site (Figure 3). This passageway is not registered as a formal public right of way (ROW) and is currently fenced off for public safety reasons. There is no legal access to the rear of the site from Leslie Street.

5.20    The grassed area at the rear of the site adjoins a separately owned car park used by the adjacent commercial businesses. The legal boundary is not fenced and, as a consequence, the grassed area is sporadically used as a park area by local businesses and the public. Conversely, it is also subject to frequent misuse relating to littering, graffiti, persons’ sleeping rough and unlawful parking.

5.21    The land is flanked on both sides by high-level blockwork commercial retail structures which, although not considered by Council’s Consents and Compliance team as a risk, creates a relatively enclosed and uninviting area.

5.22    An oak tree on the site was removed recently for public safety reasons on the advice of Council’s arborist.

Planning Considerations

5.23    The site is zoned Commercial Core in the District Plan and is subject to ‘Key Pedestrian Frontage Provisions’.

5.24    The Library building is not listed in the District Plan or by the Historic Places Trust.

5.25    The land is also not listed as a HAIL site in ECan’s Listed Land Use Register.

5.26    A recent Council commissioned pre-demolition Asbestos Survey by ENGEO identified low levels of asbestos in both the Library and Annex buildings.

Land Asset – Current Value

5.27    Current rating, book and rental values for the property (land) are as follows:

·    *Rateable Value (as at 1 August 2019): $831,000 (Land $830,000; Improvements $1,000).

·    *Council Book Value: $665,000 (land only).

*Note: in reality the land is only of residual value to Council.

·    Rental Income: the land is currently leased to the Trust at a peppercorn rent.

·    The buildings: are not owned by Council.

Current Costs to Council – Land Only

5.28    Currently the Trust own the buildings and Council administer the land. In theory, and on the basis that the Trust adhere to their building and lease obligations, the costs to Council are currently nominal, as outlined below.

5.29    Buildings: there is no capital or operational LTP funding allocated to the buildings as they are not owned by Council. As such, while the buildings remain in Trust ownership, the Council is not currently committed to any ongoing annual Scheduled Maintenance Plan (SMP) or Planned Work spend for the buildings. 

5.30    Land: the Council currently lease the land to the Trust for ‘voluntary library and community rooms’ use at a peppercorn rent expiring 31 March 2046. The Trust are responsible for rates and general outgoings, maintenance and insurance of the land (in addition to their building ownership, maintenance and insurance liabilities). On termination of the lease ownership of the buildings transfers to Council who may require their removal by, and at the cost of, the Trust.

5.31    Rates: $1,239.72 per annum (currently in remission).  

5.32    However, over the last few years the Trust have not had the financial or operational capability to carry out their building and / or ground lease obligations. To avoid the land and buildings deteriorating further, and to ensure that the public safety issues were / are being mitigated, CSGP (as asset owner) intervened to provide interim provisional funding of $3,600 per annum to fund general grounds maintenance, reactive building repairs and site security in the short term while the future use of the property is determined.

5.33    There is no current asset management plan for the property.

Land and Buildings - Potential Future Costs to Council

5.34    Given the circumstances surrounding the Trust, and to avoid the ongoing inertia around the future use of the site, the evaluation of sustainable options reasonably and practically assumes that Council will likely intervene by accepting a surrender of the Trust’s ground lease and assume (vested) ownership of the buildings.

5.35    The resulting capital and operating costs which Council will incur vary significantly depending on whether the Library and Annex buildings are retained or demolished.

5.36    (The following assessments are based on the background commentary around the structural status and future use considerations for the Library and Annex buildings as outlined in Attachment C).

Library and Annex Buildings Structurally Strengthened & Repaired and the Land Retained

5.37    Library Building

A Detailed Seismic Assessment (DSA) by Frontier Engineering Limited in September 2017 concluded that the building is compromised by critical structural weaknesses and is at a high risk of collapse (11% NBS). This precipitated the closure of the building by Council’s Consent and Compliance team. Given the nature of its construction, materials and age it has been estimated that the cost to strengthen, repair and refurbish the building (to a minimum 67% NBS) would be in the order of $350,000 - $400,000. This cost excludes: additional consultant costs in the region of $30,000 - $40,000 required to determine strengthening design options for the property and a resulting independent market cost estimate of the strengthening options, and; costs associated with rectifying material degradation, replacing /upgrading services, code compliance upgrades, hidden damage, concealed asbestos and so on (refer Attachment C).

(Given these significant costs, the absence of LTP funding and no identified future user or asset owner for the building, it is considered that the Library building is uneconomic to repair and should be demolished).

5.38    Annex Building

It is evident that there has been minimal planned maintenance or upgrade work carried out on the building over the years by the Trust such that the level of deferred work is now significant. If retained it is estimated that the cost to bring the building up to an acceptable standard would be in the order of $48,000 over the period 2021-2040 ($2,400 per annum). However, this cost estimate excludes any allowance for the replacement of aging services, removal of asbestos, thermal efficiency upgrade, provision of security lighting and any fire compliance and accessibility requirements associated with structural strengthening (which is also excluded). In addition, given that the building is likely to be earthquake prone, strengthening costs are likely to be in the order of $60,000 - $100,000 plus consultant (Engineer / Quantity Surveyor) and other compliance / as yet unknown upgrade costs (refer Attachment C).  

(Given its age, condition, type of construction, size and internal layout it is not considered cost-effective to bring the Annex building up to current compliance standards. The building is not relocatable and its isolated location also limits any potential alternative uses / utility).

5.39    Ongoing Capital and Operational Costs

If the buildings were retained additional, currently unbudgeted, funding would also be required for on-going Annual SMP and Planned (Whole of Life) Works for both buildings along with grounds maintenance, insurances and general outgoings.

Library and Annex Buildings Demolished and the Land Not Retained  

5.40    While the future use of the land and buildings is resolved the interim maintenance and repair costs of c$3,600 per annum will continue to accrue and be funded from operational budgets.

5.41    The estimated costs to demolish the Library and Annex buildings and to level and grass down the site is in the order of $85,000 (refer Attachment C). This is to be funded from the Community Facilities Rebuild OPEX fund.

5.42    With regard to the resulting bare land there would be incidental statutory and legal costs associated with transferring the land back to the Crown including the reserve revocation and public notification process. It’s expected that this would be funded out of operational funds.

5.43    It is possible that some of these costs may be recoverable if, and when, the Crown sells the land (either to Ngai Tahu or a third party).

5.44    (If, however, the bare land is retained for an (as yet undefined or required) alternative, sustainable use this would incur ongoing land maintenance costs, subsequent capital development costs and, if the land were to be retained for a park, reclassification costs).

5.45    Summary

5.46    In broad terms the costs to Council associated with the two principal options outlined above are as follows:

·    Buildings Strengthened & Repaired / Land Retained

Strengthening and repair of the Library building ($350,000 - $400,000 plus consultant costs $30,000 - $40,000 plus unknown costs) plus strengthening and repair of the Annex building ($60,000 - $100,000 plus consultant costs and unknown costs): c$450,000 - $550,000. Plus land development costs (ie as a park - tbc) and ongoing Annual SMP and Planned (whole of life) land and building maintenance costs.

Note: there is currently no allocated LTP funding to cover these costs.

·    Buildings Demolished / Land not Retained

Demolition of both buildings ($85,000) plus statutory / survey / legal costs (estimate $20,000): say c *$105,000. Plus interim annual land maintenance costs (nominal).

Note: there is current capital and potential operational funding to cover off these costs. Partial cost recovery may arise from any future sale of the land by the Crown.

 Heritage Considerations

5.47    The original library building was constructed in 1919 with two later additions to the front and rear. It is not listed by the Historic Places Trust or in the District Plan.

5.48    Some of the Trust’s memorial artefacts have some intrinsic heritage value including the memorial stone, honour boards, memorial plaques and historic books collection. Council’s Heritage team have expressed an interest in contributing to a strategy for preserving these items and the Trust’s memorial ethos within the Upper Riccarton area as outlined briefly below in paragraph 5.58 – 5.61.

Upper Riccarton War Memorial Library Incorporated (Inc Number 2259309)  

5.49    The Trust was incorporated in 2009 and originally operated the voluntary library with a committee of up to 16 volunteers and approximately 90 members. Their main ethos was to maintain the voluntary library building and historic documents, books and honour boards in good condition as a memorial to those fallen in the two World wars and to provide suitable, and related, reading materials for the residents of Upper Riccarton and surrounding districts. The library also hosted dawn Anzac and Armistice days’ services each year.

5.50    The Trust currently hold a ground lease from Council. On expiry or earlier termination the lease stipulates that ownership of the improvements (buildings) vests in Council who can require the Trust to remove them at their cost.

5.51    Following the closure of the Library in 2017 the Trust removed many of its chattels and war memorial artefacts off-site and set up a small voluntary library operation out of the Annex building during the summer months only.

5.52    However, with an aging membership, lack of funding and a diminishing capability to operate the library the Trust formally resolved in August 2018 to request that Council accept a surrender of their ground lease and gift of the Library and Annex buildings. They also sought continued use of the Annex building, all at no cost to the Trust.

5.53    The Trust now no longer operates from the site. The Companies Office Register notes that the Trust has been ‘Removed from the register’ and notes its ‘Incorporated Society Status’ as ‘dissolved’ as at 23 June 2021. This will likely reflect the Companies Office assumption that the Trust was no longer operating as it last filed an annual financial statement in October 2017.   

5.54    At its Special General Meeting on 15 July 2021 the Trust formally resolved to wind up the Upper Riccarton War Memorial Library Incorporated entity in accordance with clause 21 of its Constitution.

5.55    Copies of the Trusts’ Constitution, Minutes of the Special General Meeting and the Trusts’ 2017 financial statement are appended as Attachment D. A copy of the lease is at Attachment E.

Winding Up Provisions and Process

5.56    The Incorporated Societies website stipulates that a society applying to be dissolved must confirm that it:

·    Is no longer carrying out its operations.

·    Has no assets – all surplus assets have been disposed of as required by the societies rules and the Incorporated Societies Act 1908.

·    Has no liabilities (debts) including contingent liabilities.

·    Is not a party to any legal proceedings or disputes.

·    Has resolved to be dissolved.

5.57    Clause 21 of the Trusts constitution stipulates the following:

‘The members…at a Special General Meeting called for that purpose may resolve that the library be wound up as from the date in the resolution and may direct the method of distribution of the funds and property of the Library, after the winding up in such a manner as shall:

(a)   Provide for the payment of all costs and liabilities of the library and the costs and expenses of the winding up, and either

(b)   For the disposal of the balance of the library’s funds and properties to any charitable or non-profit organisation being a society or group having objects in whole or in part similar to those of the Library or

(c)   ….in such other manner….in accordance with the objects of the Library, provided however that such disposal shall be to a charitable or non-profit organisation or to the Christchurch City Council for Library purposes and that no member of the Society shall receive or derive any pecuniary gain or profit from any such distribution.

5.58    The Minutes of the Special General Meeting record the decision of the Trust that ‘The Upper Riccarton War Memorial Library Incorporated be wound up upon distribution of its assets’.

5.59    Items 8 and 9 of the Minutes record the nature and extent of the Trust’s assets which are summarised briefly below.

·    Memorial items: the memorial stone (1919), two sets of memorial boards and a memorial bookcase. Preference that they be kept together if possible.

·    Books: a number of rare/valuable/donated books which should be kept together. Other sundry books to be distributed to like-minded organisations.

·    Chattels: furniture, heat pumps, curtains donated to like-minded organisations.

·    Funds: the balance (net of any debts / liabilities), to be held in trust by Christchurch City Council “to be used to meet the Upper Riccarton War Memorial’s objective of providing a form of memorial to the fallen of the area serving the country in military conflict”.

·    Library and Annex buildings – intended to be gifted to Christchurch City Council by the Trust’s prior 2018 resolution.

5.60    It is intended that Council staff will assist the library trustees with the winding up process (if required), the distribution of the Trust’s assets within the Upper Riccarton area and facilitating safe access into the Library building to remove any remaining Trust chattels.

5.61    In practical terms it is assumed that some of the Trust’s memorial assets (ie the proposed memorial) may ultimately be gifted to Council who will then be responsible for any future maintenance.

5.62    (As noted above the Trust last filed an annual financial statement to the Companies Office in October 2017. Their current financial position as advised by the Trust is appended as a PX item at Attachment F).

Current Asset Owner – Community Support Governance & Partnerships (CSGP) Unit

5.63    As current asset owner CSGP acknowledges the Trust’s position and supports its proposal to seek Council approval to accept a surrender of its ground lease, ownership of the buildings and cost liability for the demolition of the buildings.

5.64    Capital funding for the demolition of the buildings has been confirmed together with limited operational funding for the retention of the bare land while the process to return the land to the Crown is navigated.

5.65    However, should the Library and Annex buildings be retained, CSGP has no allocated capital or operational budget to fund the repair and strengthening of the buildings or any resulting ongoing land and building maintenance costs. It also has limited operational funds to assist with funding any costs arising from repatriating and maintaining the Trust’s memorial artefacts.

5.66    Significantly, CSGP has no operational or network demand for the land and / or buildings and, consistent with the intent of the Community Facilities Network Plan 2020, is looking to divest itself of this land asset.

Alternative Use Options

5.67    As discussed above a number of alternative future use options have been considered which reflect the following context.

Future Use by the Trust

5.68    As the Trust are in the process of winding up any options which contemplate them retaining an interest in the land and / or buildings are not considered tenable or sustainable.

Alternative Council Operational Uses

5.69    The land being held subject to the Reserves Act and for ‘municipal purposes’ is of significance in considering future use options for the reserve.

5.70    The broad definition of ‘Municipal Buildings’ is restricted to ‘community buildings, play centre, kindergarten, plunket room or other (not for profit) purposes’. Proposed uses falling outside of this definition would require approval from the Minister for a change of purpose.

5.71    The existing asset owner CSGP has no future use for the land. Similarly the Libraries Unit has confirmed that the new Upper Riccarton Library in Main South Road has diminished the need for a voluntary library in Riccarton.

5.72    Details of the property were also circularised to all of Council’s operational units (including CSGP, Libraries and the Parks Units) in April 2021, in response to which none expressed any interest in retaining the property for an alternative, sustainable, public works use.

A Memorial Pocket Park

5.73    Given the memorial nature of the property the option to retain the land and to develop it as a memorial ‘pocket’ park incorporating the memorial foundation stone, would sit well with the ethos of the Trust (and the intention of Lady Bowen in donating the land for the original library).

5.74    However, there is no allocated funding available to develop and operate the land as a park and no Council Unit with an interest in assuming ‘ownership or stewardship’ of the property.

5.75    In that regard the Parks Unit, who would be regarded as the obvious asset owner for a memorial park, have commented specifically as follows:

“We don’t believe there is a need or requirement for a park in this location.

Any Park in this location would be above our levels of service.

It is not an ideal site to develop as a pocket park, due to its proximity to Riccarton Road and Waimairi Road. It is next to a large wall of a building and looks onto a car park. It is doubtful if people would want to visit a park in this location. If there was to be a pocket park in this location, the more logical location would be in the Bush Inn site for shoppers and public (not that we believe there is a need or desire for a park in this area).

Parks has no budget to develop or maintain a park in this location.

Our recommendation is to ‘sell’ the site and suggest a plaque or suitable plinth, monument or stone could be located on the edge of the site by the footpath or similar to recognise the site, building or soldiers”.

In context the Council approved Level of Service for provision of Parks is “80% of urban residential properties are <500m from a park (any type of park except a utility park) at least 3000m2 in size”. There are two such parks within 500m of this site – Auburn Reserve (about 280m away, 1.5ha in size) and Hansons Reserve (abut 215m away, 8450m2 in size). The site is not in an area of greenspace deficiency and is not a priority for further provision and is therefore not recommended by Parks staff.

Criteria for Retaining Council Property

5.76    The retention of a Council property is conditional on staff and Council engaging in a process that identifies an alternative strategic or public use that:

·    Can be rationalised;

·    Satisfies a clearly identified need.

·    Is supported by a sound and robust business case;

·    Supports Council strategies;

·    Has an identified sponsor, namely an end asset owner (titular internal/owner sponsor) who supports retention for the alternative public use and holds an appropriate budget provision within the Council’s Annual and Long Term Plans.

5.77    As the research outlined above suggests that there are no alternative Council uses for the property it could reasonably be assumed that the property is operationally redundant and could / should be disposed of.

Sale of the Property

5.78    Ordinarily Council would look to sell the property in the open market albeit, in this case, subject to its current (restrictive) purpose / use, an existing lease to the Trust and the fact that it is subject to the Reserves Act, all of which would make the property significantly less attractive to potential purchasers.

5.79    However as the land is Crown derived the Council has no ownership in the land and therefore does not have an interest to sell as such.

5.80    If Council resolves not to retain the land then the only step available to it would be to initiate the process required to hand the land back to the Crown.

5.81    Initially this would require a Council resolution requesting the Crown to revoke the reserve status under s24 Reserves Act 1977. This would be subject to public notification.

5.82    Assuming no sustainable objections were received the land could then be handed back to the Crown, once cleared of buildings and remediated.

5.83    If the Crown then elected to revoke the reserve status it could then determine to sell the land pursuant to section 25 Reserves Act 1977). It would first be offered to Ngai Tahu (subject to first clearing any section 40 offer-back obligations) and then to the open market.

5.84    Discussions with the Department of Conservation (DoC) indicate that any resulting sale proceeds may be shared with Council although this may only amount to a nominal share of the sale proceeds. 

Community Views and Preferences

5.85    As the key stakeholder, the Trust has been consulted and support the recommended option including the proposals to preserve its memorial ethos within the Upper Riccarton area.

5.86    The demolition of the buildings is justified given the significant cost required to retain them and the fact that there is no sustainable alternative use for them. Specifically, demolition of the library building is of public safety significance and is required to facilitate compliance with a time sensitive EPB notice. The Library and Annex buildings are not listed by the Historic Places Trust or within the District Plan.

5.87    The land to be disposed of is a minor component of the Council’s Community Facilities network and is not considered strategic while any disposal of the land would not significantly alter the level of service delivered by the Council.

5.88    As such the views and preferences of the community have not been canvassed. However, it is noted that if the land is to be returned to the Crown this would be subject to public notification during the revocation process.

5.89    It is understood that the Ilam and Upper Riccarton Residents Association and St Peters Church have expressed some broad, general interest in taking on a lease of the cleared site for a memorial park as an urban regeneration initiative. It is known however that there is no interest or network need for the land from a Parks or CSGP perspective and that, if an additional park were to be considered in the area, other locations would be considered more suitable.

5.90    The decision affects the following wards/Community Board areas:

5.90.1 Halswell / Hornby / Riccarton Community Board

6.   Policy Framework Implications / Ngā Hīraunga ā- Kaupapa here

Strategic Alignment /Te Rautaki Tīaroaro

6.1       Council’s core business is to ensure core business is delivered while delivering on our strategic priorities and achieving our community outcomes. In terms of the Strategic Framework, Community Facilities have a role in achieving the strategic priority of “enabling active and connected communities to own their own future”.

6.2       This report supports the Council's Long Term Plan (2021 - 2031):

6.2.1   Activity: Community Development and Facilities

·     Level of Service: 2.0.1.2 Review and identify community facilities surplus to requirement and recommend a course of action - Review network, identify facilities and recommend options to Council for disposal.

Policy Consistency / Te Whai Kaupapa here

6.3       The decision is consistent with Council’s Plans and Policies and specifically the Community Facilities Network Plan 2020 which identified that the importance of working in partnership with communities over the sustainable provision and operation of community facilities is paramount. There is a diverse range of community facility providers across Christchurch and Banks Peninsula including the Council, community groups, churches and trusts. Given the quantity, range and diversity of facilities and their respective providers, future opportunities for facility development are more likely to arise from changing community need rather than an inherent facility deficit or geographical gap.

6.4       The Libraries 2025 Facilities Plan identified the future provision of Voluntary Libraries in Christchurch needed to ensure maximum benefit from facilities by seeking partnership opportunities to make the best use of funds and available facilities to support the future need of the community. The Voluntary Libraries Review Report (2014) identified the Upper Riccarton War Memorial Library as the only non-Council owned voluntary library facility. It acknowledged that there are opportunities to rethink facility provision to ensure communities are receiving best value and Council is optimising the use of its investment to ensure that facilities are fit for purpose and sustainable for the long term.

6.5       The criteria for retaining Council property is not met and thus the recommendation for Council to divest itself of this property is consistent with that criteria.

6.6       It is also consistent with the Community Board’s desire ‘to advocate for a decision on the future use of the building and / or site that will recognise and honour the memorial values of the site and the Upper Riccarton War Memorial Library Trust’.

6.7       It is consistent with the Council’s Long Term Plan (2021 -2031) as there is funding currently allocated to fund the demolition of the properties and divestment of the land. (It is noted that this is not the case for the majority of the other options considered in this report).

Impact on Mana Whenua / Ngā Whai Take Mana Whenua

6.8       The decision does involve a significant decision in relation to ancestral land or a body of water or other elements of intrinsic value, therefore this decision does specifically impact Mana Whenua, their culture and traditions.

6.9       However, the title to the land is subject to a Ngai Tahu Claims settlement Act 1998 notation. The Crown will be required to consult with Manu Whenua should Council resolve to return the land to the Crown and the Crown subsequently elects to sell the land. 

Climate Change Impact Considerations / Ngā Whai Whakaaro mā te Āhuarangi

6.10    Demolition of the buildings will avoid the need for Council to provide further resources (materials and staff time) to maintain the buildings.

Accessibility Considerations / Ngā Whai Whakaaro mā te Hunga Hauā

6.11    The site is currently fenced off from the public and the Library building is subject to an EPB notice and is at risk of collapse. Demolishing the buildings will enable EPB notice compliance, remove the public safety issue and enable safe public access.

7.   Resource Implications / Ngā Hīraunga Rauemi

Capex/Opex / Ngā Utu Whakahaere

7.1       Cost to Implement:

7.1.1   Demolition of Buildings: $85,000.

7.1.2   Statutory / Revocation / Survey / Legal costs: $20,000 (estimate).

7.1.3   Land Costs: operational and maintenance costs for the period to complete demolition, revocation and return of the land to the Crown: $5,000 per annum (estimate).

7.1.4   Preserving the Trust’s commemorative Ethos (paragraphs 5.58 to 5.61): costs to Council, if any, to be confirmed.

7.1.5   Maintenance of any gifted artefacts: cost to be assessed but assumed to be a nominal.   

7.2       Funding Source:

·    Item 7.1.1: Community Facilities Rebuild OPEX fund.

·    Item 7.1.2 and 7.1.3: Operational budgets. 

·    Item 7.1.4: A combination of Trust assets (held in Trust by Council), Community Board discretionary funding.

·    7.1.5: A combination of Community Board discretionary funding and operational budgets. 

·    It is noted that some, or all, of these total costs may be recovered from a possible share of any proceeds of sale if, and when, the Crown dispose of the land.

Other / He mea anō

7.3       None.

8.   Legal Implications / Ngā Hīraunga ā-Ture

Statutory power to undertake proposals in the report / Te Manatū Whakahaere Kaupapa

8.1       The general powers of competence set out in section 12(2) “Status and Powers” of the Local Government Act.

Other Legal Implications / Ētahi atu Hīraunga-ā-Ture

8.2       The following legal and statutory context is relevant to this decision.

8.3       The Earthquake Prone Building Notice attached to the Library building requires the building owner to repair or demolish the building by 9 April 2025.

8.4       If Council resolves not to retain the land the statutory revocation process prescribed in section 24 Reserves Act 1977 will need to be adhered to, including public notification.

8.5       If the land is retained for an alternative use its current ‘Municipal Buildings’ classification will need to be changed.

8.6       The Trust is required to follow due process with regard to winding up its incorporated status pursuant to clause 21 of its constitution.

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

9.   Risk Management Implications / Ngā Hīraunga Tūraru

9.1       Further delays to the demolition of the buildings prolongs the public risk issue.

9.2       The recovery of any remaining Trust artefacts from the library will require adherence to specified building re-entry protocols. 

9.3       Public notification of Council’s intention to revoke the reserve status of the land and to hand the land back to the Crown may attract an objection which, if sustainable, could lead to a Hearings process.

9.4       Possible negative public perception arising from Council ‘selling’ land with a memorial context.

9.5       Any proceeds from sale may be less than anticipated (ie less than 50%).

 

 

Attachments / Ngā Tāpirihanga

No.

Title

Page

a  

A Trust Resolution

 

b  

B Title

 

c  

C Structural Commentary, Cost, EPB Notice

 

d  

D Constitution, Financial Statement 2017, Minutes of Special General Meeting

 

e  

E Lease

 

f  

F Trust's Indicative Financial Position (Under Separate Cover) - Confidential

 

 

 

In addition to the attached documents, the following background information is available:

Document Name

Location / File Link

 

 

 

 

 

Confirmation of Statutory Compliance / Te Whakatūturutanga ā-Ture

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

(a) This report contains:

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

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

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

 

 

 

Signatories / Ngā Kaiwaitohu

Authors

Barry Woodland - Property Consultant

Angus Smith - Manager Property Consultancy

Approved By

Angus Smith - Manager Property Consultancy

Paul McKeefry - Community Facilities Specialist

John Filsell - Head of Community Support, Governance and Partnerships

Mary Richardson - General Manager Citizens & Community

 


Council

10 February 2022

 


Council

10 February 2022

 









Council

10 February 2022

 






Council

10 February 2022

 













Council

10 February 2022

 



















Council

10 February 2022

 

 

10.   Youth Advisory Committee Minutes - 1 December 2021

Reference Te Tohutoro:

22/44575

Report of Te Pou Matua:

Simone Gordon, Committee and Hearings Advisor, simone.gordon@ccc.govt.nz

General Manager Pouwhakarae:

Lynn McClelland, Assistant Chief Executive, Strategic Policy and Performance, lynn.mcclelland@ccc.govt.nz

 

 

1.   Purpose of Report Te Pūtake Pūrongo

The Youth Advisory Committee held a meeting on 1 December 2021 and is circulating the Minutes recorded to the Council for its information.

2.   Recommendation to Council

That the Council receives the Minutes from the Youth Advisory Committee meeting held 1 December 2021.

 

Attachments Ngā Tāpirihanga

No.

Title

Page

A

Minutes Youth Advisory Committee - 1 December 2021

146

 

 

 

Signatories Ngā Kaiwaitohu

Author

Simone Gordon - Committee and Hearings Advisor

  


Council

10 February 2022

 





Council

10 February 2022

 

Report from Youth Advisory Committee  – 1 December 2021

 

11.   Youth Audit Tool - Future Actions

Reference Te Tohutoro:

21/1699817

Report of Te Pou Matua:

Simone Gordon, Committee and Hearings Advisor, simone.gordon@ccc.govt.nz

General Manager Pouwhakarae:

Mary Richardson, GM Citizens & Community, mary.richardson@ccc.govt.nz

 

 

1. Youth Advisory Committee Consideration Te Whaiwhakaarotanga

 

The Committee accepted the officer recommendations, but agreed to include additional wording of “and what if any recommendations have been incorporated” to the resolution. This is to enable clearer accountability following a youth audit.

 

2.   Officer Recommendations Ngā Tūtohu

 

That Te Pae Pīkari Youth Advisory Committee:

1.         Recommend that Council trial the Youth Audit Tool with three audits from Rerenga Awa across a range of Council facility and/or public realm projects at the planning and design stage to be completed prior to 30 June 2023, at a cost not exceeding $8,000.

2.         Note that the youth team leaders and a Council project representative from each audit will present back to Te Pae Pīkari on each audit in the trial.  Whilst all feedback will be taken into consideration there can be no expectation that the audit feedback and recommendations will automatically be incorporated into the project.

 

3. Youth Advisory Committee Recommendation to Council

 

That the Council:

1.         Trial the Youth Audit Tool with three audits from Rerenga Awa across a range of Council facility and/or public realm projects at the planning and design stage to be completed prior to 30 June 2023, at a cost not exceeding $8,000.

2.         Note that the youth team leaders and a Council project representative from each audit will present back to Te Pae Pīkari on each audit in the trial and what if any recommendations have been incorporated.   Whilst all feedback will be taken into consideration there can be no expectation that the audit feedback and recommendations will automatically be incorporated into the project.

 

Attachments Ngā Tāpirihanga

No.

Report Title

Page

1  

Youth Audit Tool - Future Actions

153

 

No.

Title

Page

a

Canterbury Youth Audit Tool - Audit Check Card

158

b

ReVision Report - Shirley Library

160

c

ReVision Report - MacFarlane Park

178

 

 


Council

10 February 2022

 

 

Youth Audit Tool - Future Actions

Reference Te Tohutoro:

21/1050644

Report of Te Pou Matua:

Joshua Wharton, Community, Partnerships & Planning Advisor, Joshua.Wharton@ccc.govt.nz

General Manager Pouwhakarae:

Mary Richardson, GM Citizens & Community, Mary.Richardson@ccc.govt.nz

 

 

1.   Purpose of the Report Te Pūtake Pūrongo

1.1       The purpose of this report is to recommend that that Te Pae Pīkari support a formal trial of the of the Youth Audit Tool comprising three audits on relevant Council facility and/or public realm projects that are at the planning/design stage, to be completed prior to 30 June 2023.

1.2       This report has been written following direction from Te Pae Pīkari based on a presentation from Rerenga Awa on the emerging positive feedback from asset owners, project managers and the youth sector on a number of no-cost youth audits undertaken as a developmental exercise over the past six months.

1.3       The Youth Audit Tool is an asset created by the youth sector of Christchurch, and offers a low-cost, robust methodology for capturing youth voice in the development of places and spaces around the city.

1.4       The decision in this report is of low significance in relation to the Christchurch City Council’s Significance and Engagement Policy.  The level of significance was determined by evaluating the community impact, possible risks & benefits, the capacity of Council to carry out the decision and whether or not the decision could be easily reversed. Young People, as well as Rerenga Awa and staff from various Council units were consulted with about this project, and are all in support of it progressing to a formal trial.

 

2.   Officer Recommendations Ngā Tūtohu

That Te Pae Pīkari Youth Advisory Committee:

1.         Recommend that Council trial the Youth Audit Tool with three audits from Rerenga Awa across a range of Council facility and/or public realm projects at the planning and design stage to be completed prior to 30 June 2023, at a cost not exceeding $8,000.

2.         Note that the youth team leaders and a Council project representative from each audit will present back to Te Pae Pīkari on each audit in the trial.  Whilst all feedback will be taken into consideration there can be no expectation that the audit feedback and recommendations will automatically be incorporated into the project.

 

3.   Reason for Report Recommendations Ngā Take mō te Whakatau

3.1       The report recommendations have been formulated after a successful Department of Internal Affairs (DIA) funded developmental trial of the tool. This has provided confidence that the tool is effective and will provide young people with a meaningful way to have their voice heard on future Council projects across the city. The recommendations will allow for work done to date to be formally trialed on five projects in a “live” environment.

3.2       The audit fees will be used by Rerenga Awa to further develop the audit tool.

3.3       The recommendations represent a tangible project that can be undertaken alongside an important community sector, youth, who feel there is scope for their voice to be heard. The audits are carried out by volunteers, and will provide valuable information to staff about the youth-friendliness of a planned place or space. The feedback and results are presented in a professional report format.  There is no expectation that feedback or recommendations will be undertaken, only that they are considered.

3.4       The recommendations will look to support three youth audits across a range of Council asset types, including Capital Projects, Libraries, Sport & Recreation, Community Facilities, and Parks. Each of these units have indicated their support.

3.5       The recommendations represent a planned approach to future implementation of the tool. Expanding the initial developmental work into a formal trial will give further confidence in the tool, and provide enough time to see the results of the trial audits, ahead of any future resourcing discussions.

3.6       The recommendations provide a new, unique, and innovative method for young people to be engaged in Council projects at an early stage of design and/or development. It will ensure that their voices are effective in influencing the outcome of a place or space, and that project managers receive their feedback at an optimal time. 

 

4.   Alternative Options Considered Ētahi atu Kōwhiringa

4.1       Take no action. This option is not recommended as it would be premature to discard the value of the Youth Audit Tool before the results of a formal (albeit limited) “live” trial are evaluated.  There are a number of young people who have trained recently as Youth Audit Team Leaders and practitioners and keen to make a contribution. There are also number of units within Council who are interested in utilizing youth audits on their designs or plans. 

4.2       Request that Council commission six or more Youth Audit Reports over the 2021/22 financial year. This option is not recommended as it would represent a significant commitment with only limited feedback on its functionality for Council-owned assets.

5.   Detail Te Whakamahuki

5.1       Funded by DIA for an initial trial, Youth Audits for Te Pou Toetoe / Linwood Pool, Shirley Library, and MacFarlane Park are now complete. Feedback from Council staff and community partners have highlighted the value of input at an early stage of facility design/redesign, and that the Youth audit it is a valuable tool for obtaining youth perspectives on a project (something that has been historically difficult to obtain). They also described being very pleased with the process, and would encourage support of further audits across the city. 

5.2       Under existing funding, plans are also in place for Youth Audits on Parakiore / Metro Sports Facility, and the Central City Bus Interchange.  Both with the support of the Council Unit concerned.

5.3       Feedback from the youth sector, Rerenga Awa and four Council Units has demonstrated that there is merit in further developing the tool and its use through a formal “live” trial without making a long term commitment.

5.4       The Christchurch Youth Sector has developed this unique initiative. This sector is in support of continued utilization of the Youth Audit Tool and see merit in an ongoing formal trial.  This is primarily because Council assets are viewed as some of the most important to have youth input on.

5.5       Offering a formal trial of this tool at a cost not exceeding $8,000 will allow Rerenga Awa time and resources to refine sound processes and costings, both Rerenga and Council will learn.

5.6       Any asset owner receiving a youth audit, will commit to providing written feedback to the youth audit team leaders within three (3) months, detailing how the feedback and recommendations have considered. This will ensure a feedback loop with the young people and constitute a robust trial.

5.7       Youth audits will target relevant facility and public realm projects at the planning and design stage where there is greater scope for incorporating feedback and recommendations.

6.   Policy Framework Implications Ngā Hīraunga ā- Kaupapa here

Strategic Alignment Te Rautaki Tīaroaro

6.1       This report aligns with goals 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, and 7 of the Strengthening Communities Strategy (2007).

6.2       This report supports the Council's Long Term Plan (2021 - 2031):

6.2.1   Activity: Community Development and Facilities

·     Level of Service: 2.0.1.1 Support the development of strong, connected and resilient communities by supporting the provision of a sustainable network of community facilities. - 89 - 91 Facilities .

·     Level of Service: 2.3.1.1 Provide funding for projects and initiatives that build partnerships; resilient, engaged and stronger communities, empowered at a local or community of interest level.

Policy Consistency Te Whai Kaupapa here

6.3       The decision is consistent with Council’s Plans and Policies. Specifically, the Youth Policy (1998) and Social Wellbeing Policy (2000).

Impact on Mana Whenua Ngā Whai Take Mana Whenua

6.4       The decision does not involve a significant decision in relation to ancestral land or a body of water or other elements of intrinsic value, therefore this decision does specifically impact Mana Whenua, their culture and traditions.

Climate Change Impact Considerations Ngā Whai Whakaaro mā te Āhuarangi

6.5       As a demographic, young people are strong advocates for Climate Change Action. It is likely that any flagrant activities counter to good climate practice would be identified in the subsequent Audit Reports.

Accessibility Considerations Ngā Whai Whakaaro mā te Hunga Hauā

6.6       The Youth Audit Check Card (Attachment A) details accessibility as one of the five pillars of Youth Relevant Design. Throughout the process, auditors will evaluate each space for its physical accessibility, cost, and connectivity to other key spaces.

7.   Resource Implications Ngā Hīraunga Rauemi

Capex/Opex Ngā Utu Whakahaere

7.1       Cost to Implement – Not exceeding $8,000 in Operational Expenditure over the 2021/22 and 2022/23 financial years.

7.2       Maintenance/Ongoing costs – No ongoing costs at this point.  There is no automatic commitment to undertake any implementation actions, only to provide written feedback on the audit findings.

7.3       Funding source – Research and development operational budget set aside for this purpose.

8.   Legal Implications Ngā Hīraunga ā-Ture

Statutory power to undertake proposals in the report Te Manatū Whakahaere Kaupapa

8.1       The statutory power to undertake the proposal derives from Council’s Status and Powers in S12 (2) of the LGA 2002.

Other Legal Implications Ētahi atu Hīraunga-ā-Ture

8.2       There is no legal context, issue or implication relevant to this decision.

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

9.   Risk Management Implications Ngā Hīraunga Tūraru

9.1       There is a low-level reputational risk of dissatisfaction in the youth community if asset owners choose to, or are unable to, implement young people’s recommendations. This may be due to budget limitations, disagreement with the conclusions reached, or an unexpected variable. In this situation, the young people who contributed to the report may feel that their voices were not heard, or that the asset owner did not value their time.

9.1.1   To manage the risk listed in 9.1, Youth Audit Recipients will commit to provide feedback to the young people within two months regarding which recommendations will be implemented, and which will not, as well as rationale for each.

 

 

Attachments Ngā Tāpirihanga

No.

Title

Page

a  

Canterbury Youth Audit Tool - Audit Check Card

 

b  

ReVision Report - Shirley Library

 

c  

ReVision Report - MacFarlane Park

 

 

 

Additional background information may be noted in the below table:

Document Name

Location / File Link

 

 

 

 

 

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

Josh Wharton - Community Partnerships & Planning Advisor

Approved By

John Filsell - Head of Community Support, Governance and Partnerships

Mary Richardson - General Manager Citizens & Community

 


Council

10 February 2022

 



Council

10 February 2022

 



















Council

10 February 2022

 

















Council

10 February 2022

 

 

12.   Mayor's Monthly Report - December 2021/January 2022

Reference Te Tohutoro:

22/56937

Report of Te Pou Matua:

Lianne Dalziel, Mayor, mayor@ccc.govt.nz

General Manager Pouwhakarae:

Dawn Baxendale, Chief Executive, dawn.baxendale@ccc.govt.nz

 

 

1.   Purpose of Report Te Pūtake Pūrongo

1.1       The purpose of this report is for the Mayor to report on external activities she undertakes in her city and community leadership role; and to report on outcomes and key decisions of the external bodies she attends on behalf of the Council.

1.2       Appointment to the Creative Communities Fund Assessment Committee

Each year Creative New Zealand provides funding to the Council for distribution in our city.  Applications to the Creative Communities Scheme are made directly to the Council, with Council staff administering two rounds of funding per year. 

Grant decisions are made by an Assessment Committee of people from Christchurch who are appointed for their knowledge and experience of the arts and local communities.  Two elected members of Council also sit on this Committee, one position is vacant and the other is held by Councillor Galloway.

1.3       This report is compiled by the Mayor’s office.

2.   Mayors Recommendations Ngā Tūtohu o Te Koromatua

That the Council:

1.         Receive the information in this Report.

2.         Approves Celeste Donovan’s appointment to the Creative Communities Fund Assessment Committee for the remainder of this term of Council.

 

Attachments Ngā Tāpirihanga

No.

Title

Page

a

Mayor's Monthly Report December 2021 - January 2022

196

 

 


Council

10 February 2022

 





Council

10 February 2022

 

 

13.   Christ's College Temporary Access Easement Through Hagley Park

Reference Te Tohutoro:

21/1805645

Report of Te Pou Matua:

Russel Wedge, Team Leader Parks Policy & Advisory, russel.wedge@ccc.govt.nz,
Barry Woodland, Property Consultant, barry.woodland@ccc.govt.nz

General Manager Pouwhakarae:

Mary Richardson, General Manager Citizens & Community, mary.richardson@ccc.govt.nz

 

 

1.   Purpose of the Report Te Pūtake Pūrongo

1.1       The purpose of this report is for Council to approve the grant of a temporary unregistered right of way easement over Council reserve land in Hagley Park to enable Christ’s College Canterbury (Christ’s College) to construct a new Sports Complex within the College grounds (refer Attachment A).

1.2       This report has been written in response to a request from Christ’s College who have, in consultation with Council staff, established that there is no other practical alternative access for construction purposes.

1.3       The Council signed a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) with Christ’s College in September 2021. The MOU confirms both parties intend to enter into a legal agreement for a temporary access easement from Armagh Street through Hagley Park to a temporary bridge over the Avon River (refer Attachment B).

1.4       The decision in this report is of low significance in relation to the Christchurch City Council’s Significance and Engagement Policy.  Although Hagley Park is considered a metropolitan asset, the easement agreement is temporary and public access to the Park will remain largely unaffected. The land will be fully reinstated once the access arrangement is terminated.

 

2.   Officer Recommendations Ngā Tūtohu

That the Council acting in the capacity of land owner:

1.         Approve pursuant to Section 48(1)(b) of the Reserves Act 1977, the granting of a temporary unregistered right of way easement to Christ’s College Canterbury over that part of the recreation reserve known as Hagley Park (Section 6 SO 467852 contained in Record of Title 657423) shown shaded grey on the plan below at paragraph 5.1, subject to:

a.         Council acknowledging that a Public Notice is not required in this instance.

b.         The consent from the Minister of Conservation for the easement is delegated to the Chief Executive.

c.         All necessary statutory consents under, but not limited to, the Resource Management Act and Building Control Act being obtained by Christ’s College.

d.         Christ’s College meeting its own costs associated with the creation and execution of this easement together with any agreed compensation costs.

e.         Christ’s College liaising with Council’s Parks Unit regarding access, programming, health & safety, pre-work start site assessment, construction and remediation activities associated with the temporary right of way and bridge access over the Park.

2.         Authorise the Property Consultancy Manager, should the temporary easement be granted with the consent of the Chief Executive, to conclude negotiations to finalise the terms of a temporary easement agreement with Christs College including the signing of any associated documentation to implement the temporary easement proposed by this report and to protect the Council’s interests.

3.         Recommend and resolve that the Christchurch City Council, acting in the capacity of holding a delegated authority from the Minister of Conservation, resolve to:

a.         Subject to and conditional on recommendations 1a, c, d, e consent to the granting of the temporary easement to Christs College for temporary right of way purposes as outlined in this report.

4.         Note that an approved Traffic Management Plan (TMP) shall be implemented and no works are to commence until such time as the TMP has been installed. The TMP shall be prepared by an STMS accredited person and submitted to and approved by the Christchurch City Council Temporary Traffic Management Team.

 

3.   Reason for Report Recommendations Ngā Take mō te Whakatau

3.1       To enable Christ’s College to access the western end of its college site to facilitate construction of the proposed new Sports Complex without causing on-going disruption to the school activities for up to two years. An approved Traffic Management Plan will be implemented to ensure minimal disruption to the public using, and events being held in, Hagley Park and access to and from the Botanic Gardens car park.

3.2       This option is supported by the Hagley Park Reference Group, Council staff and Council’s Parks Team (as asset owner). 

3.3       The Council signed an MOU with Christ’s College for an access easement from Armagh Street, through Hagley Park via the Botanic Garden car park access route to the banks of the Avon River. A temporary bridge is to be installed across the river to enable construction vehicles to access the western boundary of the College grounds (refer Attachment B).

3.4       In addition to enhancing the Council’s relationship with Christ’s College (neighbouring landowner to both Hagley Park and the Botanic Gardens) the advantages to Council include the fact that it comes at no cost, has no long term impact on the Park and minimises any disruption to public access.

3.5       For Christ’s College it provides a means of access to its College grounds to enable the construction of its new Sports Complex which would not otherwise be possible.

 

4.   Alternative Options Considered Ētahi atu Kōwhiringa

4.1       The Council declines access through Hagley Park – Not Recommended. The site for the new Sports Complex is essentially landlocked at the western end of the campus. Vehicle access to the Christ’s College is off Rolleston Avenue, at the eastern end of the campus. The teaching blocks are clustered near Rolleston Avenue and access for large construction vehicles through the existing heritage precinct and arches to the construction site would be disruptive and not practical from an operational or safety (for College students and staff) perspective.

4.2       The Council approves vehicle access through the Botanic Gardens – Not Recommended. Alternative access through the Botanic Gardens (from Rolleston Avenue) and entering the construction site from the Botanic Gardens yard (rear of the Ilex Visitor Centre) was considered by Council staff but dismissed due to the potential Health and Safety issues between construction vehicles and visitors to and in the Botanic Gardens. There would be increased congestion and potential conflict with construction vehicles and the operational activities of the Botanic Garden and Ilex Centre staff.

5.   Detail Te Whakamahuki

Background

5.1       Christ’s College is building a new Sports Complex at the western end of their sports fields, which will be located close to the boundary of the Botanic Gardens / Ilex Centre yards as indicated in the plan below (a larger scale copy of which is appended as Attachment A).

5.2       A resource consent (RMA/2021/2451) has been granted for the Sports Complex. The building’s position was adjusted to mitigate any adverse impact on the Botanic Gardens and yard following consultation with the Friends of the Botanic Gardens, the Council Urban Design team and the Parks Unit staff.

5.3       Access to the site of the new Sports Complex is essentially landlocked. The sole vehicle access to Christ’s College is located off Rolleston Avenue. Large construction vehicles would need to travel past the teaching blocks, through the existing heritage precinct and, if permitted by the height restriction through the arches, then across the playing fields to the construction site.

5.4       Following consultation with Council staff, Christ’s Colleges preferred access to the construction site is via Hagley Park off the Armagh Street entrance to the Botanic Garden car park. A new access route would be created from the access road to the banks of the Avon River where a temporary bailey bridge will be installed across the river to the college grounds.

5.5       The access route and bridge are shown shaded grey and yellow on the plan above. Temporary realignment of the pedestrian / cycleway will be required.

5.6       A Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) between the Council and Christ’s College has been entered into for the temporary easement agreement, subject to Council approval.


 

5.7       Ordinarily a decision on Hagley Park would be reported through the Sustainability and Community Resilience Committee. However, due to critical construction programme constraints Christ’s College has asked if a decision could be made on the temporary access before the next scheduled meeting of the Committee. The Chair of the Committee, has agreed to this report being submitted direct to Council for a decision.

The Proposed Hagley Park Access Works

5.8       The project manager for Christ’s College (One Four Limited), in consultation with Council staff, will oversee all construction (including pre and post construction) activities including the provision of all necessary consents, contractor and consultant management, post-project remediation works and so on.

5.9       A draft ‘Scope of Work Summary Report’ prepared by One Four Limited is appended as Attachment C. Some of the key aspects are detailed below.

5.10    Vehicles will enter Hagley Park via the Armagh Street entrance and travel along the sealed driveway before turning off onto a temporary access route across the grassed area to the bridge and into the college site. Access will be single lane with construction vehicles turning around within the college grounds.

5.11    An approved Traffic Management Plan (TMP) shall be prepared and implemented. No works are to commence until the TMP has been approved by the Christchurch City Council Temporary Traffic Management Team. The TMP shall be prepared by an STMS accredited person and submitted to and approved by the Christchurch City Council Temporary Traffic Management Team – please refer to: https://ccc.govt.nz/temporary-traffic-management

5.12    The existing pedestrian pathway along the riverbank will be temporarily relocated to provide an alternative (managed) pedestrian route around the works site and to ensure continued access from Rolleston Avenue to the Botanic Gardens throughout the duration of the project.

5.13    The 30.5m long modular bailey bridge will not require permanent or intrusive support structures and any associated earthworks will occur wholly on land with no works proposed within the bed of the river.

5.14    The bridge will be hired from NZTA by Christ’s College and assembled / decommissioned by Downer. The bridge and raft foundation details has been undertaken by DCL Consulting Limited with geotechnical design by Tonkin & Taylor.

5.15    Traffic engineering design is being provided by Novo Engineers while Tree tech have provided a Combined Arboricultural Impact Assessment and Tree Protection Plan for the bridge installation and works to the immediately adjacent site.

5.16    Imprint Safety has been engaged to prepare a Project Health & Safety Management Plan (PHSMP) for both the Sports Centre and Bailey Bridge Installation projects. A PHSMP Memorandum of Understanding will be entered into between Christ’s College, the Project Managers and all Main Contractors.

5.17    A resource consent application for the temporary bridge and associated earthworks was lodged by Planz Consultants with ECan and City Council on 29 September 2021. The ECan consent was granted on 30 November 2021 (CRC221517). The City Council consent is being processed.

5.18    A discretionary building exemption (BCN/2021/9778) has been granted for the bridge installation and associated civil and earthworks.


 

5.19    Key programme milestones currently include the following:

Activity

Date

Pre-Construction Site Assessment / Condition Survey

March 2022

Earthworks and Bridge Installation

Early April 2022

Access Established to the Christ’s College Site

Early May 2022

Construction Commencement

July 2022

Construction Completion

August 2023

Bridge Removed, Earthworks Re-instated, Repairs to the Hagley Park Access Road / Grassed Areas / River Bank completed

September 2023

 

5.20    Construction of the Sports Complex is programmed to commence in July 2022 with completion and site remediation expected around September 2023.

5.21    Christ’s College has deferred the construction start date to avoid several pending autumn Events in the park. However, to facilitate this start date the bridge foundations on the banks of the River Avon must be completed before April which is the start of the spawning season for trout.

Memorandum of Understanding (MOU)

5.22    A copy of the MOU is appended as Attachment B. The key terms and conditions include:

·    The parties intend to enter into a temporary easement agreement.

·    If the easement is not agreed and executed by 28 February 2022 either party is entitled to terminate this MOU.

·    The parties will bear their respective costs associated with executing the easement.

·    The easement is conditional on Christ’s College: (1) providing Tree, Traffic and Health and Safety Plans to the Council and any other plans or requirements advised by the Council or the result of any building or resource consent for the project which may include but not be limited to Erosion and Sediment control or Environmental management plans; (2) providing final location, design and engineering details for the temporary bridge, and; (3) securing approval of the easement by the Council. 

·    The parties agree that:

Christ’s College will consult with the Council’s events team to minimise disruption to any planned events in Hagley Park during the term of the easement.

Christ’s College will obtain approval for the construction programme from the Council at least 4 weeks prior to commencement of the works.

A pre-work condition assessment of the site is to be undertaken by Christ’s College for prior approval by the Parks Unit.

Christ’s College is responsible for making good the Avon River bank, reserve and access ways to the satisfaction of the Council. A bond of $5,000 will be required.

Christ’s College is responsible for obtaining all necessary consents at its cost.

Christ’s College shall comply, at its own cost, with all the requirements of the approved plans including tree work, re-routing of footpaths, sediment control and surface treatments.

The temporary bridge and access routes are to be used for construction access only and not for construction storage purposes.

Christ’s College will comply with the conditions of the Traffic Management Plan and any other restrictions imposed by the Council.

The period of the temporary easement is to be determined by the programme (currently estimated at between 18 and 24 months).

Christ’s College will be responsible for procuring and maintaining all necessary insurances including contract works and public liability insurances.

The temporary bridge shall be exclusively for the use of the Christ’s College. The public shall not be permitted access.

Council will require compensation for the easement.

No part of this agreement shall bind the Council in its regulatory capacity as a Local Authority.  

5.23    These principal terms and conditions of the MOU will form the basis of the temporary easement agreement which is being prepared by Council’s Legal Service Unit.

Temporary Easement - Statutory Process

5.24    Hagley Park is classified as a recreation reserve under the Reserves Act 1977 (the Act).

5.25    The Council’s legal team has advised that due to scale and duration of the access required it would be appropriate for the Council to use s48(1)(b) of the Act to grant a temporary and unregistered right of way easement.

5.26    Section 48 provides that the Council with the consent of the Minister may grant easements for rights of way and other easements over reserve land. In this case s48(1)(b) ‘providing access to any area included in an agreement, lease, or licence granted under the powers conferred by this act’ applies.

5.27    With regard to compensation it is normal Council Policy that a one-off compensation fee as assessed by an independent valuation payable to Council for the privilege of gaining an interest (temporary or otherwise) over Council land. In this regard a nominal sum in the order of $10,000 is considered reasonable for the benefit of access and general inconvenience. 

Community Views and Preferences

5.28    Under s48(2) of the Act it is necessary for the Council to publically notify its intention to grant an easement except where the reserve is unlikely to be materially altered or permanently damaged, and the rights of the public in respect of the reserve are unlikely to be permanently affected (s48(3)).

5.29    Public access to the park will not be permanently affected and the land will be fully remediated post construction of the works, thereby not permanently affecting or damaging the reserve or the public’s rights of access. The easement is temporary and time-bound. The proposal has been consulted with the Hagley Park Reference Group, Chaired by Counsellor Templeton. Under s48(3) of the Act public notification is not required.

Decision Making Authority

5.30    Hagley Park is a metropolitan asset and the decision to grant an easement is delegated to the Sustainability and Community Resilience Committee, rather than the Community Board.

5.31    The issue is of a metropolitan nature but directly affects the Linwood-Central-Heathcote Community Board.

6.   Policy Framework Implications Ngā Hīraunga ā- Kaupapa here

Strategic Alignment Te Rautaki Tīaroaro

6.1       This report supports the Council's Long Term Plan (2021 - 2031):

6.1.1   Activity: Parks and Foreshore

·     Level of Service: 6.8.10.1 Appropriate use and occupation of parks is facilitated - Formal approval process initiated within ten working days of receiving complete application – 95%

Policy Consistency Te Whai Kaupapa here

6.2       The decision is consistent with Council’s Plans and Policies.

Impact on Mana Whenua Ngā Whai Take Mana Whenua

6.3       The decision does involve a significant decision in relation to ancestral land or a body of water or other elements of intrinsic value, therefore this decision does specifically impact Mana Whenua, their culture and traditions.

6.4       Mahaanui Kurataiao (MKT) have reviewed the report.

6.5       The granting of the temporary access easement is using an existing vehicle access route into the Botanic Gardens. The access easement will cross a narrow area of park but the park will not be adversely affected. There will be no structures or disturbance to the waterway (Avon River). The bridge will rest on park land and not alter the bank or waterway.

Climate Change Impact Considerations Ngā Whai Whakaaro mā te Āhuarangi

6.6       There is no impact on climate change due to the temporary nature of the accessway and no additional hard surface or permanent disturbances to the park or waterway.

Accessibility Considerations Ngā Whai Whakaaro mā te Hunga Hauā

6.7       The access road into Hagley Park will remain open and provision has been made to re-route the pedestrian route alongside the Avon River. There should be minimal disruption to public access to the park.

7.   Resource Implications Ngā Hīraunga Rauemi

Capex/Opex Ngā Utu Whakahaere

7.1       Costs to Implement - Council is responsible for its own costs incurred in executing the easement agreement. All other project / construction / reinstatement costs are the responsibility of Christ’s College.

7.2       Maintenance/Ongoing costs – none.

7.3       Funding Source – Parks Unit Operational budgets.

8.   Legal Implications Ngā Hīraunga ā-Ture

Statutory power to undertake proposals in the report Te Manatū Whakahaere Kaupapa

8.1       The general powers of competence set out in section 12(2) “Status and Powers” of the Local Government Act.

Other Legal Implications Ētahi atu Hīraunga-ā-Ture

8.2       Temporary right of way easement to be granted pursuant to Section 48(1)(b) of the Reserves Act 1977.

8.3       This report has been reviewed and approved by the Legal Services Unit. The Legal Services Unit has prepared the MOU and are preparing the Temporary Easement Agreement.

9.   Risk Management Implications Ngā Hīraunga Tūraru

9.1       There is minimal if any risk to Council in approving the temporary access easement. Christ’s College is responsible for the construction of the access route and installation of the temporary bridge. Christ’s College is also responsible for the Traffic Management Plan and all Health and Safety requirements.

9.2       There is a reputational risk to Council if the approval of the report is delayed. Christ’s College are required under the resource consent to have the temporary bridge installed before April when the trout spawning season commences. There is to be no disturbance to the banks or waterways during spawning season.

 

 

Attachments Ngā Tāpirihanga

No.

Title

Page

a

Temporary Easement Plan

209

b

Memorandum of Understanding (MOU)

210

c

Draft Scope of Work Summary

224

 

 

Additional background information may be noted in the below table:

Document Name

Location / File Link

 

 

 

 

 

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

Russel Wedge - Team Leader Parks Policy & Advisory

Barry Woodland - Property Consultant

Approved By

Angus Smith - Manager Property Consultancy

Andrew Rutledge - Head of Parks

Mary Richardson - General Manager Citizens & Community

  


Council

10 February 2022

 


Council

10 February 2022

 















Council

10 February 2022

 







Council

10 February 2022

 

 

14.   Extension of Te Tira Kāhikuhiku - Christchurch Red Zones Transformation Land Use Consultative Group

Reference Te Tohutoro:

22/65140

Report of Te Pou Matua:

Brenden Winder, Manager Residential Red Zone, brenden.winder@ccc.govt.nz

General Manager Pouwhakarae:

Mary Richardson, General Manager Citizens and Community, mary.richardson@ccc.govt.nz

 

 

1.   Purpose of the Report Te Pūtake Pūrongo

1.1       The purpose of this report is for the Council to approve the extension of Te Tira Kāhikuhiku – Christchurch Red Zones Transformative Land Use Consultative Group (the Group) and memberships which due to expire in February 2022.  This report has been written to ensure that Te Tira Kāhikuhiku continues to operate until a co-governance structure is established.

1.2       The decision in this report is of low significance in relation to the Christchurch City Council’s Significance and Engagement Policy. The level of significance was determined by the requirements set out in the Global Settlement and the previous reporting on the Global Settlement and the establishment of this Group.

 

2.   Officer Recommendations Ngā Tūtohu

That the Council:

1.         Approves the extension of Te Tira Kāhikuhiku / The Christchurch Red Zones Transformative Land Use Consultative Group until a co-governance structure is established.

2.         Approves the extension of all of the membership appointments (including the Independent Chair role) of Te Tira Kāhikuhiku / Red Zones Transformative Land Use Consultative Group until a co-governance structure is established.

 

3.   Reason for Report Recommendations Ngā Take mō te Whakatau

3.1       The establishment of the Group was set out in the Global Settlement Agreement 2019. The Transformative Land Use Consultative Group should continue to operate until a co-governance structure is established.

 

4.   Alternative Options Considered Ētahi atu Kōwhiringa

4.1       No other alternative was considered, given this requirement to establish this Group is set out in the Global Settlement Agreement.

5.   Detail Te Whakamahuki

5.1       The Council approved the establishment of this Group at its meeting on 31 October 2019, including the approval of the draft Terms of Reference, Guiding Principles and Funding Terms of Reference.

5.2       The Council approved the appointment of Chrissie Williams as the Independent Chair of the Group on 19 December 2019 and concluded the process for the establishment of the Group, including membership, at its meeting on 12 March 2020. The membership of the Group is as follows:

·   Independent Chair: Chrissie Williams

·   Ngāi Tuahuriri: Shayne Te Aika

·   Ngāti Wheke: Gail Gordon

·   Te Pātaka o Rākaihautū/Banks Peninsula Community Board: Tyrone Fields

·   Waiti/Coastal-Burwood Community Board: Bebe Frayle and Jo Zervos

·   Waikura/Linwood-Central-Heathcote Community Board: Tim Lindley

·   Waihoro/Spreydon-Cashmere Community Board: Keir Leslie

·   Avon Ōtākaro River Corridor representatives: Ashley Campbell, Adam Parker and Hannah Watkinson

·   Community Representative: Bill Simpson

·   Youth Representative: Jazmynn Hodder-Swain

5.3       The decision affects the following wards/Community Board areas:

5.3.1   Waihoro/Spreydon-Cashmere, Waiti/Coastal-Burwood, Waikura/Linwood-Central- Heathcote, Te Pātaka o Rākaihautū/Banks Peninsula.  Each of these Community Boards has been represented on the appointment panel and is represented on the group.

6.   Policy Framework Implications Ngā Hīraunga ā- Kaupapa here

Strategic Alignment Te Rautaki Tīaroaro

6.1       This report supports the Council's Long Term Plan (2021 - 2031):

6.1.1   Activity: Governance and decision-making

·     Level of Service: 4.1.22 Provide services that ensure all Council, Committee and Community Board meetings are held with full statutory compliance. - 98% compliance

Policy Consistency Te Whai Kaupapa here

6.2       The decision is consistent with Council’s Plans and Policies.

Impact on Mana Whenua Ngā Whai Take Mana Whenua

6.3       The decision does not involve a significant decision in relation to ancestral land or a body of water or other elements of intrinsic value. Therefore this decision does not specifically impact Mana Whenua, their culture and traditions.

6.4       Mana Whenua have identified representatives as established members of the Group.

Climate Change Impact Considerations Ngā Whai Whakaaro mā te Āhuarangi

6.5       There is no direct climate change implication for approving the recommendations in this report. Transformative land uses are expected to positively contribute to our knowledge and practical experience on dealing with climate change.

Accessibility Considerations Ngā Whai Whakaaro mā te Hunga Hauā

6.6       Continuing this Group will facilitate increased accessibility for the community to these parts of the city.

7.   Resource Implications Ngā Hīraunga Rauemi

Capex/Opex Ngā Utu Whakahaere

7.1       Funding for this group is included in the FY2021 Annual Plan and is set out in the 31 October 2019 report. There is $34, 784 remaining in the fund.

8.   Legal Implications Ngā Hīraunga ā-Ture

Statutory power to undertake proposals in the report Te Manatū Whakahaere Kaupapa

8.1       The powers delegated to Council under the Local Government Act 2002 and the requirements of the Global Settlement Agreement.

Other Legal Implications Ētahi atu Hīraunga-ā-Ture

8.2       There is no legal context, issue or implication relevant to this decision.

9.   Risk Management Implications Ngā Hīraunga Tūraru

9.1       The risks regarding establishment of the group has been mitigated and managed through communication, community meetings and information provision to elected members.

 

 

Attachments Ngā Tāpirihanga

There are no attachments to this report.

 

Additional background information may be noted in the below table:

Document Name

Location / File Link

Not applicable

 

 

 

 

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

Brenden Winder - Manager Residential Red Zone

Approved By

Andrew Rutledge - Head of Parks

Mary Richardson - General Manager Citizens & Community

  


Council

10 February 2022

 

 

15.   Notice of Motion

Reference Te Tohutoro:

22/123106

Report of Te Pou Matua:

Councillor Jake McLellan, jake.mclellan@ccc.govt.nz

General Manager Pouwhakarae:

Dawn Baxendale, Chief Executive, dawn.baxendale@ccc.govt.nz

 

 

Pursuant to Standing Order 22 of Christchurch City Council’s Standing Orders, the following Notice of Motion was submitted by Councillor Jake McLellan.

 

1.   Notice of Motion to the Council

That the Council:

1.         Notes the unacceptably high rates of drowning in New Zealand.

2.         Notes that a range of barriers, both financial and otherwise, exist to children building the skills needed to be safe in the water.

3.         Notes the Council, as a provider of swimming facilities, can play a key role reducing those barriers.

4.         Requests staff to investigate and report on options to increase swimming ability through pool access and swimming lessons in time to inform the 2023-2024 Annual Plan.  That report will cover the following:

a.         Providing free swimming lessons for under-12s or under-16s

b.         Extending access to existing swimming lesson programmes and addressing barriers to participation

c.         Providing free off-peak (e.g. Monday to Friday 9am-5pm but including school holidays) entry to swimming pools for under-5s or under-12s, or under-16s

d.         Providing free entry for adults swimming with under-5s or under-12s or under-16s either during off-peak or at all times.

 

Attachments Ngā Tāpirihanga

There are no attachments to this report.

 


Council

10 February 2022

 

 

16.   Resolution to Exclude the Public

Section 48, Local Government Official Information and Meetings Act 1987.

 

I move that the public be excluded from the following parts of the proceedings of this meeting, namely items listed overleaf.

 

Reason for passing this resolution: good reason to withhold exists under section 7.

Specific grounds under section 48(1) for the passing of this resolution: Section 48(1)(a)

 

Note

 

Section 48(4) of the Local Government Official Information and Meetings Act 1987 provides as follows:

 

“(4)     Every resolution to exclude the public shall be put at a time when the meeting is open to the public, and the text of that resolution (or copies thereof):

 

             (a)       Shall be available to any member of the public who is present; and

             (b)       Shall form part of the minutes of the local authority.”

 

This resolution is made in reliance on Section 48(1)(a) of the Local Government Official Information and Meetings Act 1987 and the particular interest or interests protected by Section 6 or Section 7 of that Act which would be prejudiced by the holding of the whole or relevant part of the proceedings of the meeting in public are as follows:


Council

10 February 2022

 

 

 

ITEM NO.

GENERAL SUBJECT OF EACH MATTER TO BE CONSIDERED

SECTION

SUBCLAUSE AND REASON UNDER THE ACT

PLAIN ENGLISH REASON

WHEN REPORTS CAN BE RELEASED

9.

372 Riccarton Road (Upper Riccarton War Memorial Library) - Future Use Issues and Options

 

 

 

 

 

Attachment f - F Trust's Indicative Financial Position

s7(2)(i)

Conduct Negotiations

The balance of the Trust's funds are to be held in Trust by Council. The Trust wish the figure to remain confidential until the gift of the buildings to Council has been completed and documented and the Trust has been formally wound up.

22 December 2023

Execution of the formal Deed of Gift.

17.

Public Excluded Council Minutes - 27 January 2022

 

 

Refer to the previous public excluded reason in the agendas for these meetings.