Te Pātaka o Rākaihautū

Banks Peninsula Community Board

Agenda

 

 

Notice of Meeting:

An ordinary meeting of the Te Pātaka o Rākaihautū Banks Peninsula Community Board will be held on:

 

Date:                                    Monday 4 April 2022

Time:                                   1:00pm

Venue:                                 Held by Audio / Video Link

Under the current provisions of the Covid-19 Protection Framework (the Traffic Alert system) meeting attendance is only possible via an Audio/Visual link or by viewing a live stream (https://www.youtube.com/channel/UC66K8mOIfQT3I4rOLwGbeug) of the meeting. 

 

                                                               Please request access details from linda.burkes@ccc.govt.nz for the Audio/Visual link.

 

 

 

 

Membership

Chairperson

Deputy Chairperson

Members

Tori Peden

Tyrone Fields

Reuben Davidson

Nigel Harrison

Howard Needham

Jamie Stewart

Andrew Turner

Scott Winter

 

 

25 March 2022

 

 

 

 

 

Penelope Goldstone

Manager Community Governance, Banks Peninsula

941 5689

penelope.goldstone@ccc.govt.nz

www.ccc.govt.nz

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

 


Te Pātaka o Rākaihautū Banks Peninsula Community Board

04 April 2022

 

 


Te Pātaka o Rākaihautū Banks Peninsula Community Board

04 April 2022

 

Part A           Matters Requiring a Council Decision

Part B           Reports for Information

Part C           Decisions Under Delegation

 

 

TABLE OF CONTENTS

 

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

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

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

B         3.        Deputations by Appointment Ngā Huinga Whakaritenga................................. 4

Staff Reports

A          4.        Akaroa Wharf Renewal............................................................................... 5

Karakia Whakamutunga

 


Te Pātaka o Rākaihautū Banks Peninsula Community Board

04 April 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.   Deputations by Appointment Ngā Huinga Whakaritenga

3.1

Akaroa Wharf Renewal

People who wish to be heard in support of their submission will speak to the Board regarding the Akaroa Wharf Renewal Report.

 

 


Te Pātaka o Rākaihautū Banks Peninsula Community Board

04 April 2022

 

 

4.     Akaroa Wharf Renewal

Reference Te Tohutoro:

22/341015

Report of Te Pou Matua:

Kristine Bouw - Project Manager
kristine.bouw@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 to present the preferred concept option for Akaroa Wharf, which has been refined following community consultation, and for the Te Pātaka o Rākaihautū Banks Peninsula Community Board to make a recommendation to the Council for staff to proceed with the detailed design.

1.2       The decision in this report is of medium significance in relation to the Christchurch City Council’s Significance and Engagement Policy.  The level of significance was determined by considering the impacts of the decision on the local and wider community as well as the local Ōnuku Rūnanga.

 

2.   Officer Recommendations Ngā Tūtohu

That the Te Pātaka o Rākaihautū Banks Peninsula Community Board recommends to Council:

1.         That it receives the staff report on the design, stakeholder consultation and concept option for the Akaroa Wharf.

2.         That staff proceed to detailed design of the Akaroa Wharf based on the preferred concept option, as shown in Attachment B included in the agenda for this meeting.

 

3.   Reason for Report Recommendations Ngā Take mō te Whakatau

3.1       The 135-year old Akaroa wharf holds important cultural, historical and social values for the Akaroa community. Originally constructed in 1887 the wharf is of significant recreational, heritage and commercial importance to Akaroa and the wider region and is widely recognised as a focal point for the town. The wharf is used regularly by local residents, visitors and commercial fishing and tourism operations.

3.2       A structural condition assessment in 2015, 2018 and updated in mid-2021 identified that the wharf is reaching the end of its useful life and that the wharf is no longer economical to repair and a new wharf is required (Attachment A).

3.3       The public space and structure of the wharf is owned and maintained by Christchurch City Council (Council). Two privately-owned buildings abut the wharf and connect to the Council-owned structure.

3.4       In recent years and following the 2010 / 11 Canterbury earthquakes, Akaroa became a popular cruise and regional tourism destination.

3.5       Future cruise ship numbers are uncertain at present due to Covid19 but it is anticipated that cruise ship tourism will return to Akaroa in some form once the pandemic has settled globally.  The number and size of cruise ships (and passenger numbers) able to berth in the Akaroa Harbour has recently been regulated, limiting access to the Akaroa harbour to the smaller cruise ships with revised guidance around seabed disturbance from Environment Canterbury which impacts vessel size and number of visits in the Akaroa Harbour.

3.6       Staff are working in partnership with Ōnuku Rūnanga on design of the new wharf with specific consideration of the cultural significance and opportunities of the new wharf.

3.7       The 2021 – 2031 Long Term Plan includes $19.085M for the Akaroa Wharf project moving forward.

3.8       Key stakeholder engagement on options and scenarios for the wharf has been ongoing since 2019 and most recently with a public consultation process that concluded on 31 January 2022.

3.9       A preferred concept design for the new wharf (Attachment B) has now been developed based on community and stakeholder inputs as well as discussions with commercial operators and takes into consideration existing user groups including commercial fishing, tourism, local and community use and cruise ship transfers.

3.10    The proposed design allows for a 155metre long by 8metre wide wharf with three pontoon structures.

3.11    The Akaroa Wharf Renewal Options report (Attachment C) includes a description of the existing wharf, an overview of the options developed and a description of the preferred option.

 

4.   Alternative Options Considered Ētahi atu Kōwhiringa

4.1       A number of options were identified as a part of the public consultation in May to June 2019. A series of shortlisted options were confirmed through a workshop held with engineers, heritage advisors, planners, Environment Canterbury’s Harbour Master and Council staff. The purpose of the option development was to allow for a thorough review of feedback received to be considered against expert advice.

4.2       The options were based primarily on the proposed location of the new wharf.  Recognising the significance of the use of materials for both the overall look and feel and the structural integrity of the structure, several material options were explored as well.

4.3       The location options included the following (Attachment D):

·    Baseline Option 0: Restore the existing wharf in its current location with no change to its structural form

·    Option A: Construct a new wharf in the same location as the existing wharf

·    Option B: Construct a new wharf along the north side of the existing wharf

·    Option C: Construct a new wharf off Church Street and on the site of the original town wharf

·    Option D: Construct a new wharf from Akaroa Recreation Field / Children’s Bay

Construction material options included:

·    Option 1: New wharf structure with like-for-like hardwood timber

·    Option 2: New wharf structure with a mixture of concrete and hardwood timber, visible members would be hardwood

·    Option 3: New wharf structure made from concrete

4.4       The options were further analysed in December 2019 – January 2020 through a Multiple Criteria Analysis (MCA) process and which included input from engineers, planners, quantity surveyors, heritage advisors, Ōnuku Rūnanga representatives, urban design, the Harbourmaster, Council staff and representatives from the Banks Peninsula Community Board (Attachment E).

4.5       Based on the MCA analysis and preliminary construction methodology, Option A-Construct a new wharf in the same location as the existing wharf was identified as the preferred option and the use of a mixture of concrete (piles and base structure) and hardwood timber (decking) materials.

4.6       An overview of the key analysis points of the other options is outlined below:

Baseline Option 0: Restore the existing wharf in its current location with no change to its structural form or height.

·    This option is a comparison of rebuilding the wharf back at the current deck height which is already prone to storm surges and future flooding and is not considered a viable option.

Option B: Construct a new wharf along the north side of the existing wharf

·    Option B was considered at length as desirable from the ability to retain the existing wharf during construction and to allow businesses to continue to operate off of the wharf;

·    Due its direct proximity, Option B would result in risk to the structural capacity of the existing wharf and its operational capacity during construction due to construction methodology (pile driving);

·    Building in parallel would include a number of safety risks that would need to be carefully managed during construction to keep the wharf open and operating and would ultimately lead to higher construction costs (staging, building secondary access routes, staggering construction work and limiting hours during busy periods for commercial operators);

·    Retaining the existing wharf as operational would cause significant public safety risks with the marine plant directly adjacent to a working wharf;

·    Construction would have a major impact and disruption to existing businesses from regular vibration and noise;

·    This option will also incur increased project costs due to the need to reconstruct an abutment structure and reconnect transport access to the wharf for passengers and loading and unloading of goods;

·    This option would require the functions on the north side of the wharf to be relocated to make room for the new wharf to the south side and to other locations in the harbour;

·    Option B isolates the existing privately-owned buildings abutting the wharf which will lose their access and connection to Beach Road during the construction period;

·    The overall shape and location of the wharf would be altered and result in adverse effects from a heritage landscape visual perspective; and

·    The new location of the wharf will have a greater environmental effect than Option A and will require further development into the coastal marine environment including dredging and introducing new structures within the seabed.

Option C: Construct a new wharf off Church Street and on the site of the original town wharf

·    Option C recognises the history of Akaroa as this is the location of the original wharf and would remove many of the construction and staging issues identified with Option B;

·    This option will also incur increased costs for the project for the significant dredging required for construction and to reconstruct an abutment structure and reconnect transport access to the wharf for passengers and loading and unloading of goods;

·    Additionally Option C would move the wharf to the intersection directly adjacent to Church Street and Beach Road and local transport connections;

·    The realigned structure would impact on the heritage area of the Akaroa waterfront in its new proximity to the Wharfinger building (Akaroa Weighbridge) and would require the removal of at least 1 heritage tree;

·    This option would also modify the visual connection to the sea and harbour for adjacent businesses including restaurants and cafes;

·    Option C isolates the existing privately-owned buildings which abut the wharf which will lose their access and connection to Beach Road;

·    The overall shape and location of the wharf would be altered and result in adverse effects from a landscape visual perspective; and

·    The location of the wharf will have a greater environmental effect than Option A and B as it will require further development into the coastal marine environment, including sea bed dredging and introducing new structures within the seabed.

Option D: Construct a new wharf from Akaroa Recreation Field / Children’s Bay

·    This option was suggested during the 2019 consultation phase primarily in consideration of  the pressures from cruise ships on the wharf and Akaroa and suggested the construction of an additional wharf structure with a new wharf built at Children’s Bay for cruise ship tenders and the repair and rebuild of the existing heritage wharf;

·    This option would still require upgrades to the existing wharf and would be out of the scope of work and the budget in the Long Term plan;

·    This area is very shallow and as with Options B through C above, would require extensive dredging to construct and to maintain and would have significant environmental issues;

·    This option would require significant development on the landward side of Children’s Bay in order to provide the adequate supporting infrastructure necessary for the wharf; and

·    This area is contained within a Wāhi Tapu/Wāhi Taonga in the Christchurch District Plan. Due to the cultural significance of this area to Ōnuku Rūnanga this is not considered a viable option.

4.7       The benefits of Option A - Construct a new wharf in the same location as the existing wharf as the preferred option includes:

·    Option A retains the high historic and social significance of the wharf and iconic location of the wharf within the visual context of the Akaroa Harbour;

·    Option A further represents the least risk on the surrounding heritage items and settings, particularly those at Britomart Reserve;

·    Option A is sympathetic to the surrounding environment including built form along  Church Street and Beach Road, established after the wharf and established in relation to its location;

·    Has the lowest impact on the environment both from a coastal (seabed disturbance) and landside perspective;

·    Retains transport and access links along Beach Road which are limited in other areas along the waterfront;

·    The resource consent process for Option A is the most straight forward as it includes replacing a similar structure in the coastal marine area where the existing wharf has been since 1887;

·    Lower cost option based on initial cost estimates (no dredging, existing access and circulation points);

·    Lower environmental impacts in relation to need for dredging and other seabed disruption; and

·    Support from privately-owned building owners in consistent location and access points.

4.8       The next stage of design will further consider:

·    The integration of heritage and cultural design elements, working in partnership with the local community and Ōnuku Rūnanga into the design of the new structure;

·    The  new abutment feature and connection between the new wharf and the land;

·    Detailed design of wharf structural elements;

·    Construction methodology and approach;

·    Deliverability of the project within the existing budget;

·    Detail around accessibility;

·    Discussion with commercial operators to confirm the amenity and operational requirements;

·    Existing buildings;

·    Fuelling options; and

·    Specific use of materials – current recommendation is to use a mix of concrete (piles and main structure) and timber (decking and pedestrian details).

4.9       The main disadvantage of Option A is the need to provide temporary access to the wharf for its existing commercial users and the risks associated with the existing buildings located on the wharf. Temporary access options are currently being explored with the project team working directly with commercial operators to explore upgrades to existing infrastructure to build additional capacity in the Akaroa Harbour.

4.10    The main risks of not moving forward with Option A include:

·    Continued uncertainty for commercial operators, building owners and the public following two rounds of consultation and stakeholder engagement;

·    Further delaying the rebuild of the wharf and the further deterioration of the structure;

·    Additional maintenance costs associated with keeping the structure operational for commercial users who rely on it; and

·    Rising concerns from stakeholders and the community who have been involved in the process over the past 3 years and are keen to proceed.

5.   Detail Te Whakamahuki

5.1       Akaroa Wharf replacement was open for consultation from Wednesday 1 December 2021 to Monday 31 January 2022.  We opened the consultation for two months over the summer holiday period to capture both local residents as well as people who were holidaying in Akaroa over this time.

5.2       We delivered a flyer with details for our Have Your Say page to all businesses along the main road through Akaroa and posted to all property owners, including absentee owners, in Akaroa.  We had copies of the full consultation document at the Akaroa Service Centre and Library for anyone wanting a hard copy, this was also detailed in the flyer.  An email was also sent to approximately 220 stakeholders.

5.3       We held two drop-in sessions, one in Akaroa for four hours and one in the Christchurch for two hours.  Approximately 20 people attended over both sessions.

5.4       We asked for general feedback on the Akaroa Wharf replacement project as detailed online and in the consultation document.  At the close of consultation we received 47 submissions from businesses, organisations and individuals (Attachment F).

5.5       We received submissions from the following businesses and organisations:

·   Akaroa Civic Trust

·   Akaroa Dolphins

·   Akaroa Fishermen’s Association

·   Akaroa Motor Garage

·   Akaroa Ratepayers & Residents Association Inc

·   Black Cat Cruises

·   Disabled Persons Assembly

·   Flow Kayaks 2017 Ltd

·   GCH Aviation Limited

·   Heritage New Zealand Pouhere Taonga

·   New Zealand Whale and Dolphin Trust

·   OCEL – Offshore & Coastal Engineering Ltd

5.6       We also received submissions from residents and property owners who have had a long association with Akaroa.

5.7       The key themes raised during consultation were:

5.7.1   Design related

·     Wharf materials (22)

·     Historical and cultural significance (20)

·     Working wharf –health and safety (17)

·     Concern for the proposed stairs (‘knuckle) (14)

·     New wharf needs to cater for larger vessels and all activities (8)

·     Sea level rise – wharf height (6)

·     Accessibility (5)

·     Commercial buildings on the wharf (4)

·     Availability of fuel on the wharf (4)

·     Feedback on design features – seating, viewing platform, market, shops, lighting (3)

5.7.2   Construction related

·     Interim facilities during construction (9)

·     Impact of construction on marine life (3)

5.8       We also received some general comments from the consultation including:

·   That there is no need for a replacement wharf and that it should just be repaired

·   Recommending an upgrade to the Wainui Wharf instead for commercial use;

·   Consideration for a floating wharf structure;

·   The need for a breakwater to protect the new wharf and vessels in the harbour; and

·   Consideration for alternative wharf design (floating options).

Preferred Concept Design and Responses to Feedback

5.9       As a result of the consultation process the design of the wharf has been refined. The main amendment to the wharf is the removal of the northern stairs to the water as detailed below.  Other key elements of the proposed conceptual wharf design include:

·   The length of the wharf is the same as present at 155m long and 8m wide (0.7m wider than the current 7.3m wide wharf);

·   An additional pontoon structure (total of 3) will be added to support issues with overcrowding and provide more capacity for recreational and commercial vessels;

·   The orientation of the 3 pontoons are shown perpendicular to the wharf structure, the project team will continue to work with the commercial users to refine the pontoon design to meet the specific needs of the users;

·   Fuel options to include petrol and diesel as well as future provision for electrical charging to be considered;

·   Deck height to be raised by 0.5 – 0.65m to allow for sea level rise;

·   Construction materials to be a mix of concrete and timber;

·   Structural design of the wharf and bracing to be consistent with the existing heritage wharf design;

·   Further detail on the design and in consideration of the consultation feedback is included below.

Wharf materials

5.10    There were a number of submissions that recommended that timber be used as wharf decking and in consideration of the unique character of the existing wharf. The use of timber decking materials is consistent with the proposed concept design and staff are investigating locally sourced materials to support the use of marine grade timber for the decking surface. Staff are recommending that the new piles and superstructure of the wharf below the decking area are constructed using concrete and steel for the durability and longevity and based on engineering recommendations. The exact use of materials will be refined during detailed design.

Historical and cultural significance

5.11    The historical, cultural, social and contextual significance of the wharf is acknowledged by many submitters. The project team recognise that respect for contextual, historical and landmark significance, and retention of elements of heritage fabric, will need to be an important feature of the proposed wharf. Several submissions commented on the significance of the recommendations in the Conservation Plan (DRAFT 2019, Origin Consultants), which identified the wharf as “one of the most significant heritage structures in the town, and the cultural heritage significance to the town and wider district is highly significant”.

5.12    An Archaeological Authority from Heritage New Zealand will be required to remove the wharf. This process will include recording and documentation of the key features of the wharf as required under the  Heritage New Zealand Pouhere Taonga Act 2014 (HNZPTA) and the Resource Management Act 1991 (RMA). Heritage New Zealand has been engaged throughout the process and provided a submission in support of the proposed design and approach by Council.  The project team will also seek opportunities for the local community to record and document the social history of the wharf.

5.13    The Draft Conservation Plan was commissioned in 2018, and was prepared at the same time as the detailed structural engineering assessment was being undertaken and which ultimately confirmed the need to replace the wharf.  A conservation plan is typically prepared to discuss the significance of an item and how it could be sustained. In the case of the Akaroa Wharf, the information in the Draft Conservation Plan was overtaken by engineering advice and Council resolution to proceed with the replacement. However the Draft Conservation Plan includes some guidance around the development of design elements and materials that could be incorporated into the design of a new wharf.  The project team are proposing to continue to work closely with Ōnuku Rūnanga and Heritage New Zealand in the development of detailed design concepts that protect these cultural and heritage values and to integrate the story of the wharf and its location into the expression of the new structure.

‘Working wharf’ –health and safety

5.14    Throughout the consultation process in 2019 and 2021/2022 there has been strong support for retaining a ‘working wharf’ and the commercial use of the wharf for fishing, fresh fish sales and tourism uses. The continued use of the wharf for commercial and public recreation purposes does present some risks which to date have been well-managed through good communication between users and Council.

5.15    As a part of the wharf upgrade community and stakeholder inputs have also recognised the need to support improved health and safety of the wharf and is reflected in the proposed increase in the width of the wharf and will be considered when positioning pontoons, access routes and other marine infrastructure (crane, fuel bowsers, ladder etc).

Concern for the proposed stairs (‘knuckle) on the north side

5.16    The design included in the consultation package in 2021/2022 included a large set of stairs providing additional water access to the north of the new wharf abutment and a smaller set of stairs connecting to the gravelly beach to the south. Concern about safety issues related to additional use of the wharf in this area was raised during the consultation and in a number of submissions.

5.17    Maritime and land-based safety concerns associated with the proposed stairs have been reviewed initially by marine safety and transport staff and are not considered a safety issue.

5.18    However, to address budget risks in regards to rising material and construction costs, it is proposed to remove both sets of stairs in the preferred design concept. Detailed design work will be required to confirm the edge treatment and finish for this area.

New wharf needs to cater for larger vessels and all activities

5.19    A number of submissions suggested improvements for the wharf which would allow for larger vessels to use the structure (currently limited due to reduced structural capacity of the existing wharf) and to allow for additional room for more vessels to use the wharf. The proposed concept design of the wharf includes upgrading the structural capacity of the wharf for larger vessels and to allow for more berthing. Staff will continue to work with the commercial operators through the detailed design of the wharf for a good and functional outcome.

Sea level rise – wharf height

5.20    Six submitters questioned the proposed height of the deck based on the sea level rise projections. The proposed design of the wharf includes raising the height of the existing wharf between 0.5-0.65mm (the range in height is due to the varying height of the existing wharf) to allow for sea level rise projections and based on advice from a coastal hazard experts. 

5.21    This advice takes into consideration the current Ministry of the Environment (2017) coastal hazard guidance for incorporating sea level rise into asset planning and is in line with the recent Tonkin and Taylor (2021) report on coastal hazards.

5.22    The proposed design height is also considered a practical level for the wharf deck, specific to the Akaroa context, where constructing to a higher elevation would:

·    Be considered impractical (given alignment and integration issues with the foreshore and Beach Road);

·    Poorly coordinated with local infrastructure; and

·    Inefficient in terms of design life versus capital costs.

Accessibility

5.23    Ensuring that the new structure is inclusive and accessible is an important requirement for the new wharf. The current wharf presents a number of challenges for disabled users (uneven surfaces, material changes etc) and comments were made in a couple of submissions about the need to consider the proposed materials and design details to allow for universal accessibility recognising the “growing number of disabled people who will visit this great tourist destination in the years ahead” (submission from Disabled Persons Assembly NZ).

5.24    Council staff have met with the Council’s Disability Advisory Group (DAG), facilitated by the Council’s Inclusive Communities Coordinator and who have provided advice on the planning, review and implementation of Council projects and services that relate to the broad spectrum of disability issues.

5.25    The detailed design of the wharf will include working with these recommendations, reporting back for to the DAG for design review in order to promote inclusivity and accessibility in the final design as a Council and consenting requirement.

Commercial buildings on the wharf

5.26    There are two privately-owned buildings that abut the wharf and connect to the Council-owned structure. Currently these building have a license arrangement with Council for access to their buildings across the wharf.

5.27    A number of submissions mentioned the existing buildings with some submissions indicating that no new buildings should be developed and that the rebuild project should consider improvements to the current buildings. There were also submissions in support for the existing buildings and concern for the businesses operating out of them during the construction period. The project budget does not include any budget for any building structures.

5.28    Recognising the impact on the wharf rebuild on businesses, staff have been consulting regularly with the building owners on the location and temporary access options for the proposed new wharf.

5.29    Given the reliance of the existing buildings on the current wharf structure it is recognised that further discussion will be required with building owners to confirm future arrangements. Specific detail around wharf height, building access from the wharf and any upgrades to the supporting structures for the buildings will be advanced in the next phases of work.

Availability of fuel on the wharf

5.30    A diesel bowser currently operates of the northern side of the wharf primarily for commercial operators. A desire to provide petrol from the wharf has been expressed by many commercial users and submitters as currently petrol tanks are driven on the wharf by truck for commercial vessels. It is recognised that pumping petrol from a truck on the wharf is inconvenient and includes some safety risks for wharf users.

5.31    The consultation document suggested that petrol could be made available for commercial vehicles and identified the risk with petrol being provided for recreational boaters at the wharf and the need for additional pontoon space for pumping as well as health and safety risks.

5.32    A submission was also made which did not support providing petrol on the wharf in favour of protecting the local garage where the majority of recreational users fill up their vessels and identifying the risk to the local business as well as environmental and health and safety risks.

5.33    Ultimately the provision of fuel (diesel and petrol) will be provided through a tender process and the infrastructure provided by a commercial operator. Council staff will work with the local providers on a transparent approach for fuel provision moving forward.

5.34    Consideration is also being made for future fuel sources (electrical charging, hydrogen etc) to ensure flexibility in the design for the future.

Feedback on design features – seating, viewing platform, market, shops, lighting

5.35    Submissions received including a number of suggestions around design features for commercial and recreational users. Features such as seating, lighting, water and electricity will be located as a part of the detailed design phase of works and in discussion with wharf users.

Interim facilities during construction

5.36    The rebuild of the wharf in the same location presents a challenge in the provision of temporary access for businesses that require regular daily water access and include the two existing privately-owned buildings. A number of discussions have been held with the Fishermen’s Association and commercial users around the use of existing facilities in the Akaroa Harbour, upgrades to existing infrastructure and temporary access options during the construction of the new wharf.

5.37    Several submissions indicated temporary access approaches and included other factors to be considered including berthage, loading and unloading of passengers and goods, petrol and fuel provision, crane access etc. which will need to be considered in any approach.

5.38    It is anticipated that the demolition of the current and construction of the new wharf could take between 12 to 18 months, during which time a number of businesses will be impacted. The exact timeframe for construction will be refined with further design detail and contractor engagement.

5.39    To date a number of options are being considered including repairing the recently damaged Drummonds wharf, use of Wainui and Daly’s wharf, a floating barge and pontoon structures and a combination of the above. Once the conceptual design of the wharf is approved staff will further explore these options, working with the Fishermen’s Association to confirm a proposed approach to take forward.

Impact of construction on marine life

5.40    The construction methodology for the new wharf will need to be developed in consideration of the impact on marine life. Akaroa Harbour is well known for its marine mammals including the endangered Hector’s dolphin.

5.41    Depending on the construction methodology consideration and specialist reporting on reducing and managing any risks to Hector’s dolphins will need to be considered.  Two submissions included advice on construction timing and techniques recommended for addressing these issues.

5.42    The need for specialist advice to support the resource consent for the wharf is acknowledged and will be confirmed moving forward.

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

5.43.1 Banks Peninsula Ward

6.   Policy Framework Implications Ngā Hīraunga ā- Kaupapa here

Strategic Alignment Te Rautaki Tīaroaro

6.1       The recommendation of the report is consistent with the following Community Outcomes:

6.1.1      Resilient communities: Strong sense of community;

6.1.2      Resilient communities: Safe and healthy communities;

6.1.3      Resilient communities: Celebration of our identity through arts, culture, heritage, sport and recreation;

6.1.4      Healthy environment: Unique landscapes and indigenous biodiversity are valued and stewardship exercised

6.1.5      Prosperous economy: A productive, adaptive and resilient economic base

6.1.6      Prosperous economy: Modern and robust city infrastructure and facilities

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

6.2.1   Activity: Parks and Foreshore

·     Level of Service: 10.8.1.1 Availability of a network of public marine structures that facilitate recreational and commercial access to the marine environment for citizens and visitors. - Customer satisfaction with the availability of marine structure facilities: 60%

Policy Consistency Te Whai Kaupapa here

6.3       The decision to replace the Akaroa Wharf in the same location, and reinstate elements of existing heritage fabric where practicable, alongside opportunities for cultural narrative is consistent with Council’s Plan and Policies. Including:

·    Christchurch Visitors Strategy (2019), specifically:

Ø ‘Ensuring the needs of the visitor and the development of the Christchurch destination informs infrastructure development’ (High Priority Activities).

Ø ‘Take an integrated approach to cruise ship access (with the development of Lyttelton Wharf) for both Akaroa and Lyttelton to maximise visitor spend and value added opportunities’.

·          Our Heritage, Our Taonga (2019-2029):

Ø  Whāinga Goal 2: Our Heritage, Our Taonga from the Christchurch and Banks Peninsula’s six papatipu rūnanga is acknowledged with respect to their mana whenua and in accordance with their values and culture.

Ø  Whāinga Goal 4: Our Heritage, Our Taonga is protected through collaboration and partnership.

·          Strengthening Communities Strategy (2007), specifically:

Ø  Goal 2: Promoting collaboration among key stakeholders, including Maori, Iwi and Community organisations;

Ø  Goal 4: Helping build and sustain a sense of local community.

·          Akaroa Harbour Basin Settlements Study (2009), including:

Ø  Coastal Recreational Facilities, including that “Safety of harbour users can be compromised where harbour structures are not built and maintained to excellent standards”.

Ø  Natural Hazards, including protecting land, housing, roading and other coastal infrastructure (e.g. wharves).

Impact on Mana Whenua Ngā Whai Take Mana Whenua

6.4       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.

6.5       The Akaroa Main Wharf is located within a landscape of high significance to two hapū, Ngāi Tārewa and Ngāti Irakehu who are the tangata whenua of the takiwā which covers the Akaroa Harbour, surrounding coastal environment and hills as defined by the Ngāi Tahu Claims Settlement Act 1998.  Ōnuku Rūnanga represents Ngāi Tārewa and Ngāti Irakehu. Ōnuku Rūnanga have the responsibility to act as kaitiaki over these lands and are active in the environmental management of their takiwā (Tribal Territory).

6.6       Akaroa Main Wharf is an isolated element, and is more closely associated with the Pākeha history of Akaroa. However, this built structure is a prominent form within a cultural landscape embedded with whakapapa.  The wharf extends into the heart of Ngāi Tārewa and Ngāti Irakehu identity and way of life which was centred around mahinga kai. The abutment to Akaroa Main Wharf also interfaces with Britomart Reserve, an area which for Ngāi Tahu holds significance as the place where approximately 500 Ngāi Tahu gathered in 1848 to discuss the sale of land which would later be known as Kemps Deed. 

6.7       Christchurch City Council and Ōnuku Rūnanga have been working in partnership on the concept development of the Akaroa wharf with work to date including the development of a draft cultural narrative, inputs into the Conservation Plan and ongoing design development for the future of the wharf.

6.8       Representatives from Ōnuku Rūnanga will continue to work with the project team as the project advances into detailed design and construction.

Climate Change Impact Considerations Ngā Whai Whakaaro mā te Āhuarangi

6.9       The main climate change impact of the new wharf is in relation to sea level rise. To confirm a suitable deck height advice has been provided by coastal hazard experts in regards to setting a practical level for the proposed new structure (and as detailed in section 5.0 above). Staff have utilised the current Ministry of the Environment (2017) coastal hazard guidance for incorporating sea level rise into asset planning and has engaged specialist reports to support this work.

6.10    The Council will continue to investigate the potential environmental effects of the development proposal and has been looking at options for sustainable design for the future construction of the wharf.

Accessibility Considerations Ngā Whai Whakaaro mā te Hunga Hauā

6.11    The Akaroa Wharf renewal project will consider accessibility matters as a part of future design stages. As outlined in Section 5.0 above advice has been received through the consultation process and Council staff will be working with the Disability Advisory Group on the detailed elements of the design including materials, access and width of structures and slopes of ramps and pontoons.

7.   Resource Implications Ngā Hīraunga Rauemi

Capex/Opex Ngā Utu Whakahaere

7.1       Cost to Implement - $19.085M has been identified in the 2021 – 2031 Long Term Plan. Further cost information will be confirmed in subsequent stages.

7.2       Maintenance/Ongoing costs – It is recognised that there will be ongoing maintenance costs associated with a new wharf, and that the new structure will require maintenance schedules to promote the longevity of the structure. The current maintenance costs are mainly reactive and in response to the age of the structure.

7.3       The maintenance budget sits within the Parks Foreshore operational expenditure

8.   Legal Implications Ngā Hīraunga ā-Ture

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

8.1       The Council has the power to undertake the activity proposed in this report. (Section 12 Local Government Act 2002 (LGA 02)).

Other Legal Implications Ētahi atu Hīraunga-ā-Ture

8.2       Proceeding to the detailed design phase will involve entering into contractual arrangements for the purchase of any necessary goods and services.  There will also be a need for ongoing negotiations with the owners of the buildings that abut the wharf particularly in relation to their ongoing rights of access, both in the long term and during any construction period.

8.3       The assistance of Legal Services will be sought in respect of these and any other legal matters that may arise.

8.4       Current advice from Legal Services is that the Council has complied with its obligations in the Local Government Act 2002 for identifying and assessing options (s.77) and obtaining community views (s.78).  Also, that the consultation process has been undertaken in accordance with the principles of consultation set out in s.82.

 

9.   Risk Management Implications Ngā Hīraunga Tūraru

9.1       The decisions in this report are not expected to incur a significant risk

 

 

Attachments Ngā Tāpirihanga

No.

Title

Page

a

Akaroa Wharf Engineering Condition Report- Calibre 2021

19

b

Akaroa Wharf Concept Design- Plans and Graphics

68

c

Akaroa Wharf Renewal Option Report-Calibre-July2021

74

d

Akaroa Wharf location options-2019

130

e

Multi Criteria Assessment-Revised December 2021

131

f

Akaroa Wharf Submissions March 2022

203

 

 

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

Authors

Kristine Bouw - Project Manager

Ann Tomlinson - Senior Engagement Advisor

Approved By

Darren Moses - Manager - Project Management Team

Kay Holder - Manager Regional Parks

Andrew Rutledge - Head of Parks

Mary Richardson - General Manager Citizens & Community

  


Te Pātaka o Rākaihautū Banks Peninsula Community Board

04 April 2022

 


















































Te Pātaka o Rākaihautū Banks Peninsula Community Board

04 April 2022

 







Te Pātaka o Rākaihautū Banks Peninsula Community Board

04 April 2022

 

























































Te Pātaka o Rākaihautū Banks Peninsula Community Board

04 April 2022

 


Te Pātaka o Rākaihautū Banks Peninsula Community Board

04 April 2022

 









































































Te Pātaka o Rākaihautū Banks Peninsula Community Board

04 April 2022