Agenda of Waihoro Spreydon-Cashmere-Heathcote Community Board

Waihoro Spreydon-Cashmere-Heathcote Community Board

11 April 2024

Unconfirmed

A black text on a white background

Description automatically generated

Waihoro

Spreydon-Cashmere-Heathcote Community Board

Open Minutes

Date: Thursday 14 March 2024

Time: 4.00 pm

Venue: Boardroom, Beckenham Service Centre,
66 Colombo Street, Beckenham

Present

Chairperson

Deputy Chairperson

Members

Callum Ward

Keir Leslie

Melanie Coker

Will Hall (via audio/visual link)

Roy Kenneally

Tim Lindley

Lee Sampson

Tim Scandrett

Sara Templeton (via audio/visual link)

Principal Advisor

Arohanui Grace

Manager Community Governance, Spreydon-Cashmere-Heathcote

Tel: 941 6663

Jane Walders

Community Board Advisor

941 6584

jane.walders@ccc.govt.nz

www.ccc.govt.nz

Part A Matters Requiring a Council Decision

Part B Reports for Information

Part C Decisions Under Delegation

Karakia Tīmatanga: All together

Waiata: The Board sang a waiata to open the meeting.

The agenda was dealt with in the following order.

Keir Leslie arrived to the meeting at 4:02 pm prior to consideration of Item 1 - Apologies.

1. Apologies Ngā Whakapāha

Part C

Community Board Decision

There were no apologies.

2. Declarations of Interest Ngā Whakapuaki Aronga

Part B

There were no declarations of interest recorded.

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

Part C

Community Board Resolved SCBCC/2024/00015

That the minutes of the Waihoro Spreydon-Cashmere-Heathcote Community Board meeting held on Thursday, 15 February 2024 be confirmed.

Lee Sampson/Tim Lindley Carried

4. Public Forum Te Huinga Whānui

Part B

4.1

Loss of Public Spaces

Ray Spring, local resident, spoke to the Board regarding the loss of public open spaces and public closed spaces being sold off to become private and that revenue from any exemptions due to charitable status ought to be recovered.

After questions from members, the Chairperson thanked Mr Spring for his presentation.

4.2

Hobson Bay Baches

Paul Corwin, local resident, addressed the Board in relation to state of some of the Hobson Bay Baches, with respect to safety. Mr Corwin stated that other residents are also keen to see the dilapidated baches removed.

After questions from members, the Chairperson thanked Mr Corwin for his presentation.

Part B

That the Waihoro Spreydon-Cashmere-Heathcote Community Board:

1. Refers the issues raised during the presentation Hobson Bay Baches to staff for investigation and report back to the Board on where the report to Council regarding Hobson Bay Baches is currently at and what the process will be.

Attachments

a 4.2 Public Forum - Hobson Bay Baches presentation

Will Hall arrived to the meeting at 4:16 pm after consideration of Item 4.2 – Hobson Bay Baches.

4.3

Hoon Hay Park Memorial

Jenny Goodman spoke on behalf of Hoon Hay Community Association proposing a memorial plaque be fixed to a seat in Hoon Hay Park, funded by the Board.

Mrs Goodman advised the Board that 2023 Community Service Award recipient Russell Buchanan passed away suddenly on 1 January this year, and given the work he had carried out over many years at Hoon Hay Park it was felt that a memorial plaque would be a fitting way to commemorate his work. Mrs Goodman advised that the Hoon Hay Network group supports this proposal.

After questions from members, the Chairperson thanked Mrs Goodman for her presentation.

Part B

That the Waihoro Spreydon-Cashmere-Heathcote Community Board:

1. Refers the issues raised in the presentation on Hoon Hay Park Memorial to staff for investigation and to bring a Board Project discretionary funding report back to the next Board meeting.

4.4

Illegal Parking in Beachville Esplanade

Pat McIntosh, Secretary, spoke on behalf of Redcliffs Residents Association regarding illegal parking in Beachville Esplanade and the Coastal Pathway.

Dr McIntosh advised the Board that residents have noticed an increase in illegal parking on Beachville Esplanade and the Coastal Pathway. The Association would like the Board to support their request to remedy this issue.

After questions from members, the Chairperson thanked Dr McIntosh for her presentation.

Part B

That the Waihoro Spreydon-Cashmere-Heathcote Community Board refers the issues raised in the presentation on Illegal Parking in Beachville Esplanade to staff to:

1. Provide advice on the installation of parking signage and report to the Board.

2. Advise the Board on the fines for illegally parking in this area.

3. Consider an increase of enforcement patrols in the area and report back to the Board.

4. Provide advice and costs for physical parking prevention measure options and report back to the Board.

Attachments

a 4.4 Public Forum - Beachville Parking Issues presentation

5. Deputations by Appointment Ngā Huinga Whakaritenga

Part B

There were no deputations by appointment.

6. Presentation of Petitions Ngā Pākikitanga

Part B

There was no presentation of petitions.

10. Correspondence
	Staff Recommendations / Ngā Tūtohu That the Waihoro Spreydon-Cashmere-Heathcote Community Board: 1. Receive the information in the correspondence report dated 14 March 2024.
	Community Board Resolved SCBCC/2024/00016 Part B That the Waihoro Spreydon-Cashmere-Heathcote Community Board: 1. Receives the information in the correspondence report dated 14 March 2024. 2. Requests staff to investigate the issues raised and report back to the Board. Lee Sampson/Callum Ward Carried
	Attachments a Correspondence - Westmorland East Valley Reserve Pines Submission

7. Waihoro Spreydon-Cashmere-Heathcote 2023/2024 Discretionary Response - Shape Your Place Toolkit Fund - Addington Community House Incorporated

Community Board Resolved SCBCC/2024/00017 (Original officer recommendation accepted without change)

Part C

That the Waihoro Spreydon-Cashmere-Heathcote Community Board:

1. Approves a grant of $3,600 from its 2023-24 Discretionary Response – Shape Your Place Toolkit Fund to Addington Community House Incorporated for costs associated with specialist Human Resources Advice.

Callum Ward/Roy Kenneally Carried

8. Waihoro Spreydon-Cashmere-Heathcote Community Board Area Report - March 2024

Community Board Resolved SCBCC/2024/00018 (Original officer recommendation accepted without change)

Part B

That the Waihoro Spreydon-Cashmere-Heathcote Community Board:

1. Receives the Waihoro Spreydon-Cashmere-Heathcote Community Board Area Report for March 2024.

Callum Ward/Tim Scandrett Carried

9. Elected Members’ Information Exchange Te Whakawhiti Whakaaro o Te Kāhui Amorangi

Part B

The following information was exchanged at this meeting:

· A member met with the Taylors Mistake Association about Taylors Mistake Land Company Limited, turning land up the back of Taylors Mistake into a Recreation Reserve.

· A member attended the Manuka Cottage Annual General Meeting.

· A member attended the Multicultural Centre opening.

· A member attended Childrens Day.

· A member advised that they sent through an information request on the interim services for South Library and Service Centre, and will send through more follow-up questions.

· Members attended the Somerfield Residents Association meeting.

· A member advised that the Somerfield Community Centre is waiting on an update on the Centre, including an update on the Somerfield Park Toilets.

· A member noted that Friday 15 March will be a time to reflect.

· A member attended the Westmorland Residents Association meeting. The member noted that as this area is developed, there will be increasing need for a toilet in Francis Reserve and a drinking fountain at the top of Westmorland.

· Members attended the Christchurch Irish Society reception recently.

· A member is looking for volunteers to assist in delivery of cakes to the community.

· A member attended the Te Ara Koropiko West Spreydon School Hangi.

· A member discussed land development on the Port Hills.

· A member met with members from Ōpāwaho Heathcote River Network regarding the group’s concerns with run-off from the Port Hills fires.

· A member met with residents on Rose Street regarding a neighbouring development for older-age units.

· A member discussed the projected intersection of the new development / Cashmere Road / Penruddock Rise, with the need for the intersection to be future-proofed for all the users of the intersection.

· Members met with Richard Waugh regarding a community service at Waltham Gates on ANZAC day.

· The Chairperson advised that the Governance Partnership Agreement will be coming soon for discussion.

· The Chairperson advised that they and the Chairperson from Waitai Coastal-Burwood-Linwood Community Board will be pushing for more visibility of the operational expenditure of Council.

· The Chairperson advised that they will be arranging for an update / information session regarding Port Link.

· A member participated in the annual drive-by with the Christchurch Beautifying Association looking at the gardens of the finalists’ for the annual Community Pride Garden Awards.

Karakia Whakakapi: All together

Meeting concluded at 5:00 pm.

CONFIRMED THIS 11^TH DAY OF APRIL 2024.

Callum Ward

Chairperson

Waihoro Spreydon-Cashmere-Heathcote Community Board

11 April 2024

8. Puretumu Torowhānui - Renaming Marylands Reserve and Marylands Place
Reference / Te Tohutoro:	22/1392776
Report of / Te Pou Matua:	Jenna Marsden, Senior Policy Analyst.
General Manager / Pouwhakarae:	Lynn McClelland, Assistant Chief Executive Strategic Policy and Performance (lynn.mcclelland@ccc.govt.nz)

1. Nature of Decision or Issue and Report Origin

1.1 The purpose of this report is to formally change the names of Marylands Reserve and Marylands Place.

1.2 This report responds to requests to rename Marylands Place and Reserve because of associations with Marylands School and the abuse that occurred there.

1.3 The Community Board has previously received advice on this matter including memos dated 16 August 2021, 9 March 2022, 10 August 2022 and 31 July 2023; a briefing on 24 November 2022, and subsequent updates via email in October 2023 and January 2024.

1.4 The decisions in this report, although of high significance within communities of interest, are of low-medium significance in relation to the Christchurch City Council’s Significance and Engagement Policy. The level of significance was determined by the small number of people directly affected and because naming (or renaming) is a decision which has low financial impact and carries a low level of risk.

1.5 Content warning: While this report primarily deals with road and reserve naming, it does relate to abuse and trauma which may evoke negative emotional responses for some. Please be mindful of your own wellbeing and the wellbeing of others. If you need support, please contact your healthcare provider.

2. Officer Recommendations / Ngā Tūtohu

That the Waihoro Spreydon-Cashmere-Heathcote Community Board:

1. Agrees the names of Marylands Place and Marylands Reserve should be changed due to links with the former location of Marylands School and the historic abuse of children and young people that occurred at the school.

2. Approves Validation Park as the replacement name for Marylands Reserve, and approves this name change to take effect from 4 June 2024.

3. Approves Validation Place as the replacement name for Marylands Place, and approves this name change to take effect from 4 June 2024.

4. Requests staff notify the Registrar-General of Land and the Surveyor-General of the road name change as soon as practicable, in accordance with section 319A of the Local Government Act 1974.

5. Requests staff place temporary signage at the entrance of Marylands Place notifying of the upcoming road name change, and that the temporary signage will be in place until the name change takes effect on 4 June 2024, and permanent replacement signage is installed.

6. Requests staff notify Land Information New Zealand, New Zealand Post, New Zealand Police, Fire and Emergency New Zealand, St John Ambulance Services, Environment Canterbury, Orion, mapping companies and any other stakeholder they consider relevant.

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

3.1 Place names associated with Marylands School are offensive and harmful due to the well-documented abuse that was suffered by children and young people there. Calls have been made by survivor advocates for these place names to be changed in light of recommendations from the Royal Commission of Inquiry's report He Purapura Ora: He Mara Tipu: From Redress to Puretumu Torowhanui.

3.2 Renaming Marylands Reserve and Marylands Place:

· recognises the experiences of survivors, the abuse inflicted upon them, and their wishes for change;

· acknowledges the traumatic associations of the current place names, and that they serve as a reminder of abuse; and

· aligns with the Royal Commission’s recommendations and contributes to puretumu torowhānui^{^[1]}.

3.3 The names Validation Place and Validation Park are recommended because:

· The name was put forward by survivors and is meaningful to them. Survivors spoke of not being listened to or believed for a long time. This name represents the recognition and awareness of survivors’ experiences and symbolises survivors ‘taking back their power’.

· Overall, a slight majority (53%) preferred this option. It was the agreed first choice of the group of seven survivors we met with, and slightly preferred over ‘Monarch’ by the wider survivor group surveyed as well. However, it should be noted that the directly-affected owners and occupiers we heard from all preferred ‘Monarch’ over ‘Validation’.

3.4 The necessary checks have been undertaken to confirm the proposed new road name:

· is consistent with the Australia and New Zealand Standard for Rural and Urban Addressing (AS/NZA 4819:2011 ); and

· is sufficiently different to existing road names in Christchurch and bordering districts to avoid duplication or other similarities to avoid potential for confusion.

4. Alternative Options Considered / Ētahi atu Kōwhiringa

4.1 The following alternative options were considered:

Option 2: Choose a different name - The Community Board could choose another name. Names must comply with the Council’s Naming Policy 2023 and naming standards.

· Option 2a – Monarch Place / Monarch Park: The butterfly is a symbol of profound change or transformation, as well as the beauty of life’s continuous unfolding. It represents growth, opening up, and flying away.

The monarch butterfly is a meaningful symbol for the survivor group we talked to. It links to the Royal Commission’s case study inquiry into the Brothers of St John of God – “Stolen Lives, Marked Souls”. The monarch appeared throughout the report to represent survivor experiences.

This option was suggested by survivors, and has been consulted on.

This option has some level of support from both survivors and key stakeholders. Overall 47% placed ‘Monarch’ as their preferred option. It is the second preference for the survivor group staff met with, and was preferred by 40% of the wider survivor group who responded via survey. ‘Monarch’ was the preferred option of Waka Kotahi and 100% of the affected owners and occupiers who responded.

‘Monarch’ is a suitable alternative, which complies with the necessary Standards and Council Policy.

It is not the recommended option because there was a slight overall preference for ‘Validation’.

· Option 2b - MSSAT Place / MSSAT Park: MSSAT stands for the Male Survivors of Sexual Abuse Trust – an organisation providing support for many survivors of Marylands School. This option recognises the significant impact the work of MSSAT has on the lives of survivors.

This option was suggested by survivors and has been consulted on.

Staff cannot recommend this option because, as an acronym, it does not meet naming criteria and Standards^{^[2]} and is not suitable for a road name. Survivors were advised this name option was unlikely to be accepted, however staff wanted to give this option public visibility because it is meaningful to survivors.

· Option 2c – Another alternative: Discretion lies with the Community Board to approve any name option, including alternative names from those detailed in this report. However, no decision on an alternative name can be made without first checking whether it meets naming criteria and Standards. If the Board prefers this option, further staff advice will be required.

The other name options considered in this process are detailed in Attachment B, including the reasons why these were not put forward for further consideration. Most of the alternative names in Appendix B have not had LINZ checks undertaken.

Option 2c is not recommended because it discounts the suitable and meaningful options survivors have provided.

Option 3: Status quo – do not change the names of Marylands Reserve and Marylands Place - Names are typically intended to be enduring, and this option would avoid any disruption and inconvenience to businesses and residents of the affected street and the wider community (e.g., changes in addressing and wayfinding).

However, this option is not recommended because it does not recognise the disrepute or trauma associated with the place names; it does not align with recommendations from the Royal Commission; and it carries a reputational risk for the Council and Community Board.

5. Detail / Te Whakamahuki

The Renaming Request

5.1 The Community Board received requests to rename Marylands Reserve and Marylands Place due to the negative associations with Marylands School. The requests, made during 2021 and 2022, came from survivor advocates including a lawyer who represents Marylands survivors.

Marylands School

5.2 Marylands School was a residential facility for boys, (many with disabilities, learning or behavioural needs), run by the St John of God Brothers from 1955-1984. The School was originally located in Middleton and relocated to Halswell in the 1960s. While at the Middleton site, the main buildings were located on what is now Marylands Reserve.

5.3 The land in Middleton^{^[3]} was purchased by the Waimari County Council in the mid-1960s. The Council subsequently entered a joint venture to develop an industrial subdivision with the Sisters of Nazareth, who owned the adjacent site. At the time, the subdivision was referred to as the “Marylands industrial estate” or the “Marylands industrial subdivision”.

5.4 There is no direct decision staff can find that definitively says Marylands Place and Marylands Reserve were named after Marylands School. However, given the location, and the “working name” references to the subdivision in the Council minutes of the time, it is clear that the names came from the subdivision process and are based on the prior ownership and use of the land.

Royal Commission of Inquiry

5.5 There is a Royal Commission of Inquiry into Abuse in Care (Royal Commission) currently underway, with final reports due by 28 March 2024. The Royal Commission was established in 2018 to look into what happened to children, young people and vulnerable adults in state and faith-based care between the years of 1950 and 1999.

5.6 The Royal Commission released an interim report, He Pura Pura Ora, he Māra Tipu: From redress to puretumu torowhānui which is about the struggles of survivors to reclaim their lives and mana, the failure of the institutions involved to respond, and what redress should be available.

5.7 The report makes 95 wide-ranging recommendations, including the establishment of a nation-wide redress entity. Most recommendations are targeted at the Crown and the institutions involved, and all are couched in the overall message that survivors should wait for redress no more – the time for action is now.

5.8 Recommendation 71 of the interim report includes the removal of any honours of, or memorials to, perpetrators. The Royal Commission have made their position clear that this is considered applicable to place names.

Case for Change

5.9 There is clear evidence of abuse at Marylands School, including settlements and two people convicted for sexual offending. A further two brothers were charged but did not face trial. The most prolific offender has been convicted twice in New Zealand and three times in Australia, on a total of more than 100 offences.

5.10 The Catholic Church^{^[4]} undertook extensive research at the request of the Royal Commission into the scale of abuse that occurred at their institutions. This found that:

· The three most prolific offenders worked at Marylands School; and

· 14% of all abuse within Catholic care settings linked to Marylands School and the St. John of God Brothers.

5.11 As part of the Royal Commission’s wider investigation into Catholic care settings, a case study into the nature and extent of abuse that occurred at Marylands School was delivered to the Governor-General in July 2023. The interim report, Stolen Lives, Marked Souls states:

“Typically, boys were sent to Marylands in the belief it was the best place for them, where their care and learning needs would be met by the St John of God brothers, under the protection of the Catholic Church and God. Instead, they suffered extreme abuse and neglect at the hands of those entrusted to protect them.”

5.12 Key findings of the report include:

· Abuse was evident and normalised. Of the 537 boys who attended the school, more than one in five (118) reported abuse while in the school’s care. Survivors report verbal, physical, sexual and emotional abuse. Twenty-one^{^[5]} of the 37 Brothers who worked in Christchurch have been accused of some form of abuse. The Royal Commission acknowledges that the full extent of abuse will never be known.

· Systemic and institutional failures of the Order, the Catholic Church and the State to care for, educate and protect the children at Marylands School. When boys sought help from the brothers, social workers or Police, their claims were often not believed or acted on.

· Survivors’ experiences at Marylands School have had profound impact on their lives. For some, the ongoing effects of abuse have included physical injuries and health issues, violence, inappropriate sexual behaviour, drug or alcohol abuse, criminal offending, mental distress, a loss of trust or religious faith and inability to form trusting meaningful relationships. Some have taken their own lives.

· The Order, Catholic Church and State have not yet been held accountable for the magnitude of what unfolded at Marylands.

5.13 Place names are intended to be enduring, and there are limited circumstances where renaming would be recommended^{^[6]}. Due to the disreputable history of Marylands School, and the origins of the names for Marylands Reserve and Marylands Place, there is a clear case for change in this situation.

Process

5.14 Initially a gifted name for the reserve was sought from Ngāi Tūāhuriri Rūnanga, in line with naming practices for a reserve of this size and type. After consideration, the Rūnanga advised they would not gift a name and that the mana of the decision should rest with the survivors.

5.15 In light of this the Community Board requested “the mauri of gifting a name be given to survivors abused while in the care of Marylands School”^{^[7]}. The revised process included a hui with a small group of Marylands survivors to identify name options, engagement with the wider survivor group and directly-affected stakeholders.

Consultation

5.16 Royal Commission advice is that anyone working with survivors must be sensitive to the impacts of trauma and do no further harm. A “survivors first” approach has been taken.

5.17 The Royal Commission supported the Council to initiate contact and provide updates to survivors, including:

· Information on the renaming in their regular pānui (November 2022; May, September, October and December 2023);

· Information given on the renaming during a survivor hui hosted by the Royal Commission;

· Notifying survivor representatives (eg: Survivors Network of those Abused by Priests, The Network, and Cooper Legal); and

· Encouraging survivors to make direct contact with Council staff if they wish to be involved or provide feedback.

5.18 All residents, occupiers, and property owners on Marylands Place; the Canterbury Canine Obedience Club (Marylands Reserve leaseholder), Waka Kotahi and Land Information New Zealand have also been consulted.

Early engagement informing stakeholders of the intended renaming

5.19 Early engagement focused on informing stakeholders of the intended change. This commenced from November 2022 for survivors; December 2022 for Marylands Place owners and occupiers, and from June 2023 for the reserve leaseholder. Updates have been provided as needed.

5.20 Affected owners and occupiers were contacted by mail^{^[8]} to the ratepayer, as well as a hand-delivered letter to each property on the street to ensure both owners and occupiers were notified. Content of the communications included the reasons for a name change, the proposed approach and advice on some potential impacts. Most of the properties on Marylands Place are used for commercial purposes, so it also sought feedback on ways the Council could support businesses through the transition.

5.21 Feedback received during the early engagement phase (noting the initial approach at this time was for a gifted name from Ngāi Tūāhuriri Rūnanga), included:

· 2 survivors and 3 survivor advocates, with the majority in favour of the proposed approach.

· The Royal Commission reported attendees of a survivor hui supported renaming Marylands Reserve and Marylands Place.

· The owner of one property on Marylands Place has expressed their preference for the name of Marylands Place not to change, and has sought compensation. Following requests for details, staff did not receive any further information on the items and costs they were seeking compensation for.

5.22 Waka Kotahi, as the owner of the Reserve, has been consulted and has no concerns with the proposal to rename it.

Identifying and consulting on alternative name options

5.23 A survivor hui was held on 26 October 2023 with a small representative group of seven Marylands School survivors to identify appropriate and meaningful options for replacement names. The hui was supported by Royal Commission staff and survivor advocate, Ken Clearwater. The group suggested a number of options. Their agreed top three options for further consultation were (in order of preference): Validation, Monarch and MSSAT.

5.24 Land Information New Zealand (LINZ) checks on the three road name options have been undertaken. Both ‘Validation Place’ and ‘Monarch Place’ are acceptable to use for this road. LINZ noted similarity with ‘Monarch Lane’ in Burwood (residential red zone), however this no longer exists as legal road, or in formation. The old street data has now been removed and there is no outstanding duplication issue. MSSAT is not suitable for use. As an acronym, it is not consistent with the Standards.

5.25 In November 2023 the wider survivor group, via the Royal Commission’s pānui, were asked which of the three options they preferred. Five responses were received, three favouring ‘Validation’ and 2 favouring ‘Monarch’.

5.26 The preferences of affected property owners and occupiers (including the Canterbury Canine Obedience Club) were then sought in February 2024. Six survey responses were received, all favouring ‘Monarch’. Three respondents indicated ‘Validation’ was their second choice. The issue of compensation was not apparent in this round of consultation.

5.27 Waka Kotahi have a strong preference for ‘Monarch’ because it carries forward the narrative from the Royal Commission’s case study, as well as being more relevant to members of the public who have no background knowledge of the history.

5.28 Wider community consultation has not been undertaken and is not recommended in this case. Given the circumstances and sensitivity required, staff advise it is not appropriate to ask the wider community to give consent to change the name.

Preferred option	Who	Total
Validation	7 survivors (hui) 3 wider survivor contacts (survey)	10 (53%)
Monarch	2 wider survivor contacts (survey) 6 owners/occupiers (including Canine Club) Waka Kotahi	9 (47%)
MSSAT	-	0
		19

Impacts of the name change

5.29 It must be acknowledged that renaming roads and reserves brings a level of disruption to businesses and residents of the affected streets and the wider community. An assessment of the impacts of the name changes has been undertaken (Attachment A). The assessment outlines mitigating actions required to minimise the impacts identified.

5.30 Marylands Place is zoned “industrial heavy” and the majority of properties on the street are commercial premises. Actions to help manage the impacts include:

· Early notification and advice to give businesses a chance to prepare (e.g., advised to run down stationery stocks);

· Seeking feedback on ways the Council could assist those directly affected with the transition;

· Provision of a six-week transition period;

· Notification to New Zealand Post six weeks ahead of the road name change taking effect. This allows time for NZ Post systems to be updated. NZ Post have advised mail addressed to Marylands Place will automatically be sorted to the new address (no redirection required;

· Notification to Land and Information New Zealand, emergency services, Environment Canterbury, Orion and mapping companies;

· Provision of communications support (e.g., template e-mails) for businesses to use to send out to their clients;

· Temporary signage at the entrance of Marylands Place and at the Reserve to notify the upcoming name change. This will be in place from the time that the decision is made until the permanent signage is installed; and

· Inviting owners and occupiers to come to Council for support with the transition.

5.31 Property owners, residents and occupiers will need to update their own personal details with agencies such as banks, utilities and insurance companies.

5.32 The impacts of renaming must be balanced with the benefits. The Royal Commission has reported many survivors would like to see measures to restore their lives and mana, including justice and accountability in the form of public acknowledgements of the immense harm that was done. Staff have worked to ensure any impacts of the name change are minimised, and consider the impacts are outweighed by the benefits to survivors.

Next steps

5.33 If the Community Board agrees with the recommendations in this report, the next steps are:

Notification to survivors	15 April 2024
Notification to LINZ (Registrar-General of Land and the Surveyor-General)	15 April 2024
Notification to NZ Post and directly affected parties	15 April 2024
Installation of temporary signage at the entrance of Marylands Place and at Marylands Reserve	15 April – 4 June 2024
Resources (ie: email templates) made available to affected businesses	Week of 15 April 2024
Name changes take effect and permanent replacement signage in place	4 June 2024

6. Policy Framework Implications Ngā Hīraunga ā- Kaupapa here

Strategic Alignment /Te Rautaki Tīaroaro

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

6.2 Strategic Planning and Policy

6.2.1 Activity: Strategic Planning, Future Development and Regeneration

· Level of Service: 17.0.1.2 Advice to Council on high priority policy and planning issues that affect the City. Advice is aligned with and delivers on the governance expectations as evidenced through the Council Strategic Framework. - Annual strategy and policy forward work programme is aligned to Council Strategic Framework, and is submitted to Executive Leadership Team, and Council as required.

Policy Consistency / Te Whai Kaupapa here

6.3 The Council provides for the renaming of roads and reserves/parks in the Naming Policy 2023. The recommendations in this report are consistent with the policy.

Impact on Mana Whenua Ngā Whai Take Mana Whenua

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

6.5 The decision does not involve a matter specifically of interest to Mana Whenua and will not impact on our agreed partnership priorities with Ngā Papatipu Rūnanga.

Climate Change Impact Considerations / Ngā Whai Whakaaro mā te Āhuarangi

6.6 Climate change considerations are not applicable to a decision to rename a reserve or road.

Accessibility Considerations / Ngā Whai Whakaaro mā te Hunga Hauā

6.7 There are no accessibility considerations associated with this report.

7. Resource Implications Ngā Hīraunga Rauemi

Capex/Opex / Ngā Utu Whakahaere

7.1 Cost to Implement: If the Community Board agrees with the recommendations of this report, signage will need to be changed to reflect the new adopted names of the park and the street. The cost for these signs will be approximately $1,500 for the street nameplate, and approximately $2,500 for the park name sign. The estimated costs include the costs of temporary signs for approximately 6 weeks to notify the public of the name change. Compensation for owners of property on Marylands Place is not considered necessary, as outlined in paragraph 8.5.2.

7.2 Maintenance/Ongoing costs: once the new signage is in place, there are no ongoing costs associated with the name change.

7.3 Funding Source: The new permanent park signs will be funded from the Parks Renewal budget ($2,000) and the temporary parks sign will be covered by the Parks operational budget ($500). The signs required for the street name will be covered by the Traffic Operations Traffic and Signs Markings budget ($1,500).

Other / He mea anō

7.4 There are no other resource implications other than staff time for communications associated with the decision and internal database updates.

8. Legal Implications Ngā Hīraunga ā-Ture

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

8.1 Marylands Reserve is owned by the Crown, having set aside and acquired the land under the Public Works Act for the purposes associated with the development of the Southern Motorway in the 1970s. It is designated for secondary use as a recreation reserve under section 191 of the Public Works Act 1981 and is administered by the Council.

8.2 Naming powers under the Reserves Act 1977 (section 16(10)) do not apply in this case because Marylands Reserve is not an official reserve under the Reserves Act 1977. For naming purposes it is treated as a “park”.

8.3 Waka Kotahi, as the owner of the Reserve, has been consulted and has no concerns with the proposal to rename it. The Council, as the body which has been vested control of the reserve, has the power to rename the reserve.^{^[9]}

8.4 The Council has the power to name or alter the name of any road pursuant to section 319(1)(j) of the Local Government Act 1974.

8.5 Community Boards have the power to name or rename roads and parks, as delegated by the Council and set out in the Delegations Register.

Other Legal Implications / Ētahi atu Hīraunga-ā-Ture

8.6 The legal considerations associated with this decision are:

8.6.1 Statutory notification of name change: A territorial authority is required by section 319A of the Local Government Act 1974 to notify the Registrar-General of Land and the Surveyor-General when a road name (or property number) is allocated or changed.

8.6.2 Compensation: There is no legislation which allows for affected parties to seek redress from the Council for exercising their powers to rename a road under section 319(1)(j) LGA 2002. Council staff’s prior consultation with property owners has meant any potential costs they may face will be as minimal as possible.

Council staff have acted reasonably and given due consideration to the renaming process, in regard to the recommendations made to it by the Commission.

We do not consider Courts would hold there is any substance to property owners claims for compensation, and, given we are following the Commission’s recommendations, any such claim against the Council is likely to have little merit.

9. Risk Management Implications Ngā Hīraunga Tūraru

9.1 The key risks associated with this decision are:

9.1.1 The impacts of the name changes - these are discussed in Attachment A.

9.1.2 The risk of setting a precedent - The new Naming Policy sets clearer parameters and criteria to direct when name changes will and will not be considered to help manage this risk. This recommendation is made based on the alignment with criteria in the policy and the clear case for change.

Attachments / Ngā Tāpirihanga

No.	Title	Reference	Page
a ⇩	Assessment of Impacts	23/980332	30
b ⇩	Other name options considered	24/443888	34

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

Jenna Marsden - Senior Policy Analyst

Tessa Zant - Manager Engagement

Ron Lemm - Manager Legal Service Delivery, Regulatory & Litigation

Toni Dakers - Traffic Engineer

Eric Banks - Senior Parks and Policy Planner

Elizabeth Wilson - Team Leader Policy

Approved By

Al Hardy - Manager Community Parks

Rupert Bool - Acting Head of Parks

Stephen Wright - Manager Operations (Transport)

David Griffiths - Head of Strategic Policy & Resilience

Lynn McClelland - Assistant Chief Executive Strategic Policy and Performance

Waihoro Spreydon-Cashmere-Heathcote Community Board

11 April 2024

9. 180-182 Dyers Pass Road - Proposed No Stopping Restrictions
Reference Te Tohutoro:	24/389203
Report of Te Pou Matua:	Toni Dakers, Traffic Engineer, toni.dakers@ccc.govt.nz
Senior Leader Pouwhakarae:	Jane Parfitt, Interim General Manager Infrastructure, Planning & Regulatory Services, (Jane.Parfitt@ccc.govt.nz)

1. Purpose of the Report Te Pūtake Pūrongo

1.1 For the Waihoro Spreydon Cashmere Heathcote Community Board to approve the installation of no stopping restrictions outside 180 and 182 Dyers Pass Road. This report has been written in response to a request from the owners of 182 Dyers Pass Road for parking restrictions to be implemented to improve safety for drivers exiting this property.

1.2 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.

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

1.4 The recommended option is to Install No Stopping restrictions in accordance with Attachment A.

2. Staff Recommendations / Ngā Tūtohu

That the Waihoro Spreydon-Cashmere-Heathcote Community Board:

1. Approves that the stopping of vehicles be prohibited at any time on the southwest side of Dyers Pass Road, commencing at a point 34 metres southeast of its intersection with Pentre Terrace and extending in a southeast direction for a distance of 26 metres, as detailed on Attachment A (TG148305, 182 Dyers Pass Road Proposed No Stopping Restrictions, dated 02/02/2024).

2. 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 this report.

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

3. Reason for Report Recommendations Ngā Take mō te Whakatau

3.1 Safety concerns have been raised about limited visibility when exiting 182 Dyers Pass Road. The property is located immediately downhill of a blind corner, and visibility is restricted by the fence and topography.

3.2 The residents consider that the safest option to exit their property is to pull out and stop parallel to the kerb, immediately downhill of the driveway (between 180-182) before entering the traffic lane. When a vehicle is parked in this location, they are required to pull straight into the traffic lane with limited visibility around the bend. No stopping restrictions are proposed in this location to ensure this space remains clear for manoeuvring.

3.3 Staff also recommend that the no stopping restrictions extend through to the corner, uphill (southeast) of the driveway to further improve sight lines and prevent a vehicle parking in a location that could present a hazard for downhill vehicles, particularly cyclists.

4. Alternative Options Considered Ētahi atu Kōwhiringa

Option 2: Mark no stopping restrictions between 180 to 182 Dyers Pass Road only (maintain a car park southeast of the driveway, towards the bend)

4.1 The advantages of this option include:

4.1.1 Retains one on street car park.

4.1.2 This option is preferred by the residents of 182 Dyers Pass Road.

4.2 The disadvantages of the option include:

4.2.1 Allows a vehicle to park between the driveway and the bend which impedes visibility.

4.2.2 A vehicle parked uphill of the driveway also presents a hazard for vehicles and cyclists travelling on Dyers Pass Road who have limited forward visibility of the vehicle (and anyone entering or exiting the vehicle within the traffic lane).

Maintain the status quo – Do Nothing

4.3 The advantages of this option include:

4.3.1 Retains two on street parking spaces.

4.4 The disadvantages of the option include:

4.4.1 Does not address the identified safety issue for vehicles exiting this property or those travelling downhill on Dyers Pass Road.

5. Detail Te Whakamahuki

5.1 Dyers Pass Road is classified as a Minor Arterial in the Christchurch District Plan. It is a popular route for both commuter and recreational cyclists.

5.2 There have been no crashes reported on the bend adjacent to 182 Dyers Pass Road within the last ten years, however the proposal is recommended to reduce the risk of a crash.

5.3 A previous proposal was approved in 2021 for a short section of no stopping restrictions to be marked either side of the driveway to 182 Dyers Pass Road to improve the angle of exiting vehicles while still retaining both parking spaces. This has not addressed the issue, and with ongoing concerns staff have re-evaluated and support removing both car parks.

5.4 If approved, the recommendations will be implemented within the current financial year (generally around four weeks after the contractor receives the request, but this is subject to other factors such as resourcing and prioritisation beyond Council’s control).

Community Views and Preferences

5.5 The owners of the two affected properties were advised of the recommended option by letter and email. One submission was fully supportive of the proposal.

5.6 The owners of 182 Dyers Pass Road who originally raised the concern are supportive of the no stopping restrictions between 180 and 182 Dyers Pass Road which is in line with their original request. They do not support extending the no stopping lines through to the corner (southeast of their property) as they do not think this is warranted.

5.7 Staff do not support reducing the length of the proposed no stopping lines to retain a car park to the southeast (uphill) of the driveway. From a safety perspective, particularly since this proposal has been developed in response to a complaint about driveway safety and visibility, the safest option is for all possible obstructions to be removed between the driveway and the corner so visibility can be maintained and maximised throughout the manoeuvre.

5.8 Furthermore, when a vehicle is parked in this location it also presents a hazard for any vehicles or cyclists travelling around this bend who have limited forward visibility of the vehicle (and anyone entering or exiting the vehicle within the traffic lane).

6. Policy Framework Implications Ngā Hīraunga ā- Kaupapa here Strategic Alignment Te Rautaki Tīaroaro

6.1 Council’s strategic priorities have been considered in formulating the recommendations in this report, however this area of work is not specifically covered by an identified priority.

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

6.3 Transport

6.3.1 Activity: Transport

· Level of Service: 10.0.6.1 Reduce the number of death and serious injury crashes on the local road network - <=96 crashes

Policy Consistency Te Whai Kaupapa here

6.4 The recommendations in this report are consistent with the Christchurch Suburban Parking Policy.

Impact on Mana Whenua Ngā Whai Take Mana Whenua

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

Climate Change Impact Considerations Ngā Whai Whakaaro mā te Āhuarangi

6.6 This proposal does not have any significant effect upon carbon emissions and Climate Change.

Accessibility Considerations Ngā Whai Whakaaro mā te Hunga Hauā

6.7 This proposal improves accessibility for pedestrians/drivers/cyclists, by improving visibility and clearance to all road users in this location.

7. Resource Implications Ngā Hīraunga Rauemi

Capex/Opex Ngā Utu Whakahaere

7.1 Cost to Implement – approximately $200 for line marking and $750 for consultation, investigation and preparation of this report.

7.2 Maintenance/Ongoing costs – will be added to and covered by the area maintenance contract.

7.3 Funding Source – Traffic Operations Team Traffic Signs and Markings budget.

Other

7.4 None identified.

8. Legal Implications Ngā Hīraunga ā-Ture

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

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

8.2 The Community Boards have delegated authority from the Council to exercise the delegations as set out in the Register of Delegations. The list of delegations for the Community Boards includes the resolution of stopping restrictions and traffic control devices.

8.3 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

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

8.5 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.

9. Risk Management Implications Ngā Hīraunga Tūraru

9.1 None identified.

Attachments Ngā Tāpirihanga

No.	Title	Reference	Page
a ⇩	Site Plan - 180-182 Dyers Pass Road Proposed No Stopping Restrictions	24/442182	41

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

Toni Dakers - Traffic Engineer

Approved By

Katie Smith - Team Leader Traffic Operations

Stephen Wright - Manager Operations (Transport)

Waihoro Spreydon-Cashmere-Heathcote Community Board

11 April 2024

10. Proposed tree planting plan for Walsall Reserve, Remuera Reserve and Ferrymead Park (Sports area)
Reference / Te Tohutoro:	24/244521
Report of / Te Pou Matua:	Toby Chapman, Manager Urban Forest
Senior Manager / Pouwhakarae:	Andrew Rutledge, Acting General Manager Citizens and Community

1. Purpose and Origin of Report Te Pūtake Pūrongo

1.1 To seek approval for the planting of trees within Walsall and Remuera Reserve following public consultation

1.2 The Christchurch Urban Forest Plan has a focus on increasing the size of our urban forest across the city. The Urban Forest Tree Planting Programme has been established to implement this plan through increasing the number of trees within our parks.

1.3 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 number of properties that will be impacted and how it will alter the parks for those who use them.

1.4 The planting within these parks is part of the urban forest planting programme. This programme is focused on increasing the canopy cover across our parks in alignment with the Councils Urban Forest plan.

1.5 The plan for Ferrymead sports park was developed in early 2023 and went out for consultation but did not proceed to the Board as there were issues raised by the local sport groups.

2. Officer Recommendations Ngā Tūtohu

That the Waihoro Spreydon-Cashmere-Heathcote Community Board:

1. Approve the planting of trees within Walsall Reserve as per the attached plans.

2. Approve the planting of trees within Remuera Reserve as per the attached plans.

3. Approve the planting of trees within Ferrymead Park Sports area as per the attached plans.

3. Reason for Report Recommendations Ngā Take mō te Whakatau

3.1 Staff have developed plans for Walsall Reserve, Remuera Reserve and Ferrymead Park sports area with an aim to significantly increase tree planting within these areas.

3.2 These plans have been designed in alignment with the Urban Forest Plan with a focus on increase canopy cover, in particular within the open space environment.

3.3 Some of the plans have been altered as a response to feedback we received during the consultation period.

4. Alternative Options Considered Ētahi atu Kōwhiringa

4.1 The Consulted Plans are approved.

Advantages:

4.1.1 Plans will be the same as those that went out for consultation.

Disadvantages:

4.1.2 Staff made a number of changes to the plans in an attempt to address some of the concerns raised through the submissions such as reducing the heights of trees, taking away some proposed plantings to provide more open space. If the original consulted plans are approved, these alterations will be lost.

4.2 Plans are not approved.

Advantage:

4.2.1 If the Community Board have significant concerns with the plans they would have the opportunity make changes.

Disadvantage:

4.2.2 Staff have a limited tree planting season. If plans are not approved, we risk not being able to plant this year.

5. Detail Te Whakamahuki

5.1 In 2023 the Christchurch City Council (Council) adopted an Urban Forest Plan which has a key focus on increasing the city’s canopy cover. The Urban Forest Tree Planting programme was established in the same year as part of the implementation of this plan.

5.2 Planting plans for Walsall Reserve, Remuera Reserve and Ferrymead Park sports area have been developed to significantly increase the number of trees (and canopy cover) within these parks in alignment with the Urban Forest Plan.

5.3 The plans have a strong focus on ensuring that the trees selected and their placement will be suitable for the full life of the tree and takes account of the impact they will have. This is represented in the plans through showing the trees at their mature size as well as the inclusion of shade mapping.

Public Consultation Te Tukanga Kōrerorero (Walsall and Remuera Reserve)

5.4 Consultation started on 15 December 2023 and ran until 1 February 2024. An email was sent to 86 key stakeholders.

5.5 The consultation was hosted on Kōrero mai | Let’s Talk. The landing page for the tree planting plans had 2,577 views throughout the consultation period, the Remuera Reserve page had 228 views, and the Walsall Reserve page had 19 views.

5.6 A Newsline article published on 15 December 2023 and posted on our Council Facebook page reached 10,958 people. Additionally, the consultation was posted on the Beckenham Neighbourhood and Cashmere Neighbourhood Facebook groups, with a total of 33 reactions and 4 comments.

5.7 Flyers were delivered to properties neighbouring the park to notify them about the consultation. Signage was installed in the park with a QR code to the consultation webpage.

Remuera Reserve

5.8 Submissions were made by one recognised organisation (Te Mana Ora), and 20 individuals. A full table of submission feedback is available in Attachment A.

5.9 Submitters were asked how important it was to them to increase the number of trees in the park, what factors should be considered in the plan, how they felt about the overall plan, and the level to which they would be impacted.

5.10

The majority of submitters (15, 75%) support or strongly support the plan, as shown in Figure 1.

5.11 Support for the plan differed depending on where the submitter lives in relation to the park. Submitters were more likely to strongly support the plan if they live/work in the local area (9, 69.2%) than those who live/work next to the park (3, 60%), as shown in Figure 2.

Figure 2

5.12

More than half of submitters (11, 50%) feel it is important or very important to plant more trees in Remuera Reserve, as seen in Figure 2.

5.13 Submitters were asked to rate how important various aspects were to them when increasing the tree cover in this park. As shown in Figure 4, the top 3 aspects were attracting birds and insects, planting native trees, and planting flowering species.

A colorful rectangular bars with text

Description automatically generated with medium confidence

Figure 4

5.14 Submitters were asked how concerned they were about various aspects when increasing the tree cover in this park. As shown in Figure 5, the top 3 concerns were too much shade, loss of open spaces, and debris (e.g. dropping leaves).

Figure 5

5.15 Key themes and requests raised by submitters are listed in the table below.

Theme	Number of mentions
Concern about shade	5
Concern about loss of open space for play/sport	4
General positive comments	3
Request to plant natives	3
Request to plant trees for climbing	2
Other specific species request	2

Note: Submitters could mention multiple themes, so the total number of themes mentioned won't match the exact number of submitters.

5.16 Additional feedback not relating to trees was received. Three submitters requested staff to add/improve play spaces. This feedback will be provided to Council staff to take into account as part of the park development program.

Remuera Reserve changes:

5.17 No changes have been proposed for the park however staff have met with the residents at 4 Remuera Reserve which appears to the be the source of most of the shading concerns. Staff have advised on the process for applying for a public tree to be removed and a report will be provided to the Community Board in the near future.

5.18 Another submission related to safety concerns within the park which may result from the additional planting, staff have sought further advice from our landscape architects who provided the following information:

I have reviewed the plan for Remuera Reserve's proposed tree planting and in my opinion, the additional trees will not create CPTED issues if they are maintained correctly.

The key points are:

· That the proposed trees are clear stemmed/with a high-level canopy that can be limbed up to ensure open sightlines are retained. This also retains oversight from the roads and surrounding residences.

· Good visibility to the playground is retained.

· The trees remain set back from the pathway and this path has a clear line of sight.

· The proposed trees do not obstruct existing lights.

It is noted that some existing areas of shrubbery around the park cause some CPTED issues due to potential concealment spaces, but this is not caused by the existing clear-stemmed specimen trees in the park.

For further information to support this, refer to the ‘Safer Canterbury – Creating Safer Communities’ CPTED document which reiterates the general thinking about trees and CPTED (I have taken a couple of images from this below).

Walsall Reserve

5.19 Submissions were made by one recognised organisation (Te Mana Ora), and eight individuals. A full table of submission feedback is available in Attachment B.

5.20 Submitters were asked how important it was to them to increase the number of trees in the park, what factors should be considered in the plan, how they felt about the overall plan, and the level to which they would be impacted.

5.21 All individual submitters (8, 100%) support or strongly support the plan.

5.22 All submitters felt it was very important (4) or somewhat important (4) to plant more trees in Walsall Reserve.

5.23 Submitters were asked to rate how important various aspects were to them when increasing the tree cover in this park. The top 3 aspects were attracting birds and insects, providing enough shade, and planting native trees.

5.24 Submitters were asked how concerned they were about various aspects when increasing the tree cover in this park. As shown in Figure 4, the top 3 concerns were damage (e.g. footpaths), loss of open spaces, and loss of view.

5.25 Key themes and requests raised by submitters are listed in the table below.

Theme	Mentions (# of submitters)
Other specific species request	3
Concern about safety	2
Request to plant natives	2
Request to plant fruit trees	2

5.26 Additional feedback not relating to trees was received. Three submitters mentioned that the sign needs to be replaced in the reserve, and another two requested a fence to stop people parking in the reserve. This feedback will be provided to Council staff to take into account as part of the park development program.

Walsall reserve changes

5.27 Based on the positive, staff are proposing only one change and that is to remove one of the proposed plantings in the corner to reduce density and perceived safety concerns.

Public Consultation Te Tukanga Kōrerorero (Ferrymead Sports Park)

5.28 Ferrymead park planting plan was developed as part of the initial set of Urban Forest Planting Plans. This plan did not proceed to the Community Board at the time as we had received feedback from the local sports teams regarding the placement of some of the trees.

5.29 The plans went out for consultation from the 30 June and 17 July 2023. To help raise awareness of the consultations, we emailed some key stakeholders, promoted the consultation via a story on Newsline, and put up signage at key points in each park with a link to the Have Your Say page.

5.30 We received 145 submissions during the consultation period (for all 15 parks). Some of the submissions were general and related to all of the plans, while others were specific to a park or parks.

We received 4 submissions for Ferrymead park:

· Mainland Football – supportive of Urban Forest Plan but not supportive of plans. Concerned about impact of planting plans on sports fields. Specific concerns regarding maintaining good ground conditions during summer when ground traditionally dry (and trees will be competing with grass for water). Would like further conversations.

· Ferrymead Bays Football Club – has concerns regarding shading, drainage issues, access for maintenance of pitches and floodlights, and future Club facilities.

· One submission supports tree planting but has concerns about size of trees and how shade might impact on ground quality of pitches.

· One submission in support but mentions importance of maintenance and management plans to ensure trees survive.

5.31 Staff met with the sports team representative for Mainland Football and Bays Football Club on the 18 December 2023 to discuss the plans in more detail. We also met with the local Athletics club who raised other issues with the proposal.

5.32 During the meeting with the group a number of changes were made to address their concerns. The plans have now been updated and are included as Attachment E.

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: 6.8.2.1 Increasing tree canopy in Parks - A net increase in total number of trees is achieved (1:2 replacement policy), with a minimum of 50% of the trees being medium to very large species.

Policy Consistency Te Whai Kaupapa here

6.3 The decision is consistent with Council’s Urban Forest Plan and other relevant Policies.

6.4 All planting will be in alignment with the Tree Policy, Infrastructure Design Standards and Construction Standard Specification.

Impact on Mana Whenua Ngā Whai Take Mana Whenua

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

6.6 The decision involves a matter of interest to Mana Whenua and will not impact on our agreed partnership priorities with Ngā Papatipu Rūnanga.

6.7 Mana Whenua values, as expressed in the Mahaanui Iwi Management Plan, have been incorporated into the Urban Forest Plan. These planting plans are part of the implementation of this plan.

Climate Change Impact Considerations Ngā Whai Whakaaro mā te Āhuarangi

6.8 The decisions in this report are likely to:

6.9 Contribute positively to adaptation to the impacts of climate change.

6.10 Contribute positively to emissions reductions.

6.11 The plans will result in an increase in canopy cover across the city. As trees sequester carbon, this will have a positive impact on the Councils emissions reduction.

Accessibility Considerations Ngā Whai Whakaaro mā te Hunga Hauā

6.12 The trees have been planted with a setback from paths to avoid issues relating to roots and adjacent infrastructure.

7. Resource Implications Ngā Hīraunga Rauemi

Capex/Opex Ngā Utu Whakahaere

7.1 Cost to Implement - $115K

7.2 Maintenance/Ongoing costs - $nil (included in the implementation costs)

7.3 Funding Source - Better off funding

Other He mea anō

7.4 Funding for this project has already been acquired through the Better Off Fund.

8. Legal Implications Ngā Hīraunga ā-Ture

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

8.1 Council has the delegation to plant trees within the Park.

Other Legal Implications Ētahi atu Hīraunga-ā-Ture

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

9. Risk Management Implications Ngā Hīraunga Tūraru

9.1 The greatest risk to this project is the availability of trees and the ability to plant the trees before the end of the planting season.

9.2 If trees are not available or planting is not able to be completed, these parks will be completed during the next planting season.

10. Next Steps Ngā Mahinga ā-muri

10.1 Once the plans are approved, staff will order trees ready for planting

10.2 If all trees are not able to be sourced, staff will plant what they can and complete the rest of the planting when the plants are ready.

Attachments Ngā Tāpirihanga

No.	Title	Reference	Page
a ⇩	Walsall Reserve Planting Plan	24/488822	53
b ⇩	Walsall Reserve submissions - Public	24/328651	73
c ⇩	Remuera Reserve submissions - Public	24/328820	99
d ⇩	Remuera Reserve Planting Plan	24/488823	148
e ⇩	Ferrymead Tree Planting Plan	24/488824	168

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

Toby Chapman - Manager Urban Forest

Krystle Anderson - Engagement Advisor

Samantha Smith - Engagement Advisor

Kiran Skelton - Engagement Advisor

Approved By

Rupert Bool - Acting Head of Parks

Waihoro Spreydon-Cashmere-Heathcote Community Board

11 April 2024

11. Tree Removals for Water Supply Pipe Renewal Project
Reference Te Tohutoro:	24/479714
Responsible Officer(s) Te Pou Matua:	James McDuff, Arborist, Parks Unit.
Accountable ELT Member Pouwhakarae:	Andrew Rutledge, Acting General Manager Citizens and Community

1. Purpose and Origin of the Report Te Pūtake Pūrongo

1.1 The purpose of this report is to request the removal of up to four (4) trees located in the pump station grounds at 109 Scruttons Road, Ferrymead.

1.2 The report is a result of a project being undertaken to renew the water pipe, on the existing alignment, from the pump station through to Ferrymead Park Drive, adjacent to the pipe are four (4) trees that will be impacted by the excavations required for the project.

1.3 A decision is being sought prior to works being undertaken on site.

2. Officer Recommendations Ngā Tūtohu

That the Waihoro Spreydon-Cashmere-Heathcote Community Board:

1. Receive the information in the Tree Removals for Water Supply Pipe Renewal Project Report.

2. Note that the decision in this report is of low significance concerning the Christchurch City Council’s Significance and Engagement Policy.

3. Is required to make a decision to approve or not approve the removal of the trees.

3. Background/Context Te Horopaki

3.1 Tree Details

3.2 The trees are two (2) Macrocarpa and two (2) Poplars identified within the vicinity of the pipe renewal that will be affected by the works.

3.3 The two (2) Macrocarpa have been assessed as being in healthy and structurally sound condition, the two (2) Poplars have been assessed as being healthy but are structurally unsound.

3.4 The trees are in Ferrymead Park land (regional park)

3.5 The trees do not have CCC Tree Asset ID numbers.

3.6 The trees are in a section of land that is not regularly maintained and not part of any maintenance programmes.

3.7 The water station is closed off to the public.

A tree in a field

Description automatically generated

Figure 1: Image of the subject trees

A map of a water treatment plant

Description automatically generated with medium confidence

Figure 2: Showing location of the trees and alignment of the pipe on the construction plan.

3.8 There is an easement in place for the existing pipe. As the pipe renewal is confined to the easement and the neighbouring property is not owned by Council, changing the alignment of the pipe to retain the trees is not practical.

3.9 Further investigations will be undertaken once the project begins to ascertain the final alignment of the pipe, there may be scope to shift the pipe away from the trees slightly, as a result some of the trees may be retained.

3.10 Replacement planting will be undertaken to mitigate the removal of the trees to meet Section 1.9 of Councils Tree Policy of replacing the tree canopy which is lost within 20 years.

Options Considered Ngā Kōwhiringa Whaiwhakaaro

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

· Removal of the required trees for the project to proceed.

3.12 The following options were considered but ruled out:

· Retain the trees - It may not be possible to complete the project.

Options Descriptions Ngā Kōwhiringa

3.13 Preferred Option: Removal of the tree(s)

3.13.1 Option Advantages

· The project can proceed.

· There is plenty of room for replacement planting.

3.13.2 Option Disadvantages

· Loss of the trees and canopy cover.

4. Financial Implications Ngā Hīraunga Rauemi

Capex/Opex Ngā Utu Whakahaere

	Recommended Option
Cost to Implement	Remove the trees $4000
Maintenance/Ongoing Costs	Replacement planting: Supply/installation/maintenance. $2000
Funding Source	Project budget
Funding Availability	Approved
Impact on Rates	N/A

5. Considerations Ngā Whai Whakaaro

Risks and Mitigations Ngā Mōrearea me ngā Whakamātautau

5.1 <enter text>.

Legal Considerations Ngā Hīraunga ā-Ture

5.2 Statutory and/or delegated authority to undertake proposals in the report:

5.2.1 As outlined in the Delegations Register Part 4 – Community Boards, the local Community Board has the authority to approve the removal of healthy and structurally sound trees on reserves, parks, road corridors and open spaces.

5.3 Other Legal Implications:

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

Strategy and Policy Considerations Te Whai Kaupapa here

5.4 The required decision

5.4.1 Align with the Christchurch City Council’s Strategic Framework.

5.4.2 Is of Low significance in relation to the Christchurch City Council’s Significance and Engagement Policy.

5.4.3 Is consistent with Council’s Plans and Policies, it aligns with Section 4.7 & 1.9 of Councils Tree Policy

4.7 Approval by Council for the removal of trees to facilitate projects on council land will take into account the value of the project to the community, including public health and/or the local environment and considerations taken for retaining existing trees compared with the loss of the benefits provided by the trees.

1.9 For every tree removed a minimum of two new trees will be planted with the projected canopy cover replacing that which is lost within 20 years (additional planting may be required).

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

5.6 Not in Plan

5.6.1 Activity: Not in Plan

· Level of Service: Not in Plan

Community Impacts and Views Ngā Mariu ā-Hāpori

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

5.7.1 Waihoro Spreydon-Cashmere-Heathcote

Impact on Mana Whenua Ngā Whai Take Mana Whenua

5.8 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.

5.9 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.

Climate Change Impact Considerations Ngā Whai Whakaaro mā te Āhuarangi

5.15 The proposals in this report are unlikely to contribute significantly to adaptation to the impacts of climate change or emissions reductions.

5.15.1 Small number of trees, replacement planting will be undertaken to mitigate tree canopy loss.

6. Next Steps Ngā Mahinga ā-muri

6.1 Start the water pipe renewal project.

6.2 Undertake further investigations to determine the pipe alignment.

6.3 If approved, remove trees where necessary.

6.4 Undertake replacement planting.

Attachments Ngā Tāpirihanga

There are no attachments to this report.

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

Document Name – Location / File Link

Not applicable

Signatories Ngā Kaiwaitohu

Author

James McDuff - Park Arborist

Approved By

Toby Chapman - Manager Urban Forest

Rupert Bool - Acting Head of Parks

Waihoro Spreydon-Cashmere-Heathcote Community Board

11 April 2024

12. Worsleys Road Realignment - Legalisation
Reference / Te Tohutoro:	22/1671200
Report of / Te Pou Matua:	Stuart McLeod, Property Consultant (stuart.mcleod@ccc.govt.nz)
General Manager / Pouwhakarae:	Lynette Ellis, Head of Transport & Waste Management

1. Nature of Decision or Issue and Report Origin

1.1 A Council Resolution is required to request the Minister of Lands to stop the part of Worsleys Road shown as Section 1 Survey Office Plan 585685 and to declare it to be a Local Purpose (Utility) Reserve.

1.2 This report is a result of Resource Consent conditions in Resource Consent RMA/2015/3550/F approving the Cashmere Estates subdivision. The consent requires the realignment of Worsleys Road for better traffic management and pedestrian safety reasons.

1.3 This report also seeks Community Board approval to grant easements over the newly declared reserve to protect existing infrastructure.

1.4 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 considering the advantages of the new road alignment against the impact of the stopping the old road that is now grassed and bisects two Local Purpose (Utility) Reserves.

2. Officer Recommendations Ngā Tūtohu

That the Waihoro Spreydon-Cashmere-Heathcote Community Board:

1. That pursuant to Sections 116 and 117(7) of the Public Works Act 1981 the Council resolves to make application to the Minister of Lands to stop that parcel road identified as Section 1 on SO Plan 585685, as detailed on Attachment A, containing 0.3871ha and to declare it to be a local purpose (utility) reserve vested in the Christchurch City Council subject to the Reserves Act 1977 and

2. Subject to the consent of the Minister of Conservation, approves pursuant to Section 48 of the Reserves Act 1977, the grant of

a. a right to convey telecommunications in gross to Enable New Zealand Limited over the parts shown “A” and “C” on SO 585685 and

b. a right to convey water in gross in favour of the Christchurch City Council over the parts shown “B” and “C” on SO 585685

3. Recommends that the Chief Executive, using the Council’s delegated authority from the Minister of Conservation, consent to the granting of the easement.

4. Authorises the Property Consultancy Manager to finalise all documentation to implement the above resolutions numbered 1, 2a and 2b.

3. Reason for Report Recommendations Ngā Take mō te Whakatau

3.1 The above recommendations are to ensure there is consistency between the Outline Development Plan in District Plan and the way Council owns and manages its land holdings.

4. Alternative Options Considered Ētahi atu Kōwhiringa

4.1 Continue to hold the land as road, this option has the following

4.2 Advantages –

· Easements are not required over road.

4.3 Disadvantages –

· Does not reflect the intent of the District Plan.

· Does not provide continuity to the reserve land between the new Worsleys Road alignment and Cashmere Stream.

5. Detail Te Whakamahuki

5.1 Nearby land to the east of Worsleys Road is the subject of the Cashmere Estates multistage subdivision. Resource consent for this subdivision RMA/2015/3550 has been granted by the Council through the Resource Management Act 1991 process.

5.2 The realignment of Worsleys Road is anticipated in Part 14 of the City Plan, Subdivisions, (see below diagram). This road realignment helps mitigate the effects of traffic movements from the Cashmere Estates subdivision and provides a new shared cycle and pedestrian path. Once the old Worsleys Road is stopped it will provide a continuous utility reserve from the new Worsleys Road alignment to Cashmere Stream. A map of a road

Description automatically generated

5.3 As can be seen from the below photograph the road has now been grassed over and for all intents and purposes forms part of the adjoining local purpose (utility) reserve and is managed and maintained by the Parks Unit. To leave it as road creates adminstrative difficulties because it would remain a road asset.

5.4 The stopping of the old road and declaration that it is held as local purpose (utility) reserve provides consistency with the adjoining reserve status and provides a contiguous area of open space not bisected by the legal Road.

5.5 A Council water main and an Enable telecommunications cable have been identified as being within the old Worsley Road alignment.

5.6 Once the road is stopped and declared to be Local Purpose (Utility) Reserve a right to drain water easement in gross in favour of the Christchurch City Council and a telecommunications easement in gross in favour of Enable Services Limited will be granted.

5.7 Section 48 of the Reserves Act 1977 authorises the granting of easements over reserves. If the reserve is not materially altered or permanently damage such advertising is not required, this is the case here.

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

5.8.1 Cashmere Ward, Waihoro Spreydon–Cashmere-Heathcote Community Board

6. Policy Framework Implications Ngā Hīraunga ā- Kaupapa here

Strategic AlignmentTe Rautaki Tīaroaro

6.1 The decisions in this report align with Section 14 of the District Plan.

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

6.3 Internal Activities

6.3.1 Activity: Facilities, Property and Planning

· Level of Service: 13.4.10 Acquisition of property right projects, e.g. easements, leases and land assets to meet LTP funded projects and activities. - At least 90% projects delivered to agreed timeframes per annum 10.5.42 Increase the infrastructure provision for active and public modes.

Policy Consistency Te Whai Kaupapa here

6.4 The decisions in this report are consistent with Council’s Road Stopping Policy and District Plan. They:

· Reflect the intent of the District Plan and

· Are consistent with the Councils Road Stopping Policy

Impact on Mana Whenua Ngā Whai Take Mana Whenua

6.6 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

6.7 The affected land has not been identified as being of cultural significance to Ngai Tahu. Any relevant cultural matters would have been considered in the Resource Consent Application and subsequent assessment by Councils planning staff.

Climate Change Impact Considerations Ngā Whai Whakaaro mā te Āhuarangi

6.8 The decisions in this report are procedural in nature and do not impact on climate change.

Accessibility Considerations Ngā Whai Whakaaro mā te Hunga Hauā

6.9 Accessibility has been improved with the new road corridor making provision for a shared footpath and cycle way.

7. Resource Implications Ngā Hīraunga Rauemi

Capex/Opex Ngā Utu Whakahaere

7.1 Cost to Implement - Staff time and legal fees for processing.

7.2 Maintenance/Ongoing costs – Ongoing maintenance (mowing).

7.3 Funding Source – Parks Operational budget.

Other He mea anō

7.4 None

8. Legal Implications Ngā Hīraunga ā-Ture

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

8.1 There are two statutory processes under which road stoppings can be enacted. The authority to determine which statutory procedure should be employed to undertake a particular road stopping (either under the Local Government Act 1974 or under the Public Works Act 1981) is delegated to staff. The Policy establishes:

4.5 The following criteria have been established to ensure that the appropriate statutory procedure is consistently adopted by the Council, and to avoid, as much as is practicable, such decisions being successfully contested by any party.

Local Government Act 1974 process

4.6 The Local Government Act 1974 road-stopping procedure will be adopted if one or more of the following circumstances apply:

a. Where any public right of access to any public space could be removed or materially limited or extinguished as a result of the road being stopped; or

b. If it is found through the review process that the road stopping could injuriously affect or have a negative or adverse impact on any other property; or

c. The road stopping is, in the judgment of the Council, likely to be controversial; or

d. If there is any doubt or uncertainty as to which procedure should be used to stop the road; or

e. The Public Works Act 1981 process is not able to be used, or is not used.

Public Works Act 1981 process

4.7 The Public Works Act 1981 road stopping procedure may be adopted only if all of the following circumstances apply:

a. Where there are no more than two properties, other than the applicant’s property, adjoining the road proposed to be stopped;

b. Where the written consent to the proposed road stopping of all adjoining landowners (other than the applicant) to the proposed road-stopping is obtained;

c. Where no other persons, including the public generally, are considered by the Council in its judgment to be adversely affected by the proposed road stopping;

d. Where the road proposed to be stopped is to be amalgamated with the adjoining property or properties (as appropriate); and

e. Where other reasonable access exists or will be provided to replace the access previously provided by the road proposed to be stopped (i.e. by the construction of a new road); and

f. Where the use of the Public Works Act 1981 road stopping procedure is approved by the relevant Government department or Minister.

4.8 If any one of the circumstances referred to in clause 4.7 does not apply, then the Local

Government Act 1974 process must be used.

8.2 In this instance staff have determined that the proposed road stopping meets the Public Works act criteria.

8.3 Section 116 of the Public Works Act 1981 authorises the Minister of Lands to stop roads and section 117(7) allows the Minister to declare any stopped road to be added to adjoining reserve land.

8.4 The authority for council to grant easements over reserves sits within section 48 of the Reserves Act 1977, Council has subdelegated this authority to the local Community Boards, Delegations Register Part D – Sub Part 1 page 96

8.5 The consent of the Minister of Conservation is also required for the grant of easements over reserves, the Minister has delegated this requirement to the Council who have subsequently delegated it to the Chief Executive. The Board can recommend the Chief Executive to exercise his/her delegation on behalf of the Minster.

Other Legal Implications Ētahi atu Hīraunga-ā-Ture

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

9. Risk Management Implications Ngā Hīraunga Tūraru

9.1 There are no identified significant risks in the decisions requested in this report. There is a minor risk the Minister of Lands will not stop the road and vest it as reserve or the Minister of Conservation will not consent to the easements.

9.2 If that were to be the case the Council could either do nothing in which case the land status would remain as legal road or it could consider using the Local Government 1974 procedure to stop the road and the Reserves Act procedures to declare the land to be a reserve and grant easements over it.

Attachments Ngā Tāpirihanga

No.	Title	Reference	Page
a ⇩	Section 1 Survey Office Plan 585685	24/534898	181

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

Stuart McLeod - Property Consultant

Approved By

Angus Smith - Manager Property Consultancy

Andrew Milne - Team Leader Asset Planning

Lynette Ellis - Head of Transport & Waste Management

Waihoro Spreydon-Cashmere-Heathcote Community Board

11 April 2024

13. Former Opawa Children's Library Building - Expression of Interest, Results and Recommendation
Reference / Te Tohutoro:	23/2108074
Report of / Te Pou Matua:	Barry Woodland, Property Consultant (barry.woodland@ccc.govt.nz); Matthew Pratt, Community Facilities and Activation Manager (matthew.pratt@ccc.govt.nz)
General Manager / Pouwhakarae:	Andrew Rutledge, Acting General Manager Citizens & Community

1. Nature of Decision or Issue and Report Origin

1.1 The purpose of the report is to seek a delegation, for the Manager Property Consultancy, to implement the removal of the former Opawa Children’s Library building and remediation of the site.

1.2 In July 2023, the Community Board resolved (SCBCC/2023/00055)
that staff make further attempts to find a new owner for the former Opawa Children’s Library and report back to the Community Board if a viable option is found.

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 limited number of people affected by the decision given that no substantive or sustainable proposals to purchase and relocate the building were received during the EOI process.

2. Officer Recommendations Ngā Tūtohu

That the Waihoro Spreydon-Cashmere-Heathcote Community Board:

1. Receive the report and acknowledge the staff summary and outcomes from the EOI process.

Recommend to Council that Council:

2. Approve the removal of the building and subsequent remediation of the site to its natural state.

3. Delegate to the Manager Property Consultancy the authority to enter into such contracts and documents as deemed necessary to implement the removal of the building and remediation of the site.

3. Reason for Report Recommendations Ngā Take mō te Whakatau

3.1 The former Opawa Children’s Library (the Building) has been closed since 2020.

3.2 The building is no longer required for operational use and needs to be removed from its current site.

3.3

Council have resolved (at its meeting on 11 August 2022) to approve the removal of the Building from its current flood prone location if no purchase or relocation options arise from an Expressions of Interest (EOI) process.

3.4 Following the expression of interest process, no viable options emerged.

3.5 In July 2023, the Community Board resolved (SCBCC/2023/00055) that staff make further attempts to find a new owner for the former Opawa Children’s Library and report back to the Community Board if a viable option is found.

3.6 One viable proposal to take ownership of and relocate the Building has been received from the Smith Street Community Farm Trust (the Trust).

3.7 This report recommends that the Board delegate, to the Manager Property Consultancy, the authority to enter into such contracts and documents as deemed necessary to implement the removal of the building and remediation of the site with the Trust.

4. Preferred Option

4.1 A proposal to take ownership of the Building has been received from the Smith Street Community Farm Trust (the Trust).

4.2 The Trust’s formal EOI proposal, appended as Attachment B, demonstrates their capacity to decommission and remove the Building from the site, remediate the site, establish the Building on a new site and continue to own and use the Building as a community asset.

4.3 The Trust propose that the Building is relocated to the Smith Street Gardens site, 180 Smith Street. The Trust have recently been granted a lease for this site by Christchurch City Council.

4.4 The Trust’s kaupapa is to develop local food resilience. They do this by providing a thriving urban garden where people can come together to grow, learn and share their knowledge and skills.

4.5 The Trust’s mission is to facilitate access to healthy food and to provide education on sustainable agriculture. Their community farm provides a space for the community people to participate in, and benefit from, this.

4.6 The Trust plan to continue to develop the garden site with the addition of the Building, in such a way that it is an asset to the community and a prime example of how sustainable good food resilience is being achieved and developed in an urban setting.

4.7 In addition to providing further opportunities for the local community it will enable the Trust to further develop its existing ‘partnerships’ with the Biological Husbandry Unit / Lincoln University, Woolston Development Project, Land Based Training Limited and other like-minded organisations.

4.8 For not-for-profit, incorporated, community organisations, a key element of the EOI process required the successful respondent to remove and relocate the Building for a sustainable community use at no cost to Council.

4.9 The Trust estimate the costs of removing and relocating the Building are around $50,000. A sum of $40,000 is available from Christchurch City Council (representing the estimated cost to Council to demolish the Building and remediate the site).

4.10 The Trust estimate that an additional $20,000 to $50,000 will be needed to recommission the Building once it is relocated. This includes relevant consents, electrics, installation of suitable ablutions and accessible ramps for access. The Trust propose to cover these costs through applications to funders and through pro bono support from volunteers.

4.11 The Trust are discussing options for additional funding support with relevant staff and local funding entities.

4.12 Staff have assessed the Trust’s proposal and are confident that, with continued support of local community development staff, the Trust have the capacity and capability to implement their plans and relocate the Building.

5. Alternative Options Considered Ētahi atu Kōwhiringa

5.1 Status quo – leave the building insitu and vacant.

5.2 From a reputational perspective it is not ideal to hold on to a building in a high hazard flood zone where Council rules say we should not have any structures at all.

5.3 The Building will continue to deteriorate, be subject to potential inundation if a significant flood event occurs and prone to vandalism / arson. There are no advantages with this option.

Not a practical or sustainable option.

5.4 Re-issue the EOI – the original EOI was well distributed across various mediums without any tangible, sustainable, interest from private operators or community groups.

5.5 Following a community board resolution, staff have been working with the community for a further six-months to find a solution (which is the subject of this report).

5.6 Re-issuing the EOI would incur further staff time and costs without any certainty of a positive outcome.

Not recommended.

5.7 Relocate and store the building on a CCC site

5.8 This option would incur costs to remove the Building, remediate the existing site and relocate the Building to an alternative CCC owned site.

5.9 If a suitable site could be identified (there are no sites known currently), the Building would remain vacant and subject to deterioration, vandalism and arson for an indeterminate period of time.

5.10 Should a use for the Building be identified in the future, Council would incur additional relocation, holding, commissioning and set up costs.

Not recommended.

5.11 Demolition

5.12 Staff sought a recommendation for demolition in July 2023 and, while a future community use for the building has been found, demolition remains a viable option.

5.13 There is no allocated LTP funding specifically assigned to the maintenance and repair of the Building which will continue to deteriorate if left insitu (having been vacant since 2020).

5.14 Demolition and removal of the vacant Building from the site will remove the ongoing risk (and cost) of vandalism and arson and the increasing risk from flooding and inundation. It will also enable Council to remove itself from land which has no title and over which it has no occupation agreement. Remediating the land will help to enhance the natural river-bank ecology of the site.

5.15 Should the Board wish to pursue this option they could recommend to Council that Council:

a. Approve the immediate demolition of the building and subsequent remediation of the site to its natural state.

b. Delegate to the Manager Property Consultancy the authority to enter into such contracts and documents as deemed necessary to implement the demolition of the building and remediation of the site.

6. Detail Te Whakamahuki

Future Use

6.1 The single storey Opawa Children’s Library building was originally the social hall on the upper storey of the New Brighton Fire Station from c1930 to 1965 and was relocated to the banks of the Heathcote River in 1965.

6.2 The Building has been closed since 2020 and is no longer required for operational purposes by the asset owner, Community Support and Partnerships.

6.3 Furthermore, the Building is:

· located in a High Flood Hazard Management Area;

· susceptible to coastal inundation;

· within the orange tsunami evacuation zone;

· situated in a ‘hydro parcel’ between legal road and the Heathcote River; and is

· situated on the land which has no title and for which no occupation agreement exists.

6.4 With a view to determining its future use the Council resolved at its meeting on 11 August 2022 as follows:

A white text on a black background

Description automatically generated

6.5 In context the Community Board’s preference was, where possible, to identify a community group prepared, and financially able, to relocate, recommission and operate the building.

6.6 Short to medium term use of the building (pending relocation or demolition) is an option but would involve further administrative, management and maintenance costs for Council on a building which needs to be removed from its high flood zone location.

6.7 The following text (paragraphs 6.8 to 6.28) summarising the outcome of this EOI process was reported to the Community Board’s July 2023 meeting.

Expression of Interest

6.8 An Expression of Interest (EOI) process was open for applications from 15 September 2022 until 29 November 2022 (see Appendix A). The EOI was advertised on GETS, in the local press and on Council’s website and circulated to the Council’s governance, funding and heritage teams.

6.9 In broad terms Private Operators and Community Organisations were required to:

· decommission and remove the building from the site;

· remediate the site;

· establish the building on a new site (leased or owned by the applicant);

· provide evidence of the financial capability and resources, and;

· in the case of Community Organisations, provide details of the proposed community use for the building – all at no cost to Council.

6.10 A Council contribution of $40,000 was available to prospective respondents, being the estimated equivalent cost to Council of demolishing the building and remediating the site.

Expression of Interest - Outcomes

Applications from Private Operators or Community Groups

6.11 Only one completed, formal, EOI application was received by the closing date for submissions. Three other informal enquiries were received. These were followed up by staff and reported as follows.

Formal EOI Application

6.12 Glenys Crompton: the respondent proposed to relocate the building for private residential use. However, after undertaking due diligence the proposal was withdrawn on 29 March 2022. The reasoning cited the significant costs required to decommission, relocate and re-establish the building and services on a new site together with the associated consenting and compliance costs and the cost to remediate the existing site.

Informal EOI Enquiries

6.13 Immediately prior to the closing date for applications staff received two other informal enquiries from two community- based organisations.

6.14 Ferrymead Trust: contemplated the use of the building within the Ferrymead Heritage Park. The Trust were granted an extension until 31 January 2023 to submit a completed EOI. This was not forthcoming.

6.15 Based on the discussions with, and general feedback provided by, the Trust before and after 31 January, staff advised the Trust on 1 March that it would be recommending to the Board not to proceed with the Trust’s informal interest for the following reasons:

· Ferrymead Trust has insufficient existing funds to facilitate this opportunity in this current economic climate.

· Staff are of the opinion that the minimum requirements under Option 1 of the EOI cannot be met by Ferrymead Trust given their current financial position.

· The Trust are not in a position to consider the proposal further without significant Council investment and undertakings regarding consenting and engineering requirements and costs associated with the relocation of the building.

· Ferrymead Trust has confirmed that it does not have spare funds and have indicated that it is not prepared to divert funds in a hasty speculative course of action which could come to nothing.

6.16 Riverlution Tiny House Village (RTHV): contemplated the use of the building as a community building associated with the proposed Riverlution eco-village on residential red zoned land in Richmond.

6.17 Following further correspondence and consideration RTHV withdrew their interest on 7 March 2023 confirming that “our RTHV team have considered the opportunity to apply, but decided that we don’t have enough certainty of a future lease to go forward with an application and the risk of taking on a building. We’re still in the situation that RTHV have a licence for investigative works for a Richmond RRZ edge housing site, and we can’t apply for a lease for this site (which will be a significant process) until we’ve completed more due diligence and until LINZ complete handover for this RRZ tranche and CCC have co-governance lease application model in place. It’s unlikely all these factors will come together for at least another 6+ months”.

6.18 It is noted that the edge housing superlot has now been transferred to Council and a co-governance is in place. However, a framework for agreeing how third-party proposals (including housing) will be assessed is still being worked through together with the terms and conditions associated with that process. A decision to deal unilaterally with RTHV would then be required which would likely be associated with a lengthy LGA consultation and Council approvals process. Aligned to this RTHV would need to undertake its own due diligence and demonstrate a financially sustainable business case. This process could take in excess of 6 months to complete.

Post EOI Proposal

6.19 Staff worked extensively with a private individual who, after expressing interest during the EOI timeframe, then presented a formal proposal on 14 June 2023 to relocate the building.

6.20 Tina von Pien: proposed to adapt the building for residential purposes as a Tiny Home subject to securing a suitable residential section. Unfortunately, following an extensive search, her proposal was subsequently withdrawn due to new sections generally having covenants against relocatable buildings and the paucity of older sections (with no covenants) and their tendency to be snapped up by developers.

EOI Enquiries for Short Term Use

6.21 Although we received a number of general enquiries regarding temporary short to medium use of the building no detailed EOI applications were received.

6.22 The enquiries included use for the display of artworks, storage hire and art classes/workshops.

6.23 These were not pursued in any detail pending the outcome of the EOI and potential building relocation options from private or community-based operators.

Proposed Next Steps

6.24 In the absence of any substantive proposals to purchase and relocate the building staff propose to initiate a process to demolish the building and remediate the site in line with the general intent of the prior Council resolution referred to in paragraph 5.4.

Community Views and Preferences

6.25 As outlined in the initial report to the previous Board the building has been vacant for several years, is situated in an undefined land parcel and occupies a high hazard prone riverside location which is likely to become increasingly subject to climate change vulnerability at greater cost to Council and the ratepayer.

6.26 In this context, and given that we have received no substantive or sustainable interest in relocating the building, the demolition of the building is arguably the only financially prudent and practical option.

6.27 Although the views and preferences of the community have not been directly considered the response (or lack of it) to the EOI process has been informative. Prior to the EOI being released details of the building were circulated to all Heads of Service (and disseminated to their respective teams) and also to the Community Governance Managers representing the various community boards city-wide.

6.28 The decision affects the Waihoro Spreydon-Cashmere-Heathcote Community Board area.

6.29 This report to the Community Board’s July 2023 meeting precipitated a request for staff to make further attempts to find a new owner for the library and to report back to the Community Board – which is the purpose of this report.

7. Policy Framework Implications Ngā Hīraunga ā- Kaupapa here

Strategic AlignmentTe Rautaki Tīaroaro

7.1 Disposal / demolition of the building is in keeping with the Council’s financial strategy of maintaining a policy of financial prudence through managing assets.

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

7.3 Communities and Citizens

7.3.1 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 - All agreed actions implemented for 2021/22

Policy Consistency Te Whai Kaupapa here

7.4 The decision is consistent with Council’s Plans and Policies regarding the disposal / demolition of the building following public tender in the open market.

Impact on Mana Whenua Ngā Whai Take Mana Whenua

7.5 Previous advice from the Senior Advisor Treaty Relationships confirmed that the decision (to remove the building) 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.

7.6 However, the library setting is of archaeological significance for its location on the banks of the Heathcote River, a place of early Ngai Tahu activity, an important food gathering place and part of the interconnected network of travel routes that crossed the widespread wetland system of greater Christchurch.

7.7 As such the removal of the building and restoration of the river-bank will return the land to its original natural state.

Climate Change Impact Considerations Ngā Whai Whakaaro mā te Āhuarangi

7.8 The removal of the building and concrete access path and footings will help to replenish and preserve the natural ecology of the site and reduce the Council’s carbon footprint.

7.9 In terms of responding positively to climate change vulnerability its removal will take away a potential impediment in the event of flooding and therefore improve the rivers capacity and ability to deal with future flood events.

7.10 The vacant building has recently been the subject of several break-in attempts. Its removal will remove the potential risk of further unsocial behaviours, vandalism and / or arson.

Accessibility Considerations Ngā Whai Whakaaro mā te Hunga Hauā

7.11 N/A.

8. Resource Implications Ngā Hīraunga Rauemi

Capex/Opex Ngā Utu Whakahaere

8.1 Cost to Implement:

8.1.1 Demolition and site remediation: estimated cost to Council $35,000 to $40,000 plus GST.

8.2 Maintenance/Ongoing costs:

8.2.1 Interim costs prior to demolition: insurance, staff costs, repair and maintenance (if required).

8.3 Funding Source:

8.3.1 Demolition Costs: covered by the Community Facilities Tranche 2 Programme.

8.3.2 Interim costs prior to demolition: covered by existing Community Support and Partnerships operational budgets.

Other He mea anō

8.4 N/A.

9. Legal Implications Ngā Hīraunga ā-Ture

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

9.1 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

9.2 The legal consideration is that the Council does not own, or have an occupation agreement over, the land on which the building is situated.

10. Risk Management Implications Ngā Hīraunga Tūraru

10.1 The Crown, as likely administrator of the land, could seek for the building to be removed at some future date if the Council does not do so in accordance with this report.

Attachments Ngā Tāpirihanga

No.	Title	Reference	Page
a ⇩	EOI Document	22/1246824	192
b ⇩	Smith Street Community Farm Trust EOI Proposal - December 2023	24/535107	220

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

Approved By

Angus Smith - Manager Property Consultancy

John Filsell - Head of Community Support and Partnerships

Waihoro Spreydon-Cashmere-Heathcote Community Board

11 April 2024

14. Waihoro Spreydon-Cashmere-Heathcote 2023/2024 Discretionary Response Fund - Board Project - Memorial Plaque, Hoon Hay Park
Reference / Te Tohutoro:	24/328131
Report of / Te Pou Matua:	Shanelle Temaru-Ilalio, Community Development Advisor, shanelle.temaru-ilalio@ccc.govt.nz
Senior Manager / Pouwhakarae:	Andrew Rutledge, Acting General Manager Citizens and Community

1. Purpose of Report Te Pūtake Pūrongo

1.1 The purpose of this report is for the Waihoro Spreydon-Cashmere-Heathcote Community Board to consider an allocation of funds for a Board Project from its 2023/2024 Discretionary Response Fund.

Funding Request Number	Organisation	Project Name	Amount Requested	Amount Recommended
00066991	Waihoro Spreydon-Cashmere-Heathcote Community Board	Board Project - Memorial Plaque, Hoon Hay Park	$800	$800

1.2 There is currently a balance of $23,426 remaining in the fund.

2. Staff Recommendations / Ngā Tūtohu

That the Waihoro Spreydon-Cashmere-Heathcote Community Board:

1. Approves a grant of $800 from its 2023-24 Discretionary Response Fund for the costs associated with a memorial plaque to be placed on an existing park bench at Hoon Hay Park.

3. Key Points Ngā Take Matua

Strategic Alignment Te Rautaki Tīaroaro

3.1 The recommendations above are aligned to the Council's Strategic Framework and in particular the strategic priorities of a Collaborative and Confident City and A Cultural Powerhouse City. The projects also align with the Te Haumako Te Whitingia Strengthening Communities Together Strategy.

Decision Making Authority Te Mana Whakatau

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

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

3.2.2 The Fund does not cover:

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

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

Assessment of Significance and Engagement Te Aromatawai Whakahirahira

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

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

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

Discussion Kōrerorero

3.6 At the time of writing, the balance of the 2023-2024 Discretionary Response Fund is as below.

Total Budget 2023-24	Granted To Date	Available for allocation	Balance If Staff Recommendation adopted
$82,846	$59,420	$23,426	$22,626

3.7 Based on the current Discretionary Response Fund criteria, the applications listed above are eligible for funding.

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

Attachments Ngā Tāpirihanga

No.	Title	Reference	Page
a ⇩	Decision Matrix: Board Project - Memorial Plaque in Hoon Hay Park	24/338014	237

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	Shanelle Temaru-Ilalio - Community Recreation Advisor
Approved By	Arohanui Grace - Manager Community Governance, Spreydon-Cashmere-Heathcote

Waihoro Spreydon-Cashmere-Heathcote Community Board

11 April 2024

17. Waihoro Spreydon-Cashmere-Heathcote Community Board Area Report - April 2024
Reference / Te Tohutoro:	24/373791
Report of / Te Pou Matua:	Arohanui Grace, Manager Community Governance
Senior Manager / Pouwhakarae:	Andrew Rutledge, Acting General Manager Citizens and Community

1. Purpose of Report Te Pūtake Pūrongo

This report provides the Board with an overview on initiatives and issues current within the Community Board area.

2. Officer Recommendations Ngā Tūtohu

That the Waihoro Spreydon-Cashmere-Heathcote Community Board:

1. Receive the Waihoro Spreydon-Cashmere-Heathcote Community Board Area Report for April 2024.

3. Community Support, Governance and Partnership Activity

3.1 Community Governance Projects

Activity	Detail	Timeline	Strategic Alignment
Summer with your Neighbours	Summer with your neighbours is about bringing people closer together and celebrating the unique and diverse mix of each neighbourhood.	Events are being held through to 31 March.	Strengthening Communities Together Strategy
Community Pride Garden Awards 2024	Will Hall, the nominated elected member participated in the judging for the Street and Garden Awards for half a day in early March. Certificates will be posted out to the award recipients this year.	Ongoing	Strengthening Communities Together Strategy
Edible and Sustainable Garden Awards 2024	Twenty-one entries have been received, with assessments to be carried out by the end of February 2024.	Ongoing	Strengthening Communities Together Strategy
Children’s Day 2024	Children's Day, Sunday 3^rd March 2024. A beautiful day was spent celebrating and acknowledging the importance of our tamariki within our communities. After 3 years on hold, it was great to see Children’s Day kick off at a new location Cuthberts Green. The event was a huge success seeing over 16,000 people in attendance. The day seen a range of performances including local school bands, variety of interactive activities and free sausage sizzle BBQ for all whānau to enjoy.	Completed	Strengthening Communities Together Strategy
Waltham Pool Party	Waltham Pool Party, Sunday 17^th March 2024 The event was a huge success. Funded by the Waihoro Community Board with Youth and Cultural Development delivering the Waltham Pool Party that provided hours of entertainment through DJ, Manu competition, free braids and fades and BBQ sausage sizzle.	Completed	Strengthening Communities Together Strategy Community Board Plan 2023-25

3.2 Community Funding Summary

3.2.1 Community Board Discretionary Response Fund 2023/24 – as at 25 March 2024:

· Discretionary Response Fund balance for 2023/24 is $23,426.00

· Youth Achievement and Development Fund balance is $1,500.00

· The Off the Ground Fund balance is $570.00

· The Shape Your Place Toolkit Fund balance is $2,000.00

The 2023/24 Discretionary Response Fund Spreadsheet is attached for record purposes.

3.2.2 Youth Development Fund Applications

The following Youth Development Fund applications have been approved since the last Area Report:

Name	Event	Amount
Luke Street	2024 World Irish Dancing Championships in Glasgow, Scotland	$350
Jorja Bethell	Study Culture, History and Geography, Vietnam	$300
Thomas Owens	2024 Clash of the Cultures Hawaiian Cup in Hilo, Hawaii	$350

The Youth Development Fund Decision Matrices are attached for record purposes.

Reporting back to Community Board:

Name/Event

Photos

Maadi Kiri Kiri

World Stars Junior Golf Championship, USA

I was the captain the New Zealand Junior Golf team and we came 3^rd in the World team’s event.

I placed 4^th in the World for my age group and have received an invitation to play in the Australian junior open in 2024.

A person standing in front of a flag

Description automatically generated

Poppy Mcleay

International Tauila Tag Game

The funding received from Waihoro Spreydon-Cashmere-Heathcote Community Board helped me get to Samoa to compete in the International Tauila Tag series.

My team made the semifinals, unfortunately losing and leaving us in 4^th place but the experience gained from the competition is invaluable.

My plans are to carry on training and play in the Christchurch competition and compete again at the next international series.

3.2.3 Off the Ground Fund Applications

The following Off the Ground Fund applications have been approved since the last Area Report:

Name	Event	Amount
Addington Farm	Pumpkin and Sunflower growing event	$300

The Off the Ground Fund Decision Matrix is attached for record purposes.

Reporting back to Community Board:

Name/Event

Photos

Simeon Park Community Group, Watering System for Simeon Park

The funding granted by the Waihoro Spreydon-Cashmere-Heathcote Community Board has given the Simeon Park Community Group the opportunity to make sure the fruit forest is well cared for and maintained for the community.

The funding brought a large quantity of Natura Kelp which gives the trees their needed nutrition.

Our dream off the fruit forest and our planting is not only to provide a source of whakawhanaugatanga and purpose for us and those who will join us in this Kaupapa but also for our Tamariki and mokopuna.

A person pushing a wheelbarrow with a person in a field

Description automatically generated

3.3 Participation in and Contribution to Decision Making

3.3.1 Report back on other Activities contributing to Community Board Plan [for items not included in the above table but are included in Community Board Plan]

· The Waihoro Spreydon-Cashmere-Heathcote 2023-25 Community Board Plan was adopted by the Board at their meeting in May 2023 and can be found online here.

· Progress on the Community Board Plan can be found online here.

3.3.2 Community Board Webpage

· The Community Board pages on the Christchurch City Council website have been given a facelift with the Board webpage at this link: https://letstalk.ccc.govt.nz/Waihoro-Spreydon-Cashmere-Heathcote-Community-Board

3.3.3 Council Engagement and Consultation.

· Draft Ōtākaro Avon Stormwater Management Plan is open for consultation from 21 February – 22 April 2024. Will go to Council for decision before June 2024.

· Draft 2023/24 Long Term Plan opened for consultation on 18 March to 21 April 2024.

· Purau Reserve to help inform the landscape development plan is open until 7 April 2024, which will go out for consultation in May/June before coming to the Board for consideration in July/August 2024.

· The second round of tree planting plans open for consultation until 9 April, for Francis Reserve and Spreydon Domain, will come to the Board in May/June 2024.

3.4 Governance Advice

3.4.1 Public Forum – The Board received the following public forum presentations at its 29 February Community Open Forum and its 14 March 2024 meeting:

· A recipient of the Youth Development Fund spoke to the Board, sharing their success in the junior world golf championships in 2023.

· Representative from Redcliffs Residents Association spoke to the Board regarding illegal parking in Beachville Esplanade.

· A local resident spoke to the Board about the loss of public spaces.

· A local resident addressed the Board about the state of some baches in Hobson Bay.

· Representative from Hoon Hay Community Association requested a memorial plaque be placed in Hoon Hay Park.

3.4.2 Deputations – The were no deputations at its 14 March 2024 meeting.

3.4.3 Correspondence – The Board received the following correspondence at its 14 March 2024 meeting:

· Westmorland East Valley Reserve Pines.

3.4.4 Briefings – The Board received the following briefings in March 2024

· Customer Service Request Process and Reporting

· Draft Long Term Plan Session

· Community Governance Team Update

3.5 Community Development

3.5.1 Addington Neighbourhood Building Project

"Kia Ora Addington” is continuing to make progress in the local Addington Community with a number of common denominator events being delivered by local citizens in different places in Addington. Over the past month we have seen a "Skill Sharing Night" with cooking, knife/tool sharpening and wooden carving being offered, with over 30 local residents coming to connect and learn new skills.

Haumitanga Taiohi o Addington (The Addington Youth Alliance) activated Addington Park delivering a games and picnic event with a number of fun activities as well as a slip n slide that was a great success on a hot day.

The Kia Ora Addington Collective Group met earlier in March bringing a buzz of discussion, ideas and planning for what's next.

A group of people standing in a field

Description automatically generated

A group of people sitting at a table

Description automatically generated

4. Advice Provided to the Community Board Ngā Kupu Tohutohu ka hoatu ki te Poari Hapori

4.1 Customer Service Request Report – A report on open and completed tickets (requests for service) in February 2024 is attached.

4.2 Graffiti Snapshot Report – The February 2024 Graffiti snapshot attached.

4.3 Attached Memos include:

· Cashmere Centaurus Dyers Pass Colombo Safety Improvements – update.

· Portlink update – 5 March 2024.

· Spreydon Library closure.

4.4 Community Facilities and Activation Manager advised the Board that some refurbishment works to the Somerfield Community Centre has been approved, the works will include work around the toilets, and accessible toilet, an accessibility ramp and upgrades for the kitchen, heating and lighting. This refurbishment is funded through the capital plan.

4.5 At the Community Board briefing on 22 June 2023 during the briefing on the Update on sycamore tree removal in Ernle Clark/Purau Reserve and overview of draft Pest Management Plan, the Board agreed to ask staff to find $15,000-$20,000 in the operating expenditure budget for removing pest trees in Ernle Clark Reserve over the next two years.

Staff advised: A plan for the park is currently in development. Budget will be assigned based on the outcome of the plan and its adoption.

Attachments Ngā Tāpirihanga

No.	Title	Reference	Page
a ⇩	Waihoro Community Board Discretionary Response Fund as at 25 March 2024	24/489423	255
b ⇩	Decision Matrix - YDF Luke Street	24/534403	256
c ⇩	Decision Matrix - YDF Jorja Bethell	24/489427	257
d ⇩	Decision Matrix - YDF Thomas Owens	24/489428	258
e ⇩	Decision Matrix - OTGF Addington Farm	24/489429	259
f ⇩	Community Board Hybris Ticket Report - February 2024	24/489584	260
g ⇩	Graffiti Snaphot Report - February 2024	24/489585	261
h ⇩	Memo - Cashmere Centaurus Dyers Pass Colombo Safety Improvements - update	24/489587	263
i ⇩	Memo - Portlink update	24/489588	267
j ⇩	Memo - Spreydon Library closure	24/489679	269

Signatories Ngā Kaiwaitohu

Authors

Arohanui Grace - Manager Community Governance, Spreydon-Cashmere-Heathcote

Jane Walders - Community Board Advisor

Nime Ah Kam-Sherlock - Community Recreation Advisor

Heather Davies - Community Development Advisor

Shanelle Temaru-Ilalio - Community Recreation Advisor

Approved By

Arohanui Grace - Manager Community Governance, Spreydon-Cashmere-Heathcote

Matthew McLintock - Manager Community Governance Team

John Filsell - Head of Community Support and Partnerships

[1] Redress, in a comprehensive, holistic sense.

[2] Australia and New Zealand Standard for Rural and Urban Addressing (AS/NZA 4819:2011)

[3] Bounded by Annex Road, the railway, Halls Road and the proposed motorway

[4] Te Rōpū Tautoko is the group co-ordinating catholic engagement with the Royal Commission of Inquiry.

[5] 19 had allegations of sexual abuse against them.

[6] The Council’s Naming Policy 2023 sets out reasons for renaming include where a name has fallen into disrepute through its association with an organisation known to have been involved in criminal, anti-social or dishonourable activities; and should only occur where there is clear benefit to the community form the change.

[7] 14 September 2023 Community Board meeting.

[8] December 2022, June and October 2023 and February 2024.

[9] This responsibility is currently delegated to Community Boards.

Name	Subject
Chris Kortegast	McVicar Road, Cashmere Estate and Christchurch Adventure Park
Addington Neighbourhood Association	Seeking assistance from the Waihoro Community Board

7. Correspondence
Reference Te Tohutoro:	24/451469
Responsible Officer(s) Te Pou Matua:	Jane Walders, Community Board Advisor
Accountable ELT Member Pouwhakarae:	Andrew Rutledge, Acting General Manager Citizens and Community

15. Waihoro Spreydon-Cashmere-Heathcote 2023/2024 Discretionary Response Fund - Cashmere High School Future Problem Solving International Conference and World Championships
Reference Te Tohutoro:	24/478893
Responsible Officer(s) Te Pou Matua:	Heather Davies, Community Development Advisor, heather.davies@ccc.govt.nz
Accountable ELT Member Pouwhakarae:	Andrew Rutledge, Acting General Manager Citizens and Community

Total Budget 2023/24	Granted To Date	Available for allocation	Balance If Staff Recommendation adopted
$82,846	$59,420	$23,426	$22,226

16. Waihoro Spreydon-Cashmere-Heathcote 2023/2024 Discretionary Response Fund - 29th Christchurch Girls Brigade Company - Awesome Leadership Programme
Reference Te Tohutoro:	24/472003
Responsible Officer(s) Te Pou Matua:	Shanelle Temaru-Ilalio, Community Development Advisor, shanelle.temaru-ilalio@ccc.govt.nz
Accountable ELT Member Pouwhakarae:	Andrew Rutledge, Acting General Manager Citizens and Community