|
Council
24 January 2024
|
|
|
9. Christchurch Model Yacht Club -
Landlord Permission for Building Mural
|
|
Reference / Te Tohutoro:
|
23/2039649
|
|
Report of / Te Pou Matua:
|
Felix
Dawson, Leasing Consultant (felix.r.dawson@ccc.govt.nz)
|
|
Senior Manager / Pouwhakarae:
|
Andrew
Rutledge, Acting General Manager Citizens and Community
(Andrew.Rutledge@ccc.govt.nz)
|
1. Purpose and Origin of Report Te Pūtake Pūrongo
1.1 The purpose of the report is to seek the Council's
permission, as Landlord, to approve a painted mural on the Christchurch Model
Yacht Club Incorporated (the "Club") building located adjacent to
Victoria Lake on Hagley Park.
1.2 The report is generated at the request of the Club, to
ensure compliance with the lease.
1.3 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 number of people affected being the local
community and visitors to the area.
1.4 In
accordance with the lease, the Club is required to obtain Landlord consent
prior to making any additions or improvements on the building occupying the
leased land.
2. Officer Recommendations Ngā
Tūtohu
That the Council:
1. Approve the request from Christchurch Model
Yacht Club Incorporated to paint a mural, as depicted in Attachment A, on their
clubhouse building located adjacent to Victoria Lake, Hagley Park to
commemorate the 125 year anniversary of the Club.
3. Reason for Report Recommendations Ngā Take mō te
Whakatau
3.1 The
report recommendation ensures compliance by the Club with their lease
conditions.
4. Alternative Options Considered Ētahi atu Kōwhiringa
4.1 Declining
the request of the Club is not practical and would be unsupportive of local
initiatives.
5. Detail Te Whakamahuki
The Club
5.1 The
Club was established in 1898 and is the oldest model yacht club in New Zealand
and the second oldest club in the world.
5.2 The
Club celebrated its 125th anniversary in June 2023 with a commemorative plaque
unveiled by Mayor Mauger.
5.3 There
are more than 95 members in the Club.
5.4 Sailing
is at Lake Victoria in North Hagley Park as well as Lake Rua in the winter
months.
5.5 The
Club owns the building and leases the land through a ground lease with the
Council.
The Mural
5.6 To
celebrate the 125th anniversary of the Club, a request has been made
to paint a mural on the exterior of the building as depicted below.
Consultation
5.7 The
Hagley Park Reference Group was advised at the July 2023 workshop that the
Christchurch Model Yacht Club wished to install a mural on their building. No
concerns were noted.
5.8 Council
Officer Notification and Support received from:
· Parks Unit Visitor
Experience Team
· Principal Advisor
Community Arts
· Director Botanic Gardens
& Garden Parks; Hagley Park Manager
· Heritage Conservation
Projects Planner
Hagley Park / Botanic Gardens Master
Plan 2007
5.9 The
project contributes to the vision for Hagley Park by contributing to a number
of elements of the vision:
· Retaining a landscape
character that reflects the central city’s open space heritage but which
is also in harmony with the contemporary urban environment.
· Valued for its cultural
heritage value.
5.10 One
of the performance indicators for the Plan is that key heritage and cultural
values of the Park are understood, recognised, conserved and, where
appropriate, enhanced and celebrated through interpretation and public events.
The new mural on the building will enhance this.
5.11 The
decision affects the following wards/Community Board areas:
5.11.1 All wards/Community
Board areas as this is Hagley Park is a metropolitan asset.
6. Policy Framework Implications Ngā Hīraunga ā- Kaupapa here
Strategic
AlignmentTe Rautaki
Tīaroaro
6.1 This report supports the Council's
Long Term Plan (2021 - 2031):
6.2 Parks, heritage and coastal environment
6.2.1 Activity: Parks and Foreshore
· Level of Service: 6.8.4.1 Overall customer
satisfaction with the presentation of Hagley Park - Hagley Park
presentation: resident satisfaction >=90 %
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.
6.5 The
decision does not involve a matter of interest to Mana
Whenua and will not impact on our agreed partnership priorities with Ngā Papatipu Rūnanga.
6.6 Te Aporei Whakawhanaunga ā-Tiriti, Pari Hunt, has advised that
consultation with MKT is not required in this matter.
Climate
Change Impact Considerations Ngā Whai Whakaaro mā te Āhuarangi
6.7 The
proposals in this report are unlikely to contribute significantly to adaptation
to the impacts of climate change or emissions reductions.
6.8 No significant impacts are anticipated as the request is to improve
the appearance of an existing building at Hagley Park.
Accessibility
Considerations Ngā
Whai Whakaaro mā te Hunga Hauā
6.9 This decision does not affect accessibility considerations.
7. Resource Implications Ngā Hīraunga Rauemi
Capex/Opex Ngā Utu Whakahaere
7.1 Cost
to Implement – no cost to the Council as Landlord.
7.2 Maintenance/Ongoing
costs – Christchurch Model Yacht Club.
7.3 Funding
Source – the Club is investigating contributions from the Intangible
Heritage Grant fund; staff will advise on other potential grant funding
sources. The Club will be making in-kind and financial donations; other
grants, private donations and sponsorship is being sought for the balance of
the funding. The Club will be undertaking other fundraising activities.
Other He mea anō
7.4 Not
applicable
8. Legal Implications Ngā Hīraunga ā-Ture
Statutory power to undertake proposals in the report
Te Manatū Whakahaere Kaupapa
8.1 Hagley
Park is a metropolitan asset, therefore the decision to grant Landlord approval
sits with the full Council.
Other Legal Implications Ētahi atu
Hīraunga-ā-Ture
8.2 The
legal issue is ensuring compliance with the lease agreement and clause 6.1. of
the lease which stipulates that no changes to the colour of any building may be
made without the prior written consent of the Lessor (the Council).
9. Risk Management Implications Ngā Hīraunga Tūraru
9.1 There
may be minimal risk to the Council in not approving the installation of the
mural requested by the Christchurch Model Yacht Club. This may result in
some negative publicity.
10. Next Steps Ngā Mahinga ā-muri
10.1 The
decision seeking Landlord approval for the mural will be communicated to the
Christchurch Model Yacht Club following the Council meeting.
Attachments Ngā Tāpirihanga
|
No.
|
Title
|
Reference
|
Page
|
|
a ⇩
|
Attachment A -
Mural
|
24/25143
|
47
|
In addition to the attached documents, the following background
information is available:
|
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
|
Kathy Jarden -
Team Leader Leasing Consultancy
|
|
Approved By
|
Angus Smith -
Manager Property Consultancy
Rupert Bool -
Manager Metropolitan Parks
Al Hardy -
Acting Head of Parks
|
|
Council
24 January 2024
|
|
|
10. Yaldhurst Memorial Hall - Future Use Issues
and Options
|
|
Reference / Te Tohutoro:
|
23/1663490
|
|
Report of / Te Pou Matua:
|
Matthew
Pratt, Community Facilities and Activation Manager, Community Support and
Partnerships (matthew.pratt@ccc.govt.nz); Angus Smith, Manager Property
Consultancy (angus.smith@ccc.govt.nz)
|
|
Senior Manager / Pouwhakarae:
|
Jane
Parfitt, Interim General Manager Infrastructure, Planning and Regulatory
Services (Jane.Parfitt@ccc.govt.nz)
|
1. Purpose and Origin of Report Te Pūtake Pūrongo
1.1 This report summarises the outcome of an expression of
interest (EOI) process, provides a summary of issues and options and seeks a
Council decision regarding the future use of the Yaldhurst Memorial Hall to
inform pending LTP 2024-2034 discussions.
1.2 A prior Council resolution required staff to undertake an
EOI process for the Yaldhurst Memorial Hall to identify a community based group
able to own, upgrade and maintain the Hall at no cost to the Council.
1.3 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 fact that the affected parties are a small
group, and the effects of the report are generally positive as it provides a
solution to the inertia associated with this long-standing issue.
1.4 The
proposed recommendation is structured such that there is no cost to Council and
thus would have no impact on rates.
2. Officer Recommendations Ngā
Tūtohu
That
the Council:
1. Approve a departure from the Disposal of
Council Property Policy 2000 for the Yaldhurst Memorial Hall noting that:
a. This policy primarily states that the Council
shall publicly tender properties for sale unless
there is a clear reason for doing otherwise. This report and resolutions
propose a unilateral dealing which is inconsistent and therefore a departure
from the policy; and
b. The reason for the inconsistency with the
Policy requiring the departure is because there are currently no other
proposals or effective options, mainly because of the heritage and earthquake
prone building status.
c. The Council has no intention of changing the
Disposal of Council Property Policy 2000 to accommodate this decision.
2. Approve that Council Officers can deal
unilaterally with the Yaldhurst Rural Residents Association (YRRA) in respect
of the Yaldhurst Memorial Hall at 254 Pound Road.
3. Gift the Yaldhurst Memorial Hall at 524 Pound
Road to the YRRA for the sum of $1, the gift being conditional on:
a. The Council undertaking a special consultative
procedure via the 2024-2034 Long Term Plan consultation;
b. The Council confirming the decision on the
gifting the Yaldhurst Memorial Hall at 524 Pound Road to the YRRA upon adopting
the 2024-2034 Long Term Plan.
c. Upon satisfaction of the above conditions,
that there is a requirement on the transfer of the building that:
i. it be strengthened and repaired to a minimum
of 34% NBS (so it can be removed from the national earthquake prone register of
buildings), and
ii. it be code compliant standard, ready for
occupation (the scope and standard of works to be determined and approved with,
and at, Council’s discretion) within 5 years from the date of
transferring ownership from the Council to the YRRA.
d. The repair and subsequent operation and
maintenance of the building being at no cost to the Council (including the cost
of securing any necessary consents);
e. The Council having a first right of refusal
option to take the building back if the YRRA fail to perform the condition
(4)(c) above.
4. To give effect to the transfer of the
building, agree to lease the land at 524 Pound Road to the YRRA at a peppercorn
rent (for a term of years to terminate if and when the YRRA return the building
to Council ownership, or the building no longer exists).
5. Authorise the Manager Property Consultancy to
negotiate and conclude all of the agreements necessary to facilitate the above
resolutions on terms and conditions acceptable to him, and in doing so make any
decisions necessary to give effect to resolutions 1 to 4 above.
3. Reason for Report Recommendations Ngā Take mō te
Whakatau
3.1 This
report recommends gifting/transferring the Yaldhurst Memorial Hall (the Hall)
to the Yaldhurst Rural Residents Association Incorporated (YRRA) on an
‘as is where is’ basis, to fund repairs to 34% and then own,
operate, and manage. The Council will retain the land.
3.2 Since
its closure in 2011 a state of inertia has evolved regarding the future use of
the Hall. The Council has determined that it has no use or demand for it as a
community facility while the Yaldhurst Rural Residents Association (YRRA) have
been strong advocates for its retention and reinstatement as a vital rural
community hub.
3.3 To
inform the decision-making process the Council, as part of the approval and
adoption of the 2021/31 LTP, passed the following resolution (C-LTP/2021/00106
M19Ai):
“That the Council undertake an
expression of interest (EOI) process for Yaldhurst Memorial Hall, to identify a
community- based group able to own, upgrade, operate and maintain the hall at
no cost to Council. The property can be transferred as a community asset
transfer to an appropriate community group for a less than market price subject
to the new owners repairing the hall to a minimum 67% of NBS standard, and
operating and maintaining it for community purposes for a minimum of five
years. The repair, operation and maintenance of the facility would be at no
cost to ratepayers. The EOI would apply to the building only, with the land to
remain with Council”.
3.4 The
YRRA, as the only respondent to the EOI, remain committed to activating and
running the Hall as a community facility. Conversely, Council staff have
reservations regarding the YRRA’s ability and capacity to source the
funding necessary and to manage the works required to repair the building to a
standard fit for occupation and use.
3.5 However,
recognising the YRRA’s commitment and the recent scheduling of the Hall
as a listed heritage item, there is some merit in transferring ownership of the
Hall to the YRRA on a time bound basis to provide them with the opportunity to
fund the repair and activation of the Hall, at no cost to the Council. This
option (referred to below as Option 5 – Recommended Option) together with
several alternative options are considered further below.
4. Alternative Options Considered Ētahi atu Kōwhiringa
4.1 The
options (1 to 6) below are analysed and presented with the following:
· A discounted cash
flow (DCF) analysis showing results in a net present value (NPV) form from the
Council’s perspective. A positive NPV indicates a favourable option i.e.,
the cost of capital and required return is covered and the positive amount
reflects the financial gain on that option under that analysis. A negative NPV
(in red) reflects a financial loss to the
Council.
· An advantages and
disadvantages analysis table.
4.2 The
DCF analysis of the options is rudimentary and simplistic, containing a number
of generic assumptions to enable a relative financial comparison of the
options.
4.3 Option
1. The Hall remains closed/ Status Quo (Do Nothing)
This option is not recommended as a
resolution promoting a positive way forward for the Council to determine the
future use of the building.
Indicative DCF outcome: NPV $13,750.
|
Advantages
|
Disadvantages
|
|
Scheduled
heritage building remains insitu i.e., not demolished
|
The Hall
remains closed; continued inertia
|
|
The Hall
continues to deteriorate
|
|
Ongoing
Council unbudgeted Capex/OPEX required
|
|
*Earthquake
Prone Buildings (EPB) Notice remains ‘live’ (*EPB: the notice
requires action by the owner (repair or demolition of the Hall) by 2035).
|
|
Continued
frustration for the YRRA / Council
|
4.4 Option
2. Demolish the Hall and sell the land.
This option includes the demolition of the
building, which is not recommended, at this stage, from a heritage and public
perception perspective. (Note: a variation to this option could contemplate
retention of the land as a war memorial park. This is not considered ideal
given the site’s isolated rural location and proximity to a busy
intersection).
Indicative DCF outcome: *NPV $110,000
|
Advantages
|
Disadvantages
|
|
A positive
response to ongoing inertia
|
Scheduled
heritage building demolished
|
|
Council’s
ongoing unbudgeted CAPEX / OPEX liability extinguished
|
Resource
Consent required for demolition: political and challenging as now a scheduled
building.
|
|
Potential
income to the Council from the sale of the land
|
Opposition to
the sale of land gifted for war memorial purposes
|
|
Staff work
with the YRRA to repatriate / preserve memorial plaques in the Yaldhurst area
|
*A disputed
resource consent process and unforeseen asbestos removal costs could
significantly reduce net land sale proceeds of $110,000
|
|
Retention of
the Hall as a community facility is not supported by the Council’s
Community Facilities, Support and Partnerships Unit (CPSU) – community
need in the area is adequately provided for
|
The YRRA
required to seek an alternative base
|
|
|
Remediation
of the land would be required before any future use is developed
|
4.5 Option
3. Council upgrades the Hall and sells/gifts to the YRRA
This option is not recommended in the
current fiscal environment. (Note: a variation to this option could involve
also transferring the land to the YRRA (which is also not recommended).
Indicative DCF outcome: NPV -$2,300,300
|
Advantages
|
Disadvantages
|
|
Provides a
Hall available for immediate occupation and use by the YRRA
|
Council is
required to find $2.3m of currently unbudgeted expenditure to strengthen and
repair the Hall to 67% NBS
|
|
Hall
ownership / occupation costs (maintenance, repairs, insurance etc)
transferred to the YRRA
|
Direct impact
on rates
|
|
Council
retains control of the land asset
|
Council Opex
budget required for insurance
|
|
Land
maintenance costs transferred to the YRRA
|
Retention of
the Hall as a community facility is not supported by the Council’s
Community Facilities, Support and Partnerships Unit (CPSU) – community
need in the area is adequately provided for
|
4.6 Option
4. Council upgrades the Hall and manages as a community facility
This option is not recommended in the
current fiscal environment. (There is also no requirement from a Community
Facilities Network perspective for this building as a Council owned community
facility in this area).
Indicative DCF outcome: NPV -$1,978,961
|
Advantages
|
Disadvantages
|
|
Provides a
Hall available for immediate occupation and use
|
Retention of
the Hall as a community facility is not supported by the Council’s
Community Facilities, Support and Partnerships Unit (CPSU) – community
need in the area is adequately provided for
|
|
The YRRA
could hire space in the Hall
|
It would
require Council allocating currently unbudgeted CAPEX of $2.3m to strengthen
and repair the Hall to 67% NBS and OPEX of c$10,000+pa
|
|
Assumed hire
income of $20,000 p.a.
|
*NPV –
leasing (typically based on peppercorn rents), would likely reduce the above
NPV return (which is based on income from casual hires)
|
4.7 Option
5. Council transfers the Hall to the YRRA ‘as is where is’
– (Recommended Option)
This option would require the Council to
transfer ownership of the Hall to the YRRA. The Hall would be handed over in an
‘as is where is’ condition. The YRRA would assume responsibility
for securing the funds required to strengthen and repair the Hall to 34% NBS
(based on the Councils strengthening and repair strategy and estimated cost of
$2.3m). Once repaired the YRRA would manage and maintain the Hall at no cost to
the Council. This would be conditional on the YRRA securing the necessary funding
and completing the strengthening and repair works within 5 years.
This is the recommended option.
(Note: a variation to this option could involve also transferring the land to
the YRRA. Although this option would provide the YRRA more leverage from a
funding perspective it also requires the Council to give away control and value
of the land which is not recommended).
Indicative DCF outcome: NPV $15,000
|
Advantages
|
Disadvantages
|
|
Ends the
inertia associated with the future use of the Hall; further deterioration of
the Hall should be minimised; completion of the works will enable the EPB
notice to be lifted
|
Risk that the
YRRA will fail to generate the funding required to repair the Hall
|
|
Unbudgeted
costs for repair and ongoing maintenance transferred from the Council to the
YRRA
|
Risk that the
YRRA will apply to the Council for future unbudgeted funding through the LTP
|
|
Ownership
Provides the YRRA with the opportunity to deliver on their vision
|
Staff concern
regarding the sustainable (realistic) utilisation of the facility by
community / other groups
|
|
The Hall
remains available for local rural community use
|
Hall returned
to the Council after 5 years in a worse state
|
|
Ownership of
the Hall provides the YRRA with stronger funding leverage
|
Potential
negative feedback resulting from gifting a building ‘as is where
is’ to a community group
|
|
Retention of
a scheduled heritage building
|
Negative
feedback (unlikely) from the Council’s decision to deal unilaterally
with the YRRA
|
|
The land
remains in the Council’s ownership
|
Negative
feedback associated with the Council transferring ownership of a (albeit
deteriorating) strategic asset
|
|
A time bound
encumbrance providing the Council with the option to take the Hall back if
the YRRA fail to fund and repair, or no longer require, the Hall after 5
years
|
Retention of
the Hall as a community facility is not supported by the Council’s
Community Facilities, Support and Partnerships Unit (CPSU) – community
need in the area is adequately provided for
|
4.8 Option
6. Sell the Property (land and Hall) as is where is
This option is a variation on Option 2,
sell the land and building to a third party with a covenant requiring repair
and retention of the Hall. Given the costs to strengthen and repair the Hall,
the likely price a third party would be prepared to offer would likely be
nominal i.e., $10,000 to $20,000.
Options 2 and 6 (sale to a third party)
would be subject to the Council undertaking consultation pursuant to s138 Local
Government Act 2002 and clearing Council’s s40 offer-back obligations, if
any.
Given the ongoing interest of the YRRA,
the local community board, and the local community, either sale option would
likely be politically sensitive and unpopular.
This option is not recommended.
4.9 Financial
Summary of options 1 to 5.
|
|
NPV
|
|
Option 1: Do
nothing
|
$13,750
|
|
Option 2:
Demolish the Hall and sell the land
|
*$110,000
|
|
Option 3:
Upgrade the Hall and gift to the YRRA
|
-$2,300,300
|
|
Option 4: CCC
upgrade and Manage the Hall
|
-$1,978,961
|
|
Option 5: Gift the Hall to the YRRA ‘as is where
is’
|
$15,000
|
4.10 The
Council’s prior resolution contemplates the transfer of the Hall to a
community group able to own, upgrade, operate and maintain the Hall as
community facility for a minimum of 5 years at no cost to the ratepayer with
the Council retaining the land.
4.11 Option
5 most readily delivers the intent of the Council’s resolution. However,
based on the business case information provided by the YRRA, staff have
reservations around the ability and capacity of the YRRA to secure the funding
necessary to strengthen and repair the Hall without recourse to seeking capital
funding from the Council at some point in the future.
4.12 In
context, had the building not been scheduled recently as a heritage item the
staff recommendation would have favoured demolition of the building from a
financial perspective and based on there being no compelling community need for
the building in the area.
4.13 Making
the gift to the YRRA subject to a time-bound encumbrance provides the Council
with an ability to intervene and take the building back if, and only if, the
YRRA run into difficulties.
4.14 In
the interim option 5 provides the YRRA with an opportunity to pursue and
deliver their vision, at no cost to the Council.
5. Detail Te Whakamahuki
Background
5.1 The
future use of the Hall has been the subject of numerous reports and discussions
since its closure in 2011. To provide background and context to the discussion
and options considered in this report a brief summary of key events is
referenced in chronological order below.
5.2 The
Hall is situated on fee simple land at 524 Pound Road at the intersection of
Pound Road, West Coast Road and Yaldhurst Road. The land extends to some 1577m2
and is described as Section 6 SO Plan 448090, held in Record of Title 574923.
5.3 The
site is zoned rural urban fringe, the permitted uses for which are relatively
limited i.e., veterinary care facility, emergency services facility and not
residential. General advice from the planning team is that the use of rural
land for non-rural or rural-related activities is not simple; consent is
probably required for most uses.
5.4 The
land was acquired from Colin William Alexander Kyle in 1953 and ownership
transferred to Council for the purposes of a War Memorial. The Hall was
constructed in 1954 with funds raised by the community in association with a
pound for pound government subsidy scheme for the construction of war memorials
around New Zealand. The Council assumed ownership of the building on
completion.
5.5 Use
of the Hall for community purposes by the Yaldhurst War Memorial Hall Committee
continued until it was closed following the 2010 / 2011 Canterbury Earthquake
sequence.
5.6 In
2012, a Detailed Seismic Assessment (DSA) Report by Opus determined that the
building’s earthquake capacity was in the order of 6% NBS (buildings
with a seismic capacity of less than 34%NBS are classified as earthquake prone).
5.7 The
Hall remains closed under the Council’s occupancy policy which requires
its buildings to have a minimum rating of 34%NBS (but preferably greater than
67%NBS).
5.8 In
the interim, while the Hall has been deemed surplus to Council’s
Community Facilities network requirements, the YRRA have been promoting its
retention and reinstatement as a community facility.
5.9 Staff
and Community Board recommendations to demolish the Hall in 2017 and 2018 were
placed on hold to provide the YRRA the opportunity to submit a sustainable
business case for the continued community need, activation and funding of the
Hall by June 2018 (extended to April 2019 and not received at that time).
5.10 In
March 2018 the cost to strengthen and repair the Hall to 67%NBS was estimated
to be in the order of $1.5m in an independent QS report prepared for Council by
WT Partnership.
5.11 In
March 2020 the YRRA submitted a DSA prepared by TH Consultants Ltd which
assessed the buildings seismic capacity at 55%NBS (i.e. not earthquake prone).
5.12 The
Opus and TH Consultants DSA reports were subsequently assessed via peer review
by Council’s Compliance and Building Consents Unit which precipitated the
issue of an Earthquake Prone Building (EPB) notice on 27 July 2020 (requiring
demolition of the building or remedial action by July 2035).
5.13 The
YRRA sought a review of the Hall’s EPB status. Following a meeting with
Council’s Building Consents team on 1 September 2020, TH Consultants Ltd
were advised what additional engineering information would be required to
facilitate this review (refer 5.16 below).
5.14 To
inform decision making around the future use of the Hall, the Council resolved
on 21 June 2021 to undertake an Expression of Interest (EOI) process to
identify a community-based group able to own, upgrade, operate and maintain the
Hall at no cost to the Council.
5.15 The
EOI was released on 17 November 2021. One submission was received – from
the YRRA. This was deemed a ‘Fail’ on the basis of insufficient
financial information. The YRRA were requested to provide additional financial
/ business case information for assessment.
5.16 (On
6 May 2022 TH Consultants submitted a one-page engineering update indicating
that they were preparing an updated DSA which would be provided once that
report had been reviewed by an independent engineering consultant and a site
visit undertaken – to date this DSA report, and supporting engineers PS2
has not been received by Council staff).
5.17 A
further business case submission was received from the YRRA in September 2022.
To better understand the rationale behind the YRRA’s proposed repair
strategy, scope of works and cashflow forecast (which assumed a strengthening
and repair budget of only $557,000 to achieve an NBS of 67%) Council staff
requested copies of TH Consultants updated Engineering report (refer 5.16
above) and the supporting QS cost estimate report.
5.18 To
date this information has not been received from the YRRA. As a consequence,
Council staff engaged Finesse Consulting Engineers Ltd (FCEL) in October 2022
to undertake a peer review of the available engineering documentation in
conjunction with a full on-site inspection. This report concluded that the
building has an assessed seismic capacity of 15%NBS (and is thus considered an
EPB).
5.19 Based
on this report, and an associated engineered strengthening / repair concept to
67%NBS, WT Partnership provided an updated cost estimate for Council in
February 2023 of $2.32m plus GST to upgrade the Hall to the standard required
for full compliance prior to occupation and use (refer to 5.33 / 5.34 for
commentary regarding ‘exclusions’).
5.20 Following
subsequent submissions to the recent Plan Change 13 Hearings process, the Hall
is now registered as a Scheduled Heritage Item. All and any future repairs /
alterations to, or demolition of, the Hall will require resource consent.
5.21 Numerous
incremental repairs have been carried out on the Hall since 2011. It remains
closed and continues to deteriorate. The windows are now boarded up to minimise
vandalism.
5.22 There
is currently no allocated LTP Capital or OPEX funding allocated to the Hall.
The Hall – An Earthquake Prone
Building (EPB) Structure
5.23 The
Hall is a predominantly single storey structure with a combination of timber
framed, reinforced concrete and unreinforced masonry construction.
5.24 The
Council’s occupancy policy notes that “buildings which have a
seismic capacity of 33% NBS or less and have significant damage (as defined by
MBIE) and / or have brittle collapse mechanisms shall not be occupied –
all other buildings are generally fit to occupy.” It’s noted
that the Council’s preference is for its buildings to have a minimum
seismic capacity of 67% NBS.
5.25 The
most recent, and defining, independent engineering report was prepared by FCEL
in October 2022 the scope of which included:
· A detailed review of
existing drawings and reports. This included:
o Opus DSA Report 2012 (for Council)
– rated the structure at 6% NBS.
o TH Consultants Report 2020 (for
the YRRA) – rated the structure at 55% NBS.
· Site visit to
observe the existing layout / condition of, and damage to, the Hall.
· A quantitative
structural analysis as per MBIE EPB Guidance and NZSEE Assessment Guidance
Documents 2017.
· Reference to current
New Zealand design codes as per NZS1170.5: 2004.
· The provision of
concept strengthening solutions to achieve 34% NBS and 67% NBS.
5.26 The
report assessed the Hall structure at 15% NBS and therefore an EPB with the
weakest elements being the large unreinforced masonry panels, the reinforced
concrete chimney structure and the roof bracing.
5.27 The
strengthening works required to achieve a seismic rating of 67% NBS included:
· Removal or
significant strengthening of the chimney structure.
· Removal or
strengthening of the infill masonry panels.
· Introducing
horizontal roof trusses or diaphragms to improve end wall and roof load
transfers.
· Confirming
reinforcing in the masonry wall located by the entry lobby. Ensure diaphragm
connects this masonry to the main structure.
· Strengthening the
reinforced concrete columns (likely by introducing new portal frames).
5.28 A
copy of the FCEL report and concept plans are appended as Attachment A.
Copies of the Opus and TH Consultants reports are appended as Attachment B.
5.29 An
EPB Notice was issued to the Council as building owner in July 2020 under
Section 133AL of the Building Act 2004 requiring the demolition, or
strengthening and repair, of the building to be completed by July 2035.
5.30 The
YRRA’s engineering consultant met with the Council’s Building
Consent staff in 2020 and received a summary of the additional engineering
information required by the Consents team to review the EPB status of the Hall.
This further information (in the form of a formal report supported by an
independent engineer’s peer review and PS2) has not been provided to
date.
Cost Estimates – Strengthening
and Repair
5.31 Based
on the FCEL report and strengthening concepts WT Partnership prepared,
5.32
an independent cost estimate in February 2023 for strengthening, repairing and
upgrading the building to ensure compliance from a consenting perspective.
5.33 Given
the dilapidated nature of the building this included making appropriate
allowances for consequential works to the existing building fabric, finishes
and services and other current building code provisions including fire and
accessibility requirements.
5.34 The
cost to strengthen and upgrade the building to 67% NBS was estimated at $2,232,725
plus GST.
5.35 It’s
noted that there were some notable exclusions from the cost estimate including
escalation, consents, ground works, asbestos removal, unforeseen works to
existing services and works arising from opening up the structure
(walls/floors/ceilings).
5.36 This
could conceivably mean that the end cost of the works could be closer to $3.0m.
5.37 A
copy of the cost estimate is appended as Attachment C.
5.38 A
further estimate by WT Partnership to repair the building to 34% NBS indicated
a cost of $2,183,390 plus GST (and exclusions) noting that the scope for
the structural and consequential works varied only slightly from the 67% NBS
concept.
Expression of Interest (EOI) –
Background
5.39 The
Council is the owner of the Hall and land which is managed by the
Council’s Community Facilities, Community Support and Partnerships unit
(CSPU).
5.40 Following
a recommendation by CSPU to the Waipuna Halswell-Hornby-Riccarton Community
Board in 2017 to demolish the building, any action was placed on hold by the
Council to provide the YRRA with the opportunity to provide a sustainable
business case in support of the retention and reinstatement of the Hall as a
community facility.
5.41 To
resolve the impasse which followed, and to inform the decision-making process,
the Council resolved on 21 June 2021 to undertake an EOI process to identify a
community-based group able to own, upgrade, operate and maintain the Hall at no
cost to the Council.
5.42 The
EOI was tendered on 17 Nov 2022, the key elements of which were to address the
requirements of the Council resolution with particular emphasis on the
following:
· A clear demonstrated
community need that cannot be fulfilled elsewhere.
· A community group as
a project partner able to sustainably operate and activate the facility and
inform its development, and
· A sustainable
capital / operational budget for strengthening / repairing the building to 67%
NBS and the ongoing whole of life operating / maintenance costs and other
services.
· The resources
(personnel / financial) to drive the consenting and repair of the hall and
deliver sustainable community and heritage outcomes.
· No cost to Council
(i.e., no capital or operational funding from Council other than through normal
community funding channels).
EOI Outcomes
5.43 The
initial EOI resulted in one submission being received – from the YRRA.
5.44 This
submission was reviewed and failed on insufficient Initial Financial
Viability grounds. To address this Council staff requested the YRRA to
provide a detailed business case by 15 July 2022 (extended to 16 September
2022) to include a funding strategy covering off the following:
· the operating budget
cashflow (revenue and expenses) while the repair/restoration/ upgrade is
underway.
· the capital budget
cashflow (expenditure) for the repair/restoration/upgrade.
· the operating budget
cashflow (revenue and expenses) after the repairs/restoration/upgrade.
5.45 Copies
of the YRRA’s initial EOI submission, its subsequent business case
proposal, and notes from its most recent AGM are appended as Attachment D.
Key elements relevant to the assessment of their proposal are discussed below.
The YRRA’s Proposal
5.46 The
YRRA: the Yaldhurst Rural Residents Association was incorporated in
September 2000. It currently comprises a voluntary committee of six including a
chair, treasurer and secretary. Attendance at its most recent AGM on 27 July
2023 totalled 16 (3 of which were elected Council members).
5.47
Vision for the Yaldhurst Memorial Hall: “to serve as a
community hub for a multitude of rural community needs” where people
can gather for social, educational, cultural and recreational
purposes…and to recognise its War Memorial status.
5.48 Community
Use: potential users of the hall, frequency of use and income from user
groups is unknown and purely anecdotal at this stage. The YRRA’s goal is
to have the Hall permanently hired for 4 hours a day for 40 weeks of the year
(based on 6 days per week and an average charge out rate of $30 per hour).
Experience suggests that this will be a challenging target to achieve,
particularly given the availability of other community facilities in the
immediate area
5.49 Strengthening
and Repair Costs: The YRRA propose a two-stage repair process. They
estimate the Stage 1 cost (to “bring the Hall up to a standard that
will make it useable (67%, and meeting accessibility and fire requirements) but
also to be desirable to be used and hired” is $275,000. Their Stage
two cost (for ‘nice to have items’) of $282,000 provides a
total repair cost of $557,000.
Council staff consider this to be vastly
underestimated and unrealistic given the current dilapidated state of the hall,
the independent concept to strengthen and repair the Hall to 67% NBS
(Attachment A) and the cost estimate for the strengthening, repair and
compliance works ($2.23m +). The YRRA’s staged approach to the repairs is
also considered flawed as the majority of their proposed Stage 2 works would
need to be completed as Stage 1 items in order for the Hall to be fit for
purpose from a compliance and user perspective.
(This view is corroborated in an
independent review by Maguire Harford Architects of the YRRA’s proposed
scope, staging and cost estimate. This review is attached to the YRRA’s
business case proposal at Attachment D).
The scale of the repair work is such that
it will require a professionally managed, rather than ad hoc, approach.
5.50 Financial
Status: The YRRA’s Statement of Financial Performance for the year
ended 31 March 2023 indicated a current account balance of $11,138.85, which
included a subs/donations total of $300 for the year 2023. Other existing
trusts and accounts total $21,000 (including fundraising to date of $7,000).
The YRRA currently have no other fixed income.
5.51 Funding
Strategy: at this stage the YRRA’s funding strategy is reliant on
ownership of the Hall providing greater leverage to access a wider range of
funding sources and securing a variety of pledges and indications of support,
including:
· Community support in the form of donated materials and services from local
businesses, consultants (ie Engineer, Architect, QS), contracting firms and
residents. All of these are pledges only at this stage and many are noted as
‘full cost’ contributions (i.e., for architectural services).
Whether these eventuate is a moot point particularly given that the anticipated
scale and costs of the Hall repairs are significantly greater than that
envisaged in the YRRA’s business case.
· Charitable Trusts including the Rātā Foundation, Lotteries. It is noted that some of these
entities have cut their funding allocations in recent times.
· Support from the Waipuna Halswell-Hornby-Riccarton Community Board.
Securing the necessary (and significant)
funding required to strengthen and repair the Hall will be entirely reliant on
the ability, capacity and drive of the YRRA committee. To reflect this risk
staff recommend that the transfer of ownership to the YRRA is conditional on
completing the repair works and securing the code of compliance required for
operation of the Hall within 5 years of the transfer).
5.52 Capital
and Operating Cash Flow Projections: the requested
operating and capital cashflows referred to at 5.43 have been provided by the
YRRA. However, as they are based on the YRRA’s view of estimated
strengthening and repair costs they are under-estimated and not particularly
helpful or relevant.
The Councils Building Consents team, who
are independent from Council staff and the general public, have assessed the
Hall as an EPB based on the engineering and peer review reports made available
to them, most recently the FCEL engineering report. This latter report outlines
the works required to repair the building to 67% NBS.
If the YRRA are to be provided the
opportunity to assume ownership of the Hall, a first step requires the YRRA to
acknowledge this assessment and commit to revisiting their business case
strategy to fundraise the $2.23m + required to fund the repair works in the
first instance and to work towards the operation and use of the Hall, at no
cost to Council.
5.53 Financial
Viability: a review of the YRRA’s original EOI submission (which
precipitated the request for the YRRA to provide further business case information)
by the Council’s Finance team raised the following concerns:
· The cost to get the
Hall up to 67% is more than most Trusts could rase in this situation (the
cost has since increased from $1.5m to $2.32m).
· The likelihood of
the YRRA being able to obtain grants (more recently a number of key grant
funders have reduced the funding allocation available to community groups).
· The likelihood the
YRRA’s financial position enables them to support and repay loans
necessary to pay for repairs.
· A reluctance to
transfer an asset without being sure the transaction will be completed.
· Small number of the
YRRA members; ability/capacity of the YRRA to drive the works / project.
· No allocated LTP
Capital or Opex funding allocated to the Hall.
· Transfer / works /
operation of the Hall to be undertaken at no cost to Council.
The YARA’s EOI was considered a fail
on financial viability grounds at that time. The subsequent business case
information provided by the YRRA (outlined above at 5.45 to 5.52) has done
little to address these previous concerns.
Heritage Status – Retention and
/ or Demolition
5.54 The
Council has adopted the ‘Our Heritage Our Taonga Heritage Strategy
2019-2029’ which has goals to support heritage buildings owners and to be
good guardians/kaitiaki.
5.55 The
Hall is now a scheduled heritage item. Alterations to, or demolition of, the
Hall will require resource consent.
5.56 The
YRRA, as building owner, will be able to apply to the Council for Heritage
Incentive Grants to repair the building for a re-adaptive use, noting that this
fund is limited and subject to quantum and Council approval. Grant applications
to other heritage related bodies would also be possible.
5.57 Scheduling
in the district plan seeks to retain heritage places (Policy 9.3.2.1.1), but
the objective acknowledges that there are sometimes exceptional circumstances
where this cannot be achieved. When considering the appropriateness of the
demolition of a scheduled heritage item, Policy 9.3.2.2.8 requires having
regard to the following matters:
1. Whether
there is a threat to life and /or property for which interim protection
measures would not remove the threat;
2. Whether
the extent of the work required to retain and / or repair the heritage item is
of such scale that the heritage values and integrity of the heritage item would
be significantly compromised;
3. Whether
the costs to retain the heritage item (particularly as a result of damage)
would be unreasonable;
4. The
ability to retain the overall heritage values and significance of the heritage
item through a reduced degree of demolition; and
5. The
level of significance of the heritage item.
5.58 The
Hall is a Memorial Hall to those members of the community who served and died
in both World Wars and has strong links and value to the community. If the Hall
were demolished it may be possible for the site to endure as a memorial park.
5.59 A
“Heritage Assessment – Statement of Significance” for the
Hall as prepared by the Council’s Heritage team: is appended as Attachment
E.
Disposal of Council Owned Property -
Criteria
5.60 Any
disposal / gift is to be in a manner as set out in the Council’s policies
and normal practices, i.e.,:
· Policy: to publicly
tender properties for sale unless there is a clear reason for doing otherwise.
· Practice: in an
open, transparent, well-advertised and public manner at market value.
Assessed against:
· Is the property
still required for the purposes for which it was originally acquired? No
· Does the property
have special cultural, heritage or environmental values that can only be
protected through public ownership? No
· Is there an
immediate alternative public use / work / activity in a policy, plan or
strategy? No
· Are there any
strategic, non-service delivery needs that the property meets and that can only
be met through public ownership? No
· Are there any
identified unmet needs, which the Council might normally address, that the
property could be used to solve? And is there a reasonable pathway to funding
the unmet need? No
(It’s noted that the gift of the
building does not technically constitute an absolute disposal of a built asset
by virtue of the Council retaining a first right of refusal to reclaim
ownership of the building).
Dealing Unilaterally with the YRRA
5.61 Where
there is only one logical ‘purchaser’ of a property, the Council
may deal unilaterally with the purchaser, subject to undertaking public
consultation in accordance with the requirements of Sections 78 and 138 LGA
2002. Refer Attachment F.
5.62 The
gifting of the building to the YRRA does not affect the Council’s current
levels of service as the building has been closed since 2011 and is not
required as a community facility by the Councils CSPU.
5.63 The
YRRA were also the successful respondent arising from a publicly tendered EOI
process.
5.64 As
such, this proposal does not depart from the considerations outlined in
Attachment F. Accordingly, it is appropriate for the Council to resolve to gift
the Hall to the YRRA subject to undertaking a special consultative process
(refer below).
Special Consultative Process –
Community Views and Preferences
5.65 As
a scheduled heritage building, the Hall is categorised as one of the
Council’s strategic assets. As such, the gifting of the Hall to the YRRA
will be subject to a special consultative process. This requirement will be
fulfilled through consultation via the LTP 2024-2034 process.
5.66 The
decision affects the following wards/Community Board areas:
5.66.1 Waipuna
Halswell-Hornby-Riccarton Community Board.
6. Policy Framework Implications Ngā Hīraunga ā- Kaupapa here
Strategic
AlignmentTe Rautaki
Tīaroaro
6.1 This decision aligns with the Council’s vision to enable
active and connected communities to own their future.
6.2 This report supports the Council's
Long Term Plan (2021 - 2031):
6.3 Citizens and communities
6.3.1 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
6.4 The
decision is consistent with the Council’s Community
Facilities Network Plan 2020. Community facilities contribute to community
outcomes in many ways, but not limited to:
· Promotes effective and efficient use of Council assets.
· Through the YRRA’s proposed activities, supports active
citizenship and connected communities by providing venues to support community
engagement with the Council, Community Boards and community organisations in
order to grow community participation in civic life.
· Builds community resilience, social capital and community capacity
to support a response to major stressors such as climate change, terror attacks
and the effects of Covid-19.
· Supporting a network of volunteers and opportunities for community
partnerships regarding provision, activation and operation of facilities.
· They
enable the celebration of local identity and diversity by providing venues for
events, arts, culture, heritage, sport and recreation.
6.5 The
decision is inconsistent with the Disposal of Council Property Policy 2000:
a) This
policy primarily states that the council shall publicly tender properties for sale unless there is a clear
reason for doing otherwise. This report and resolutions propose a unilateral
dealing with the YRRA, which
is inconsistent and therefore a departure from the policy.
b) The
reason for the inconsistency with the Policy requiring the departure is because
there are currently no other proposals or effective options, mainly because of
the heritage and earthquake prone building status;
c) The
Council has no intention of changing the Disposal of Council Property Policy
2000 to accommodate this decision.
Impact
on Mana Whenua Ngā
Whai Take Mana Whenua
6.6 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.
6.7 The
decision does not involve a matter of interest to Mana Whenua and will not impact on our agreed partnership priorities
with Ngā Papatipu Rūnanga.
6.8 The grant of a ground lease to the YRRA is effectively a
continuation of the community use to which the Hall and site were used for
prior to the Hall being closed following the 2010/2011 earthquake sequence.
6.9 As
referenced previously, the ‘disposal’ of the building is
conditioned by the Council’s first right of right refusal to reclaim
ownership of the building.
6.10 The
Council’s Treaty Relationships Team have confirmed that the building is
not of interest to Mana Whenua.
Climate
Change Impact Considerations Ngā Whai Whakaaro mā te Āhuarangi
6.11 The decision attempts to create certainty over future use by
returning the property to its former use, effectively maintaining the status
quo. The continued use of the building for a community facility will have no
change to the impact on the environment or resources.
Accessibility
Considerations Ngā
Whai Whakaaro mā te Hunga Hauā
6.12 There
is no accessibility impact as the decision is whether to approve the gift of
the Hall to the YRRA or not.
6.13 On
the basis that the building is strengthened and repaired in accordance with the
relevant statutory consents it will be fully compliant for its proposed
use.
7. Resource Implications Ngā Hīraunga Rauemi
Capex/Opex Ngā Utu Whakahaere
7.1 Cost
to Implement – Nil cost to the Council other than staff property / legal
time required to facilitate formal handover of ownership.
7.2 Maintenance/Ongoing
costs – Limited to nominal ongoing insurance and maintenance costs
pending formal transfer of ownership to the YRRA.
7.3 Funding
Source – Existing operational budgets.
Other He mea anō
7.4 The
recommended option is precipitated on the assumption that it will be at no cost
to the Council i.e., the YRRA will not require / request capital or operational
funding from the Council other than through normal community funding channels.
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 There
is a legal context, issue, or implication relevant to this decision.
8.3 The
legal consideration is the Local Government Act 2002 and the Council’s
‘Disposal of Council Property’ policy, referred to at 5.59 above.
8.4 This
report has not been reviewed and approved by the Legal services Unit.
9. Risk Management Implications Ngā Hīraunga Tūraru
9.1 The
success of the YRRA is heavily reliant on their ability and capacity to raise
the funds required to repair, operate and manage the Hall.
9.2 In
the event that they fail to raise the necessary funds to strengthen and repair
the building suitable for operation within 5 years (or they no longer wish to
retain ownership of the building) the impact for Council would be mitigated by
virtue of it retaining ownership of the land and a first option to resume
ownership of the building asset.
9.3 The
future use of the building would then need to be revisited.
9.4 It
is possible that there may be some residual community feedback regarding
Council’s decision to deal unilaterally with the YRRA.
Attachments Ngā Tāpirihanga
|
No.
|
Title
|
Reference
|
Page
|
|
a ⇨
|
FCEL
Engineering Report and Repair Concepts (Under Separate Cover)
|
23/1896559
|
|
|
b ⇨
|
OPUS / THC
Structural Reports (Under Separate Cover)
|
23/1896610
|
|
|
c ⇨
|
Cost Estimate
- WTP (Under Separate Cover)
|
23/1896663
|
|
|
d ⇨
|
YRRA EOI
Information (Under Separate Cover)
|
23/1896673
|
|
|
e ⇨
|
Statement of
Significance (Under Separate Cover)
|
23/1896693
|
|
|
f ⇨
|
Factors to
Consider When Dealing Unilaterally (Under Separate Cover)
|
23/1896701
|
|
In addition to the attached documents, the following background
information is available:
|
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
|
Barry Woodland
- Property Consultant
Matthew Pratt
- Community Facilites & Activation Manager
Angus Smith -
Manager Property Consultancy
|
|
Approved By
|
Angus Smith -
Manager Property Consultancy
Matthew Pratt
- Community Facilites & Activation Manager
|
