Agenda of Linwood-Central-Heathcote Community Board and Spreydon-Cashmere Community Board

Linwood-Central-Heathcote Community Board and Spreydon-Cashmere Community Board

12 August 2022

4. Tennyson Street Pedestrian Improvement Options
Reference Te Tohutoro:	22/960425
Report of Te Pou Matua:	Gemma Dioni, Senior Transport Engineer gemma.dioni@ccc.govt.nz
General Manager Pouwhakarae:	Jane Davis, General Manager Infrastructure, Planning and Regulatory Services jane.davis@ccc.govt.nz

1. Secretarial Note

1.1 The Waikura Linwood-Central-Heathcote and Waihoro Spreydon-Cashmere Community Boards held a joint meeting on 13 April 2022 to consider the Tennyson Street Pedestrian Improvement Options.

1.2 The Boards requested:

1.2.1 Lay the Tennyson Street Pedestrian Improvement Options report on the table.

1.2.2 Request that staff investigate options for a raised zebra crossing across Tennyson Street near its intersection with Norwood Street.

1.2.3 Request that staff investigate options to replace the two proposed raised platforms approaching the crossing point on Tennyson Street near its intersection with Norwood Street with other traffic calming measures, such as speed humps.

1.3 Staff have investigated the requested options and a memo is attached outlining the investigations completed for 1.2.2 and 1.2.3 above. This includes new resolutions for the revised plan.

2. Purpose of the Report Te Pūtake Pūrongo

2.1 The purpose of this report is for the joint Waihoro / Spreydon-Cashmere and Waikura / Linwood-Central-Heathcote Community Boards to consider options for the Tennyson Street pedestrian improvements project. This report is staff initiated following public consultation on proposed improvements.

2.2 The decisions in this report are 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.

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

3. Officer Recommendations Ngā Tūtohu

That the Linwood-Central-Heathcote Community Board and Spreydon-Cashmere Community Board:

1. Approve, pursuant to Clause 6 of the Christchurch City Council Traffic and Parking Bylaw 2017, and s334 of the Local Government Act 1974, that a Stop Control be placed against Norwood Street at its intersection with Tennyson Street, as shown in Attachment A of the agenda for this meeting.

2. Approve the road marking changes, kerb alignment changes, raised safety platforms, traffic island changes and road surface changes on Tennyson Street, from a point 12 metres west of its intersection with Norwood Street and extending east to a point 4 metres west of its intersection with Southampton Street as detailed on Attachment A.

3. Approve that the stopping of vehicles be prohibited at any time on the southern side of Tennyson Street, commencing at its intersection with Norwood Street and extending in an easterly direction for 56 metres.

4. Revoke any previous resolutions pertaining to traffic controls made pursuant to any bylaw to the extent that they are in conflict with the traffic controls described in resolution 1 above.

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

4. Reason for Report Recommendations Ngā Take mō te Whakatau

4.1 The preferred option is Option two.

4.2 Option Two: Incorporate changes into the proposal to reflect comments and concerns from submitters, as shown in Attachment A.

4.3 This option includes:

4.3.1 Installing no stopping lines to increase the visibility for pedestrians towards oncoming traffic (this feature is included in all options and it is noted that no objections or concerns about the proposed no stopping were raised during consultation).

4.3.2 Increase space in the centre of the island to accommodate more crossing users.

4.3.3 Incorporate vertical traffic calming and red coloured surfacing to create a slow zone from Norwood Street to Southampton Street. Children and caregivers were observed crossing at both islands within this section.

4.3.4 Incorporate an island on the south side of Tennyson Street to further increase visibility for people crossing and to reduce the crossing distance. This also assists in slowing turning traffic into Norwood Street.

4.4 The major theme that emerged through consultation was a community desire for slower speeds and a change in the nature of the existing crossing. It is clear that there is little support for only the changes to the island as proposed.

4.5 It is proposed to retain the median island crossings as this provides consistency along the Tennyson Street corridor. It is not proposed to implement a zebra crossing at this location. Pedestrian count data shows that approximately 37 people are crossing in both directions at the crossing point to the east of Norwood Street during the morning peak hour and just over 30 during the after school period. Outside of these busier periods the number reduces to around 5-10 people crossing at this location per hour.

4.6 Raised platforms, as requested by several submitters, are proposed to be incorporated into the scheme to the west of Norwood Street and to the west of Southampton Street. It is proposed to provide the traffic calming away from the crossing so that it doesn’t create ambiguity for children at to whom has priority. Ambiguity could result in crashes occurring when pedestrians expect vehicles to stop for them and there is no legal requirement for them to do so.

4.7 Lower speeds at locations where pedestrians are exposed to traffic is a key, safe system principle and will reduce both likelihood and severity of any crashes that may occur in future. The lower speeds can also facilitate eye contact between pedestrians and drivers resulting in a mutually negotiated position over who goes first, and may result in a higher rate of vehicles yielding to pedestrians, even when they are not required by law to do so.

4.8 It is not recommended to relocate this crossing further from Norwood Street as that will further remove the crossing from the main desire lines. The issue of vehicles hard braking when turning right from Norwood Street, and the potential issue of right turning traffic experiencing sunstrike, can be mitigated by requiring slower speeds with traffic calming measures.

4.9 It is proposed to incorporate a limit line and markings on the cycleway to raise more awareness of the crossing facility and that people riding bicycles should give-way to people crossing. Due to the number of people crossing at this location it is unlikely to create delay for people riding but increasing the visibility of the crossing and reducing speeds will result in a more comfortable environment for all users.

4.10 There were no concerns raised about removal of parking to improve visibility. This option includes the proposed no stopping as per the original consultation as this was not a controversial part of the proposal and can be implemented without any additional design or funding as it only requires community board approval to proceed.

4.11 Advantages of this option include:

4.11.1 Addresses the concerns and reflects the majority of community views expressed through consultation.

4.11.2 Creates a lower speed environment at the crossing point.

4.11.3 Supports any future lower speed limits.

4.11.4 Improves visibility for pedestrians by removal of parking.

4.12 Disadvantages of this option include:

4.12.1 Increased cost.

4.12.2 Vertical traffic calming may have negative amenity effects (eg. Noise) to surrounding properties.

4.12.3 Minor delay in travel times to traffic travelling along Tennyson Street, however given the lack of viable alternative parallel routes this is unlikely to result in a decrease in traffic volumes.

5. Alternative Options Considered Ētahi atu Kōwhiringa

5.1 Option One: Proceed with the proposal as consulted on.

5.2 This option includes:

5.2.1 Installing no stopping lines to increase the visibility for pedestrians towards oncoming traffic (this feature is included in all options and it is noted that no objections or concerns about the proposed no stopping were raised during consultation).

5.2.2 Widening the existing island to increase its capacity to hold waiting pedestrians.

5.3 Consideration was given to possible minor (low-cost) line marking and signage changes to the consultation proposal to address concerns raised in feedback. However, no such changes were identified that were likely to address concerns raised in feedback.

5.4 Advantages of this option include:

5.4.1 Provides a wider island, with more storage room for pedestrians.

5.4.2 More separation between waiting pedestrians and live traffic speeds, resulting in more room for error if a pedestrian or driver makes a mistake.

5.4.3 Improves visibility for pedestrians by removal of parking.

5.5 Disadvantages of this option include

5.5.1 Is not consistent with the community views expressed through consultation.

5.5.2 Cost.

6. Detail Te Whakamahuki

6.1 Tennyson Street is a Collector Road which connects the suburb of St Martins to the arterial road of Colombo Street. Collector roads are explained in the District Plan as

6.1.1 “Roads that distribute and collect local traffic between neighbourhood areas and the arterial road network. These are of little or no regional significance, except for the loads they place on the arterial road network. They link to the arterial road network and act as local spine roads, and often as bus routes within neighbourhoods, but generally do not contain traffic signals. Their traffic movement function must be balanced against the significant property access function which they provide. …”

6.2 The most recent traffic counts on Tennyson Street (2017, east of Southampton Street) indicate the average weekday traffic is 9993 vehicles per day, of which 4.1% are heavy vehicles. Tennyson Street does not carry a scheduled bus route. This volume of traffic is similar to pre-earthquake volumes which fluctuated between a low of 9,150 and a high of 10,323, and so it does not appear that traffic volumes have increased. Historic data on traffic speeds recorded at this location in 2009 also do not indicate that traffic speeds have changed noticeably compared to 2017 data. 2017 data shows that the 85%ile speed at this location is over the posted 50km/h speed limit.

6.3 Multiple pedestrian islands are located along Tennyson Street, at or in the immediate vicinity of the major desire lines. Concerns have been raised primarily surrounding the crossing at Norwood Street.

6.4 Staff have investigated this matter and proposed a plan to alter the existing refuge islands to improve their storage capacity for pedestrians and increase the separation from the live traffic lanes. Controlled priority pedestrian crossings such as a marked zebra crossing and traffic signals have been discounted due to low pedestrian demands and insufficient budget in the programme for traffic signals. Traffic is not used to stopping at a controlled pedestrian crossing when pedestrian demands are low, creating a safety issue. When pedestrians expect to have the right of way and vehicles are not used to stopping, this creates a conflict and over time often results in a poorer safety performance of the crossing.

6.5 Staff briefed the joint Community Boards on this project on 9^th March, 2020. However, the financial impacts on Council of the COVID-19 pandemic which followed shortly afterwards resulted in delays in the consultation for this project and a reduction in the scope, so that it no longer includes removing the existing island near Southampton Street as this incurred additional costs that was unnecessary in order to meet the project goals.

6.6 Consultation on the Tennyson Street - Pedestrian island improvements was open from 8 July to 16 August 2021. The plan that was distributed for consultation (referred to as Option One in this report) is shown in Attachment B. The consultation summary is attached as Attachment C.

6.7 Following consultation, due to the majority of feedback not in support of the project, council staff briefed the joint community boards to decide upon a way forward for this project. At this briefing the board also requested staff advice on a number of matters relating to this project, the answers to which are provided in the accompanying memorandum (Attachment D).

6.8 Based on the consultation feedback received, Option Two (as detailed in Attachment A) best reflects desires expressed in the consultation comments, in some cases explicitly requested. The vehicle tracking and swept paths around the proposed islands for Option Two are also shown in Attachment E for information.

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

6.9.1 Heathcote Ward (Linwood-Central-Heathcote Community Board area)

6.9.2 Cashmere Ward (Spreydon-Cashmere Community Board area)

7. Policy Framework Implications Ngā Hīraunga ā- Kaupapa here

Strategic Alignment Te Rautaki Tīaroaro

7.1 The New Zealand Road Safety Strategy - Road to Zero: sets a target to reduce death and serious injuries on New Zealand roads by 40% over the next 10 years. There are five key focus areas: infrastructure improvements and speed management, vehicle safety, work related road safety, road user choices, and system management.

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

7.2.1 Activity: Transport

· Level of Service: 10.0.2 Increase the share of non-car modes in daily trips - ≥17% of trips undertaken by non-car modes

· 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: 16.0.10 Maintain the perception that Christchurch is a walking friendly city - ≥85% resident satisfaction

Policy Consistency Te Whai Kaupapa here

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

Impact on Mana Whenua Ngā Whai Take Mana Whenua

7.4 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.

7.5 The effects of this proposal upon Mana Whenua are expected to be insignificant.

Climate Change Impact Considerations Ngā Whai Whakaaro mā te Āhuarangi

7.6 This proposal includes measures to slow vehicle speeds and improve road safety. This could encourage people to use alternative modes to the private vehicle which will result in positive changes to reduce carbon emissions and the effects of Climate Change.

Accessibility Considerations Ngā Whai Whakaaro mā te Hunga Hauā

7.7 This proposal will result in vehicles travelling at reduced speeds, which will provide a safer and more accessible environment for all road users, including pedestrians and cyclists.

8. Resource Implications Ngā Hīraunga Rauemi

Capex/Opex Ngā Utu Whakahaere

8.1 Cost to Implement – estimated cost approximately in the $100,000 to $300,000 range however this is subject to confirmation.

8.2 Maintenance/Ongoing costs – Estimated $5000 annual costs.

8.3 Funding Source – This project is funded from the School Safety programme.

Other He mea anō

8.4 None identified.

9. Legal Implications Ngā Hīraunga ā-Ture

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

9.1 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.

9.2 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, traffic islands and traffic restraints, and traffic control devices.

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

Other Legal Implications Ētahi atu Hīraunga-ā-Ture

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

9.5 This specific report has not been reviewed and approved by the Legal Services Unit however the report has been written using a general approach previously approved of by the Legal Services Unit, and the recommendations are consistent with the policy and legislative framework outlined in sections 8.1 – 8.3.

10. Risk Management Implications Ngā Hīraunga Tūraru

10.1 None identified

Attachments Ngā Tāpirihanga

No.	Title	Page
a ⇩	Tennyson Street Pedestrian Improvements - Option Two (recommended option) Plan for Approval	14
b ⇩	Tennyson Street Pedestrian Improvements - Option One (plan during consultation) Plan for information	15
c ⇩	Consultation Summary - Tennyson Street	16
d ⇩	Tennyson Street Pedestrian Improvements - additional information	17
e ⇩	Tennyson Street Pedestrian Improvements - Vehicle tracking (Option Two, recommended option) for information	19
f ⇩	Tennyson Street Crossing Improvements Memo	20
g ⇩	Tennyson Street Crossing Improvements for Approval	24

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

Gemma Dioni - Senior Transportation Engineer

Approved By

Stephen Wright - Acting Manager Operations (Transport)

Lynette Ellis - Head of Transport & Waste Management

Linwood-Central-Heathcote Community Board and Spreydon-Cashmere Community Board

12 August 2022

5. Confirmation of Spreydon, Somerfield, Waltham and Beckenham Christchurch Regeneration Acceleration Facility (CRAF) programme
Reference / Te Tohutoro:	22/1016964
Report of / Te Pou Matua:	Kelly Griffiths, Senior Project Manager, kelly.griffiths@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 for the Waihoro Spreydon-Cashmere Community Board and the Waikura Linwood-Central-Heathcote Community Board to reach a joint decision on the Christchurch Regeneration Acceleration Facility (CRAF) programme of work for the Spreydon, Somerfield, Waltham and Beckenham area. This report has been written by staff to inform the boards of the recommended programme for their approval.

1.2 The decision in this report is of low significance in relation to Christchurch City Council’s Significance and Engagement Policy. The level of significance was determined by the low number of affected parties, and the extent and impact of the work proposed.

2. Officer Recommendations Ngā Tūtohu

That the Linwood-Central-Heathcote Community Board and Spreydon-Cashmere Community Board:

1. Jointly approve the following Christchurch Regeneration Acceleration Facility (CRAF) projects for the Spreydon, Somerfield, Waltham and Beckenham CRAF programme, for investigation and delivery by staff:

a. A package of approximately 20 cycle improvements, including new and improved cycle lanes, hook turn boxes, new cycle connections, new markings and green surfacing.

b. A package of approximately 30 pedestrian improvements including buildouts/refuge islands with tactile paving, and crossings.

c. A package of traffic calming on six streets and intersections.

d. A package of footpath widening and surface improvements in seven locations.

e. An intersection improvement at the Strickland Street, Somerfield Street and Colombo Street intersection.

f. An area wide speed restriction.

g. New line marking to provide marked car parks on Rosewarne Street.

h. The rebuild of Huxley Street from Burlington Street to Montrose Street.

i. The rebuild of the whole of Sefton Place.

j. The rebuild of Dominion Avenue from Milton Street to the entrance of Christchurch South Intermediate.

Note: Detailed plans for the above projects have not yet been completed. A decision report with plans will be brought back to the appropriate Board for approval, before detailed design and construction.

3. Reason for Report Recommendations Ngā Take mō te Whakatau

3.1 The officer recommendations have been made because the projects included in the recommendation will contribute to achieving the intended benefits of CRAF, which are; improve the liveability, connectivity, safety and road condition in Spreydon, Somerfield, Waltham and Beckenham.

3.2 The Waihoro Spreydon-Cashmere Community Board and the Waikura Linwood-Central-Heathcote Community Boards have been presented with information on the options available, and staff have prepared this recommendation on the Spreydon, Somerfield, Waltham and Beckenham CRAF programme for their consideration.

4. Alternative Options Considered Ētahi atu Kōwhiringa

4.1 There were 154 recommendations for work in Spreydon, Somerfield, Waltham and Beckenham, which included the rebuild, restoration or repair of 27 streets, and a large number of safety and access improvements for cyclists, pedestrians, drivers and public transport users.

4.2 The Boards have been provided with information about each of the 154 recommendations for work as potential alternative options to make up the Spreydon, Somerfield, Waltham and Beckenham CRAF programme.

4.3 The information provided on the recommendations included prioritisation, delivery timeframes, high-level cost estimates, advantages and disadvantages of each category of work, and impact on the Spreydon, Somerfield, Waltham and Beckenham communities.

5. Detail Te Whakamahuki

5.1 In the 2017 central government election campaign, the Christchurch Regeneration Acceleration Facility (CRAF) was announced, as part of the ‘Plan for Canterbury’ to accelerate Christchurch’s recovery after the earthquakes.

5.2 After the election, CRAF was allocated $300 million, $40 million of this was allocated to transport projects.

5.3 To secure the $40 million, Council worked with Treasury to develop an investment proposal, and then a more detailed investment case, which was approved by Council before being submitted.

5.4 Of the $40 million, $30 million has been allocated to roading and transport improvements in five areas in Christchurch that experienced significant damage and disruption, or increased travel use following the earthquakes – Spreydon, Somerfield, Waltham, and Beckenham, Riccarton and Fendalton, Linwood and Woolston, Richmond, and New Brighton. The intended benefits of the $30 million is to improve the liveability, connectivity, safety and road condition in the five areas.

5.5 Of the $30 million, $6.5 million has been allocated to roading and transport improvements to safety and access, and condition in Spreydon, Somerfield, Waltham, and Beckenham, in the area shown in Attachment A.

5.6 Assessments of all the streets within the Spreydon, Somerfield, Waltham, and Beckenham CRAF area were undertaken, to identify all the safety and access faults (how safe and easy it is to access a location, street or property) and condition faults (what is the condition of the street).

Community Views and Preferences

5.7 To build on the list of faults identified in the assessments, community consultation was undertaken to gain local knowledge of the issues and faults in the Spreydon, Somerfield, Waltham, and Beckenham area.

5.8 The consultation was called ‘Better Safer Roads’ and was open from 18 February to 15 March 2021.

5.9 Leaflets were delivered to all the properties and businesses within the Spreydon, Somerfield, Waltham, and Beckenham CRAF area.

5.10 Staff also emailed key stakeholders, and had a ‘Have Your Say’ page which included an interactive map where people could leave their comments.

5.11 A drop-in session was held for people to talk to staff and provide feedback on the Spreydon, Somerfield, Waltham, and Beckenham CRAF programme at the Beckenham Service Centre during the consultation period.

5.12 213 submissions were received for the Spreydon, Somerfield, Waltham, and Beckenham area; these came from the ‘Have Your Say’ page, the interactive map, and emails. The submissions can be viewed in Attachment B.

5.13 Requests for pedestrian improvements, footpath repairs and cycle facility improvements were the most common submitters themes.

5.14 There were 154 recommendations for work in Spreydon, Somerfield, Waltham and Beckenham, which included the rebuild, restoration or repair of 27 streets, and a large number of safety and access improvements for cyclists, pedestrians, drivers and public transport users.

5.15 The Boards were given the following definitions for repair, rebuild, and restoration:

· Repair – Isolated damage requiring minimal construction to return the complete asset to a suitable condition. This would generally require no community engagement, no approvals, and minimal design. Work can generally be completed within 6 months.

· Restoration – Multiple patches of damage greater than 20 metres. For the road carriageway, restoration is generally a reshaping of the top surface. This would generally require some community engagement, some approvals, and more detailed design. Work can generally be completed within 6 to 18 months.

· Rebuild – Significant damage to a street requiring a full replacement of the damaged assets. This work will require community engagement, Community Board or Council approval, and full detailed design. This work can be completed within 18 to 36 months.

5.16 Each of the 154 recommendations were prioritised by staff on a scale of one to five – five being the highest priority, one being the lowest priority. The prioritisation of the safety and access issues takes into account proximity to key destinations, such as schools and commercial centres, and the impact of the work. The prioritisation of the condition work is based on the level of deterioration of the street.

5.17 The Boards were given the prioritisation, delivery timeframes, and high-level cost estimates for each of the 154 recommendations. They were informed the Spreydon, Somerfield, Waltham and Beckenham CRAF budget is not sufficient to complete all work identified, and that the Boards would need to work together to determine how to allocate the budget.

5.18 The Boards advised their preference for projects that generally improved safety and access in the area, including improving the condition of footpaths, provided new crossing facilities - including at the Somerfield Street and Selwyn Street intersection, and the Milton Street and Everard Street intersection – reducing speed, upgrading the Strickland Street, Somerfield Street and Colombo Street intersection, and providing car park line marking on Rosewarne Street.

5.19 The Boards also advised their preference to rebuild some of the most badly damaged streets in the area.

5.20 The Boards preferences have been incorporated into the Spreydon, Somerfield, Waltham and Beckenham CRAF programme.

5.21 The delivery of some of the projects will be coordinated with the delivery of a number of projects from the Area Engineer, to ensure efficiencies with construction and to minimise disruption to the residents.

5.22 Staff are recommending a phased delivery of the projects in the programme to ensure there is sufficient budget to deliver all the projects, in light of the recent increases in construction costs. Once the scheme stage cost estimates for the projects are completed, a review of the estimates will be undertaken prior to community consultation, to ensure there is sufficient budget.

5.23 The following programme of work is the staff recommendation for the Spreydon, Somerfield, Waltham and Beckenham CRAF programme which has been compiled from the Boards' feedback, for the Boards to consider:

a. A package of approximately 20 cycle improvements, including new and improved cycle lanes, hook turn boxes, new cycle connections, new markings and green surfacing.

b. A package of approximately 30 pedestrian improvements including buildouts/refuge islands with tactile paving, and crossing, including at the Somerfield Street and Selwyn Street intersection, and the Milton Street and Everard Street intersection.

c. A package of traffic calming on six streets and intersections.

d. A package of footpath widening and surface improvements in seven locations.

e. An intersection upgrade at the Strickland Street, Somerfield Street and Colombo Street intersection.

f. An area wide speed restriction (Attachment C).

g. New line marking to provide marked car parks on Rosewarne Street.

h. The rebuild of Huxley Street from Burlington Street to Montrose Street.

i. The rebuild of the whole of Sefton Place.

j. The rebuild of Dominion Avenue from Milton Street to the entrance of Christchurch South Intermediate.

5.24 The anticipated delivery timeframes for the programme can be viewed in Attachment D. The timeframes have allowed for the 2022 Council elections.

5.25 The decision affects the Spreydon, Cashmere and Heathcote wards. The Waihoro Spreydon-Cashmere Community Board and the Waikura Linwood-Central-Heathcote Community Board jointly have the delegated authority to make this decision on the Spreydon, Somerfield, Waltham and Beckenham CRAF programme.

5.26 Detailed plans for the above projects have not yet been completed. A decision report with plans will be brought back to the appropriate Board for approval, before detailed design and construction.

5.27 Community consultation on the individual projects will take place once draft designs are completed, and this feedback will be presented to the appropriate Board.

6. Policy Framework Implications Ngā Hīraunga ā- Kaupapa here

Strategic Alignment Te Rautaki Tīaroaro

6.1 The projects listed above will deliver on a range of benefits that align with Council’s policies and strategies associated with providing a level of service for safety, accessibility and condition:

· The Safer Christchurch Strategy (2016)

· The New Zealand Road Safety Strategy - Road to Zero: sets a target to reduce death and serious injuries on New Zealand roads by 40% over the next 10 years. There are five key focus areas: infrastructure improvements and speed management, vehicle safety, work related road safety, road user choices, and system management.

· The Equity and Access for People with Disabilities Policy (2001)

· The Land Transport Rule: Setting of Speed Limits 2017: requires that road controlling authorities must set speed limits that are safe and appropriate, and encourages a consistent approach to speed management throughout New Zealand.

· The Transport Management Plan and the Transport Activity Plan, which provide the foundations for Council’s Long Term Plan.

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

6.2.1 Activity: Transport

· Level of Service: 16.0.1 Maintain roadway condition to an appropriate national standard, - ≥5% of the sealed local road network is resurfaced per year

· 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: 16.0.10 Maintain the perception that Christchurch is a walking friendly city - ≥85% resident satisfaction

· Level of Service: 10.0.2 Increase the share of non-car modes in daily trips - ≥17% of trips undertaken by non-car modes

· Level of Service: 10.5.2 Improve the perception that Christchurch is a cycling friendly city) - ≥65% resident satisfaction

· Level of Service: 10.5.3 More people are choosing to travel by cycling - ≥12,000 average daily cyclist detections

· Level of Service: 10.0.41 Reduce emissions and greenhouse gases related to transport - ≤1.10 million tonnes of CO2 equivalents

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 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 The majority of the work in the recommended programme will includes measures to slow vehicle speeds and improve road safety. This could encourage people to use alternative modes of transport, which will result in reduced carbon emissions and have a positive effect on climate change.

Accessibility Considerations Ngā Whai Whakaaro mā te Hunga Hauā

6.6 The majority of the work in the recommended programme will result in vehicles travelling at reduced speeds, which will provide a safer and more accessible environment for all road users, including pedestrians and cyclists.

7. Resource Implications Ngā Hīraunga Rauemi

Capex/Opex / Ngā Utu Whakahaere

7.1 Cost to Implement - $6.5 million has been allocated for the Spreydon, Somerfield, Waltham and Beckenham programme, this includes all staff costs.

7.2 Maintenance/Ongoing costs - these will be calculated for each project, and detailed in the decision reports.

7.3 Funding Source - the $40 million Christchurch Regeneration Acceleration Facility, provided by Treasury.

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 The Waihoro Spreydon-Cashmere Community Board and the Waikura Linwood-Central-Heathcote Community Board jointly have the delegated authority to make this decision on the Spreydon, Somerfield, Waltham and Beckenham CRAF programme.

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 If the Waihoro Spreydon-Cashmere Community Board and the Waikura Linwood-Central-Heathcote Community Board do not approve a CRAF programme for Spreydon, Somerfield, Waltham and Beckenham, there is a reputational risk with Treasury that Council is unable to deliver on the CRAF programme it committed to delivering in the Investment Case.

Attachments / Ngā Tāpirihanga

No.	Title	Page
a ⇩	Area map	32
b ⇩	Submissions	33
c ⇩	Speed limit plan	74
d ⇩	Delivery timeframes	75

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

Document Name	Location / File Link
<enter document name>	<enter location/hyperlink>
<enter document name>	<enter location/hyperlink>

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	Kelly Griffiths - Senior Project Manager
Approved By	Lynette Ellis - Head of Transport & Waste Management