Waipuna
Halswell-Hornby-Riccarton Community Board
Agenda
Notice of Meeting Te Pānui o te Hui:
An ordinary meeting of the Waipuna
Halswell-Hornby-Riccarton Community Board will be held on:
Date: Tuesday 10 February 2026
Time: 4.30 pm
Venue: Horoeka Room, Rārākau: Riccarton
Centre,
199 Clarence Street, Riccarton
Membership Ngā
Mema
|
Chairperson
Deputy Chairperson
Members
|
Marie Pollisco
Sarah Brunton
Helen Broughton
Cody Cooper
Joseph Fullerton
Tyla Harrison-Hunt
Andrei Moore
Debbie Mora
Mark Peters
|
4 February 2026
Website: www.ccc.govt.nz
Part A Matters
Requiring a Council Decision
Part B Reports
for Information
Part C Decisions
Under Delegation
TABLE OF CONTENTS NGĀ IHIRANGI
Karakia Tīmatanga................................................................................................... 4
C 1. Apologies Ngā Whakapāha.......................................................................... 4
B 2. Declarations of Interest Ngā Whakapuaki Aronga........................................... 4
C 3. Confirmation of Previous Minutes Te Whakaāe o te
hui o mua.......................... 4
B 4. Public Forum Te Huinga Whānui.................................................................. 4
B 5. Deputations by Appointment Ngā Huinga
Whakaritenga................................. 4
B 6. Presentation
of Petitions Ngā
Pākikitanga.................................................... 4
B 7. Correspondence...................................................................................... 27
Staff Reports
C 8. Proposed
Lane Names - 201 Halswell Road, Halswell.................................... 33
C 9. Reading
Street - Proposed No Stopping Restrictions..................................... 39
A 10. Whakatā
Christchurch Cemetery Concept Plan............................................ 47
C 11. English
St/Main South Rd - Pedestrian Safety Improvements......................... 61
C 12. Nicholls
Road/Oakridge Street - Pedestrian Safety Improvements.................. 69
C 13. Community
Parks Rolling Renewal Programme........................................... 77
C 14. Tree
Removals - Greens Stream Stormwater Facility Stream Enhancement..... 89
C 15. Calverton
Place Proposed No Stopping Restrictions.................................... 149
B 16. Waipuna
Halswell-Hornby-Riccarton Community Board Area Report - February 2026............................................................................................................ 157
B 17. Elected Members’
Information Exchange Te Whakawhiti
Whakaaro o Te Kāhui Amorangi............................................................................................................ 184
Karakia Whakamutunga
Actions Register Ngā Mahinga Tuwhera
Karakia Tīmatanga
|
Whakataka te hau ki te uru
Whakataka te hau ki te tonga
Kia mākinakina ki uta
Kia mātaratara ki tai
E hī ake ana te atakura
He tio, he huka, he hau hū
Tīhei Mauri Ora
|
Cease the winds from the west
Cease the winds from the south
Let the breeze blow over the land
Let the breeze blow over the ocean
Let the red-tipped dawn come with a sharpened air.
A touch of frost, a promise of a glorious day.
|
1. Apologies Ngā Whakapāha
Apologies will
be recorded at the meeting.
2. Declarations of Interest Ngā
Whakapuaki Aronga
Members are
reminded of the need to be vigilant and to stand aside from decision-making
when a conflict arises between their role as an elected representative and any
private or other external interest they might have.
3. Confirmation of Previous Minutes Te
Whakaāe o te hui o mua
That the
minutes of the Waipuna Halswell-Hornby-Riccarton Community Board meeting held
on Thursday, 11 December 2025 be
confirmed (refer page 5).
4. Public Forum Te Huinga Whānui
A period of up
to 30 minutes will be available for people to speak for up to five minutes on
any issue that is not the subject of a separate hearing process.
|
4.1
|
Kahu Road Bus Activity
Pam Clarke and George Hooper, local
residents, will address the Board regarding bus activity on Kahu Road.
|
5. Deputations by Appointment Ngā Huinga
Whakaritenga
Deputations may
be heard on a matter or matters covered by a report on this agenda and approved
by the Chairperson.
Deputations will be recorded in the
meeting minutes.
6. Presentation of Petitions Ngā
Pākikitanga
There were no petitions
received at the time the agenda was prepared.
To present to the Community
Board, refer to the Participating in decision-making webpage or
contact the meeting advisor listed on the front of this agenda.
Waipuna
Halswell-Hornby-Riccarton Community Board
Open Minutes
Date: Thursday 11 December 2025
Time: 4 pm
Venue: Horoeka Room, Rārākau: Riccarton
Centre,
199 Clarence Street, Christchurch
Present
|
Chairperson
Deputy Chairperson
Members
|
Marie Pollisco
Sarah Brunton
Helen Broughton
Cody Cooper
Joseph Fullerton
Tyla Harrison-Hunt (via audio/visual
link)
Andrei Moore
Debbie Mora
Mark Peters
|
Website: www.ccc.govt.nz
Part A Matters
Requiring a Council Decision
Part B Reports
for Information
Part C Decisions
Under Delegation
Karakia Tīmatanga
The agenda was dealt with in the following
order. Where no voting record is shown, the item was carried unanimously by
those present.
The Chairperson advised that the report on
the application by Halswell Residents’ Association for a grant from the
Board’s Discretionary Response Fund, a part of the staff report at Item
17, has been withdrawn under Standing Order 6.8 to allow for additional
investigation.
1. Apologies
Ngā Whakapāha
Part C
|
Community Board Resolved HHRB/2025/00106
That the apology from Tyla Harrison-Hunt
for an early departure, be accepted.
Mark
Peters/Sarah Brunton Carried
|
2. Declarations
of Interest Ngā Whakapuaki Aronga
Part B
Mark Peters declared an interest in Item 17 in relation to the Hope
Presbyterian Church (Hornby Presbyterian Community Church) application.
3. Confirmation
of Previous Minutes Te Whakaāe o te hui o mua
Part C
|
Community Board Resolved HHRB/2025/00107
That the
minutes of the Waipuna Halswell-Hornby-Riccarton Community Board meeting held
on Thursday, 6 November 2025 be confirmed.
Andrei
Moore/Mark Peters Carried
|
4. Public
Forum Te Huinga Whānui
Part B
|
4.1
|
Kyle Park Pump Track
Cameron Kay, Christchurch
City BMX Club, addressed the Board and showed a presentation regarding a concept
for a pump track at Kyle Park, Hornby.
Following
questions from members, the Chairperson thanked Mr Kay for his presentation.
|
|
|
Part B
That the
Waipuna Halswell-Hornby-Riccarton Community Board:
1. Refers the
proposal for a pump track at Kyle Park to staff for investigation and advice.
|
|
|
Attachments
a Presentation
- Kyle Park Pump Track
|
|
4.2
|
Youth Development Fund Grant Recipient
Report Back – Alizae Auvae
Youth
Development Fund recipient Alizae Auvae addressed the Board regarding the Shakespeare
Globe Centre New Zealand (SGCNZ) National Shakespeare Schools Production 2025
in Wellington.
Ms Auvae
expressed appreciation to the Board for the grant that made it possible for
her to attend the production.
Following
questions from members, the Chairperson thanked Ms Auvae for her
presentation.
|
5. Deputations
by Appointment Ngā Huinga Whakaritenga
Part B
|
5.1 Quadrant Drive
Proposed No Stopping Restrictions
|
|
Rebecca Parish, Senior Property Manager,
spoke on behalf of Foodstuffs South Island Limited in support of the Officer
Recommendations in the Quadrant Drive Proposed No Stopping Restrictions
Report (Item 10 of these minutes refers).
Ms Parish advised that the Foodstuffs
Distribution Centre on Quadrant Drive has a single access point for all
delivery vehicles to enter and exit the premises. She stressed that it is
important that these vehicles have clear visibility, unimpeded by vehicles
parked in proximity to the entrance.
Following questions from Board members,
the Chairperson thanked Ms Parish for her presentation.
|
6. Presentation
of Petitions Ngā Pākikitanga
Part B
|
6.1
|
Don Simms, local resident, presented a
petition with 116 signatures requesting Traffic Calming Measures on Awatea
Gardens, Wigram:
The prayer of the petition states:
The
residents in this immediate area call on the Christchurch City Council to
install permanent traffic calming measures along Awatea Gardens, between the
Mustang Ave roundabout and Awatea Road, to prevent the excessive speeding
which is a regular hazard on this residential street. We should not feel
unsafe in our community due to dangerous drivers in a residential
environment.
We are aware of at least 4 pets that
have recently been killed on Awatea Gardens and are fearful the next victim
will be a person.
Multiple near misses have been
observed including children on bicycles/scooters, pedestrians crossing the
street, vehicles exiting Clematis Place and cars exiting driveways.
The existing 40kph signs are
ineffective and not slowing down many drivers. A more effective, permanent
solution is needed.
Numerous
incidents of dangerous driving in Wigram have been reported to the Police
with no action taken.
Following
questions from members, the Chairperson thanked Mr Simms for his
presentation.
|
|
Community Board Resolved HHRB/2025/00108
Part B
That the
Waipuna Halswell-Hornby-Riccarton Community Board:
1. Receives
the petition regarding Traffic Calming Measures on Awatea Gardens, Wigram.
2. Refers
the matters raised in the petition to staff.
Cody
Cooper/Sarah Brunton Carried
|
|
Attachments
a Petition
- Traffic Calming Measures on Awatea Gardens, Wigram
|
The meeting adjourned at 4.45pm and
reconvened at 4.52pm.
|
10. Quadrant
Drive Proposed No Stopping Restrictions
|
|
|
Community Board Consideration
Staff in attendance spoke to the
accompanying report.
The Board took into consideration the
deputation by Rebecca Parish, Senior Property Manager, Foodstuffs South
Island Limited (Item 5.1 of these minutes refers).
|
|
|
Community Board Resolved HHRB/2025/00109
Officer recommendations accepted without change
Part C
That the Waipuna
Halswell-Hornby-Riccarton Community Board:
1. Receives the information in the Quadrant
Drive Proposed No Stopping Restrictions Report.
2. Notes that the decisions in this report are assessed as low
significance based on the Christchurch City
Council’s Significance and Engagement Policy.
3. Under Clause 6(2) of the Christchurch City Council Traffic and
Parking Bylaw 2017 revokes any previous resolutions pertaining to traffic
controls made pursuant to any bylaw to the extent that they are in conflict
with the parking or stopping restrictions described in resolutions 4–7
below.
4. Approves in accordance with Clause 7 of the Christchurch City
Council Traffic and Parking Bylaw 2017, that the stopping of vehicles be
prohibited at any time on the northwestern side of Quadrant Drive, commencing at a point 283 metres north east
of its intersection with Aruhe Road and extending in a northeasterly direction for a distance of 82 metres, as detailed on Attachment A (Plan TG151673 Issue 1, dated
25/11/2025) to the report on the meeting agenda.
5. Approves in accordance with Clause 7 of the Christchurch City
Council Traffic and Parking Bylaw 2017, that the stopping of vehicles be
prohibited at any time on the northeastern side of Establishment Drive,
commencing at its intersection with Quadrant Drive and extending in a
southeasterly direction for a distance of 25 metres, as detailed on
Attachment A (Plan TG151673 Issue 1, dated
25/11/2025) to the report on the meeting agenda.
6. Approves in accordance with Clause 7 of the Christchurch City
Council Traffic and Parking Bylaw 2017, that the stopping of vehicles be
prohibited at any time on the southeastern side of Quadrant Drive, commencing
at its intersection with Establishment Drive and extending in a northeasterly
direction for a distance of 35 metres, as detailed on Attachment A (Plan TG151673 Issue 1, dated 25/11/2025) to the report on the
meeting agenda.
7. Approves in accordance with Clause 7 of the Christchurch City
Council Traffic and Parking Bylaw 2017, that the stopping of vehicles be
prohibited at any time on the southeastern side of Quadrant Drive, commencing
at a point 133 metres north east of its intersection with Establishment Drive
and extending in a northeasterly direction for a distance of 49 metres, as
detailed on Attachment A (Plan TG151673 Issue 1,
dated 25/11/2025) to the report on the meeting agenda.
8. Approves that these resolutions take effect when parking signage
and/or road markings that evidence the restrictions described in 3-7 are in
place (or removed in the case of revocations).
Cody Cooper/Mark
Peters Carried
|
Tyla Harrison-Hunt left the meeting at
4.57pm during consideration of Item 10.
|
7. Proposed
Road Names - 122 Kennedys Bush Road, Halswell
|
|
|
Community Board Resolved HHRB/2025/00110
Officer recommendations accepted without change
Part C
That the Waipuna
Halswell-Hornby-Riccarton Community Board:
1. Receives the information in the Proposed Road Names - 122
Kennedys Bush Road, Halswell Report.
2. Notes that the decision in this report is
assessed as low significance based on the Christchurch City Council’s
Significance and Engagement Policy.
3. Approves the following new road names for
122 Kennedys Bush Road (RMA/2022/639 and RMA/2025/3169)
a. Road 1 - Craythorne Road
b. Road 2 - Adelaide Road
c. Road 3 - Spiller Road
d. Road 4 - Darnley Place
e. Lane 1 - Beauchamp Lane
Debbie
Mora/Andrei Moore Carried
|
|
8. Play
space renewal - Bermuda Reserve - Design Approval
|
|
|
Community Board Resolved HHRB/2025/00111
Officer recommendations accepted without change
Part C
That the
Waipuna Halswell-Hornby-Riccarton Community Board:
1. Receives the information in the Play space
renewal - Bermuda Reserve - Design Approval report.
2. Notes that the decision in this report is assessed as low
significance based on the Christchurch City Council’s Significance and
Engagement Policy. The level of significance was determined by the low level
of impact on local residents and the like-for-like nature of the project.
3. Approves the Bermuda Reserve play space renewal plan shown in
Attachment A to the report on the meeting agenda.
Mark Peters/Cody
Cooper Carried
|
|
9. Gilberthorpes
Reserve Tree Planting Plan
|
|
|
Community Board Resolved HHRB/2025/00112
Officer recommendations accepted without change
Part C
That the
Waipuna Halswell-Hornby-Riccarton Community Board:
1. Receives the information in the
Gilberthorpes Reserve Tree Planting Plan Report.
2. Notes that the decision in this report is assessed as low
significance based on the Christchurch City Council’s Significance and
Engagement Policy.
3. Approves the planting of new trees within Gilberthorpes Reserve as
shown on the planting plan attached to the report on the meeting agenda as
Attachment A.
4. Approves the removal of two Cedrus Deodara located on the boundary
of Gilberthorpes Road shown on the planting plan attached to the report
on the meeting agenda as Attachment A.
Mark
Peters/Sarah Brunton Carried
|
|
11. Rotherham
Street Proposed No Stopping Restrictions
|
|
|
Community Board Resolved HHRB/2025/00113 Officer
recommendations accepted without change
Part C
That the Waipuna
Halswell-Hornby-Riccarton Community Board:
1. Receives the information in the Rotherham
Street Proposed No Stopping Restrictions Report.
2. Notes that the decision in this report are assessed as low
significance based on the Christchurch City
Council’s Significance and Engagement Policy.
3. In accordance with Clause 6(2) of the Christchurch City Council
Traffic and Parking Bylaw 2017 revokes any previous resolutions pertaining to
traffic controls made pursuant to any bylaw to the extent that they are in
conflict with the parking or stopping restrictions described in resolution 4
below.
4. Approves, in accordance with Clause 7 of the Christchurch City
Council Traffic and Parking Bylaw 2017, that the stopping of vehicles be
prohibited at any time on the western side of Rotherham Street, commencing at
its intersection with Peverel Street and extending in a northerly direction
for a distance of 13 metres, as detailed on Attachment A (Plan TG151647,
Issue 1, dated 24/11/2025) to the report on the meeting agenda.
5. Approves that these resolutions take effect when parking signage
and/or road markings that evidence the restrictions described in 3 and 4 are
in place (or removed in the case of revocations).
Helen
Broughton/Joseph Fullerton Carried
|
|
12. Oaklands
School Parking Restrictions
|
|
|
Community Board Resolved HHRB/2025/00114 Officer
recommendations accepted without change
Part C
That the Waipuna
Halswell-Hornby-Riccarton Community Board:
1. Receives the information in the Oaklands
School Parking Restrictions Report.
2. Notes that the decision in this report are assessed as low
significance based on the Christchurch City
Council’s Significance and Engagement Policy.
3. In accordance with Clause 6(2) of the Christchurch City Council
Traffic and Parking Bylaw 2017 revokes any previous resolutions pertaining to
traffic controls made pursuant to any bylaw to the extent that they are in
conflict with the parking or stopping restrictions described in resolutions
4–8 below.
4. Approves in accordance with Clause 7 of the Christchurch City
Council Traffic and Parking Bylaw 2017, that the stopping of vehicles be
prohibited at any time on the north side of Jarrow Place, commencing at a point approximately 160 metres east of its intersection with Hindess Street and extending in a westerly direction for a distance of approximately 19 metres, then a
southerly direction for a distance of approximately 14 metres, then a
westerly direction for a distance of approximately 19 metres as detailed on Attachment
A to the report on the meeting agenda.
5. Approves in accordance with Clause 7 of the Christchurch City
Council Traffic and Parking Bylaw 2017, that the stopping of vehicles be
prohibited at any time on the north eastern end of
Brenda Place, commencing at a point approximately 66
metres north-east of its
intersection with Balcairn Street and extending in a northerly direction, wrapping around the curb of the cul-de-sac for a
distance of approximately 77 metres as detailed on Attachment B to the report on the meeting agenda.
6. Approves in accordance with Clause 7 of the Christchurch City
Council Traffic and Parking Bylaw 2017, that the stopping of vehicles be
prohibited at any time on the south side of Cobra Street, commencing at a point approximately 35
metres west of its
intersection with Balkwell Street and extending in a westerly direction for a distance of approximately 20 metres, as detailed on Attachment C to the report on the meeting agenda.
7. Approves in accordance with Clause 7 of the Christchurch City
Council Traffic and Parking Bylaw 2017, that the stopping of vehicles be
prohibited at any time on the north side of Cobra Street, commencing at a point approximately 21 metres west of its intersection with Balkwell Street and extending in an easterly, then northerly direction for a
distance of approximately 24
metres, following the curb into Balkwell Street, as detailed on Attachment
C to the report on the meeting agenda.
8. Approves in accordance with Clause 7 of the Christchurch City
Council Traffic and Parking Bylaw 2017, that the stopping of vehicles be
prohibited at any time on the north side of Cobra Street, commencing at a point approximately 13 metres east of its intersection with Balkwell Street and extending in a westerly, then northerly direction for a
distance of approximately 17 metres, following the curb into Balkwell Street,
as detailed on Attachment C to the report on the meeting agenda.
9. Approves that these resolutions take effect when parking signage
and/or road markings that evidence the restrictions described in 3-8 are in
place.
Andrei
Moore/Marie Pollisco Carried
|
Tyla Harrison-Hunt returned to the meeting
at 5.07pm following consideration of Item 12.
|
13. Waipuna
Halswell Hornby Riccarton Community Board - Adoption of 2026-2028 Meeting
Schedule
|
|
|
Officer Recommendations Ngā
Tūtohu
That the Waipuna
Halswell-Hornby-Riccarton Community Board:
1. Receives the information in the Waipuna
Halswell Hornby Riccarton Community Board - Adoption of 2026-2028 Meeting
Schedule Report.
2. Notes that the decision in this report is
assessed as low significance based on the Christchurch City Council’s
Significance and Engagement Policy.
3. Adopts the following schedule of dates for Ordinary Meetings for
2026-2028:
Either Tuesday from 4.30 pm as below in the Horoeka Room,
Rārākau Riccarton Centre, 199 Clarence Street, Riccarton.
|
2026
|
2027
|
2028
|
|
10 February
|
9 February
|
8 February
|
|
10 March
|
9 March
|
14 March
|
|
14 April
28 April
|
13 April
|
11 April
|
|
12 May
|
11 May
|
9 May
|
|
9 June
|
8 June
|
13 June
|
|
14 July
|
13 July
|
11 July
|
|
11 August
|
10 August
|
8 August
|
|
8 September
|
14 September
|
12 September
|
|
13 October
|
12 October
|
|
|
10 November
|
9 November
|
|
|
8 December
|
7 December
|
|
Or Thursday from 4.30 pm as below in the Horoeka Room,
Rārākau Riccarton Centre, 199 Clarence Street, Riccarton.
|
2026
|
2027
|
2028
|
|
12 February
|
11 February
|
10 February
|
|
12 March
|
11 March
|
9 March
|
|
16 April
30 April
|
15 April
|
13 April
|
|
14 May
|
13 May
|
11 May
|
|
11 June
|
10 June
|
15 June
|
|
9 July
|
15 July
|
13 July
|
|
13 August
|
12 August
|
10 August
|
|
10 September
|
9 September
|
14 September
|
|
15 October
|
14 October
|
|
|
12 November
|
11 November
|
|
|
10 December
|
9 December
|
|
4. Approves that the Board Chairperson and Community Governance
Manager are jointly authorised to amend the Ordinary Meeting Schedule as
necessary to meet circumstances as required, including adding, removing or
changing meeting dates, times and locations.
5. Notes that the holding of Board information sessions/workshops
will be at the discretion of the Board Chairperson and Community Governance
Manager and generally will be held on the same day of the week as board
meetings, but in week 4 of the Council calendar as follows:
6. Either Tuesday from 4.30 pm as
below in the Horoeka Room, Rārākau Riccarton Centre, 199
Clarence Street, Riccarton.
|
2026
|
2027
|
2028
|
|
24 February
|
23 February
|
22 February
|
|
24 March
|
23 March
|
28 March
|
|
26 May
|
27 April
|
Thursday 27 April
|
|
23 June
|
25 May
|
23 May
|
|
28 July
|
22 June
|
27 June
|
|
25 August
|
27 July
|
25 July
|
|
22 September
|
24 August
|
22 August
|
|
20 October
|
21 September
|
|
|
24 November
|
26 October
|
|
|
|
23 November
|
|
Or Thursday from 4.30 pm as below in the Horoeka Room,
Rārākau Riccarton Centre, 199 Clarence Street, Riccarton.
|
2026
|
2027
|
2028
|
|
26 February
|
25 February
|
24 February
|
|
26 March
|
25 March
|
23 March
|
|
28 May
|
29 April
|
27 April
|
|
25 June
|
27 May
|
25 May
|
|
23 July
|
24 June
|
29 June
|
|
27 August
|
29 July
|
27 July
|
|
24 September
|
26 August
|
24 August
|
|
22 October
|
23 September
|
|
|
26 November
|
28 October
|
|
|
|
25 November
|
|
7. Delegates authority to the Community Board Chairperson and
Community Governance Manager to amend the Board meeting and Information
Session schedule, as required.
|
|
|
Community Board Comment
The following
motion was put to the vote.
|
|
|
Community Board Decision
Part C
That the Waipuna
Halswell-Hornby-Riccarton Community Board:
1. Receives the information in the Waipuna
Halswell Hornby Riccarton Community Board - Adoption of 2026-2028 Meeting
Schedule Report.
2. Notes that the decision in this report is
assessed as low significance based on the Christchurch City Council’s
Significance and Engagement Policy.
3. Adopts the following schedule of dates for Ordinary Meetings for
2026-2028:
Thursday from 4.30 pm as below in the Horoeka Room,
Rārākau Riccarton Centre, 199 Clarence Street, Riccarton.
|
2026
|
2027
|
2028
|
|
12 February
|
11 February
|
10 February
|
|
12 March
|
11 March
|
9 March
|
|
16 April
30 April
|
15 April
|
13 April
|
|
14 May
|
13 May
|
11 May
|
|
11 June
|
10 June
|
15 June
|
|
9 July
|
15 July
|
13 July
|
|
13 August
|
12 August
|
10 August
|
|
10 September
|
9 September
|
14 September
|
|
15 October
|
14 October
|
|
|
12 November
|
11 November
|
|
|
10 December
|
9 December
|
|
4. Approves that the Board Chairperson and Community Governance
Manager are jointly authorised to amend the Ordinary Meeting Schedule as
necessary to meet circumstances as required, including adding, removing or
changing meeting dates, times and locations.
5. Notes that the holding of Board information sessions/workshops
will be at the discretion of the Board Chairperson and Community Governance
Manager and generally will be held on the same day of the week as board
meetings, but in week 4 of the Council calendar as follows:
6. Thursday from 4.30 pm as below
in the Horoeka Room, Rārākau Riccarton Centre, 199 Clarence
Street, Riccarton.
|
2026
|
2027
|
2028
|
|
26 February
|
25 February
|
24 February
|
|
26 March
|
25 March
|
23 March
|
|
28 May
|
29 April
|
27 April
|
|
25 June
|
27 May
|
25 May
|
|
23 July
|
24 June
|
29 June
|
|
27 August
|
29 July
|
27 July
|
|
24 September
|
26 August
|
24 August
|
|
22 October
|
23 September
|
|
|
26 November
|
28 October
|
|
|
|
25 November
|
|
7. Delegates authority to the Community Board Chairperson and
Community Governance Manager to amend the Board meeting and Information
Session schedule, as required.
Cody
Cooper/Debbie Mora Lost
|
|
|
For
|
3
|
Cody Cooper, Mark Peters, Debbie Mora
|
|
Against
|
6
|
Tyla Harrison-Hunt, Andrei Moore, Helen
Broughton, Joseph Fullerton, Marie Pollisco, Sarah Brunton
|
|
Abstain
|
0
|
|
|
TOTAL
|
9
|
|
|
|
|
The motion having been put to the vote
and declared lost, the following foreshadowed motion was then put.
|
|
|
Community Board Resolved
HHRB/2025/00115
Part C
That the Waipuna
Halswell-Hornby-Riccarton Community Board:
1. Receives the information in the Waipuna
Halswell Hornby Riccarton Community Board - Adoption of 2026-2028 Meeting
Schedule Report.
2. Notes that the decision in this report is
assessed as low significance based on the Christchurch City Council’s
Significance and Engagement Policy.
3. Adopts the following schedule of dates for Ordinary Meetings for
2026-2028:
Tuesday from 4.30 pm as below in the Horoeka Room,
Rārākau Riccarton Centre, 199 Clarence Street, Riccarton.
|
2026
|
2027
|
2028
|
|
10 February
|
9 February
|
8 February
|
|
10 March
|
9 March
|
14 March
|
|
14 April
28 April
|
13 April
|
11 April
|
|
12 May
|
11 May
|
9 May
|
|
9 June
|
8 June
|
13 June
|
|
14 July
|
13 July
|
11 July
|
|
11 August
|
10 August
|
8 August
|
|
8 September
|
14 September
|
12 September
|
|
13 October
|
12 October
|
|
|
10 November
|
9 November
|
|
|
8 December
|
7 December
|
|
4. Approves that the Board Chairperson and Community Governance
Manager are jointly authorised to amend the Ordinary Meeting Schedule as
necessary to meet circumstances as required, including adding, removing or
changing meeting dates, times and locations.
5. Notes that the holding of Board information sessions/workshops
will be at the discretion of the Board Chairperson and Community Governance
Manager and generally will be held on the same day of the week as board
meetings, but in week 4 of the Council calendar as follows:
6. Tuesday from 4.30 pm as below
in the Horoeka Room, Rārākau Riccarton Centre, 199 Clarence
Street, Riccarton.
|
2026
|
2027
|
2028
|
|
24 February
|
23 February
|
22 February
|
|
24 March
|
23 March
|
28 March
|
|
26 May
|
27 April
|
Thursday 27 April
|
|
23 June
|
25 May
|
23 May
|
|
28 July
|
22 June
|
27 June
|
|
25 August
|
27 July
|
25 July
|
|
22 September
|
24 August
|
22 August
|
|
20 October
|
21 September
|
|
|
24 November
|
26 October
|
|
|
|
23 November
|
|
7. Delegates authority to the Community Board Chairperson and
Community Governance Manager to amend the Board meeting and Information
Session schedule, as required.
Helen
Broughton/Andrei Moore Carried
|
|
|
For
|
6
|
(Tyla Harrison-Hunt, Andrei
Moore, Helen Broughton, Joseph Fullerton, Marie Pollisco, Sarah Brunton)
|
|
Against
|
2
|
(Cody Cooper, Mark Peters)
|
|
Abstain
|
1
|
(Debbie Mora)
|
|
TOTAL
|
9
|
|
|
Tyla Harrison-Hunt left the meeting at 5.23pm
following consideration of Item 13.
|
14. Waipuna
Halswell-Hornby-Riccarton Community Board Recess Committee 2025-2026
|
|
|
Community Board Comment
It was noted that there may be
occasions when neither the Board Chairperson or Deputy Chairperson will be
available for a Recess Committee and members agreed that this contingency
should be provided for.
|
|
|
Officer Recommendations Ngā
Tūtohu
That the Waipuna
Halswell-Hornby-Riccarton Community Board:
1. Receives the information in the Waipuna
Halswell-Hornby-Riccarton Community Board Recess Committee 2025-2026 Report.
2. Notes
that the decision in this report is assessed as low
significance based on the Christchurch City Council’s Significance and
Engagement Policy.
3. Appoints
a Recess Committee comprising the Board Chairperson
or Deputy Chairperson and not less than any two other available member(s), to
be authorised to exercise the delegated powers of the Waipuna
Halswell-Hornby-Riccarton Community Board for the period following its
ordinary meeting on 11 December 2025 up until the Board resumes its normal
business from February 2026.
4. Notes that any delegation exercised by the Board’s Recess
Committee will be reported to the Board for record purposes.
5. Notes
that any meeting convened of the Recess Committee
will be publicly notified and the details forwarded to all Board members.
|
|
|
Community Board Resolved
HHRB/2025/00116
Part C
That the Waipuna
Halswell-Hornby-Riccarton Community Board:
1. Receives the information in the Waipuna
Halswell-Hornby-Riccarton Community Board Recess Committee 2025-2026 Report.
2. Notes
that the decision in this report is assessed as low
significance based on the Christchurch City Council’s Significance and
Engagement Policy.
3. Appoints
a Recess Committee comprising the Board Chairperson
or Deputy Chairperson (or in the absence of both the Board Chairperson and
Deputy Chairperson any Councillor appointed to the Board) and not less than
any two other available members, to be authorised to exercise the delegated
powers of the Waipuna Halswell-Hornby-Riccarton Community Board during the
period following its ordinary meeting on 11 December 2025 up until the Board
resumes its normal business from February 2026.
4. Notes that any delegation exercised by the Board’s Recess
Committee will be reported to the Board for record purposes.
5. Notes
that any meeting convened of the Recess Committee
will be publicly notified and the details forwarded to all Board members.
Cody Cooper/Mark
Peters Carried
|
|
15. Waipuna
Halswell Hornby Riccarton Community Board: Representation on Committees and
External Organisations, 2025–2028
|
|
|
Community Board Consideration
Staff in attendance spoke to the
accompanying report and advised that appointments to the Neighbourhood
Support Committee were no longer required owing to a change in the
Committee’s Constitution.
|
|
|
Officer Recommendations Ngā
Tūtohu
That the Waipuna
Halswell-Hornby-Riccarton Community Board recommends that the Council:
1. Appoints a Community Board member to the Ruapuna Community Liaison
Committee.
That the Waipuna
Halswell-Hornby-Riccarton Community Board:
2. Appoints a Board member to the Riccarton Bush Trust.
3. Appoints a Board member as its representative to the Te Poutama Ārahi Rangatahi Community Liaison Committee.
4. Appoints one Board member to each of the following outside
organisations, pursuant to the constitutions of those organisations, as
voting members for the 2025-28 term:
a. Keep Christchurch Beautiful Executive Committee
b. Hornby Community Care Trust
5. Considers representatives from the Waipuna
Halswell-Hornby-Riccarton Community Board area to participate in the District
Committee of Neighbourhood Support Christchurch Area Incorporated.
6. Considers nominating a representative from the Board to
participate in judging the Christchurch Beautifying Association’s
Christchurch Street and Garden Awards 2026 to 2028.
7. Nominates two Board members to be appointed to the Airport Noise
Liaison Committee.
|
|
|
Community Board Resolved HHRB/2025/00117
Part C
That the Waipuna
Halswell-Hornby-Riccarton Community Board:
2. Appoints
Marie Pollisco to the Riccarton Bush Trust.
3. Appoints
Cody Cooper as its representative to the Te Poutama
Ārahi Rangatahi Community Liaison Committee.
4. Appoints:
a. Debbie Mora to the Keep Christchurch Beautiful Executive Committee
pursuant to the constitutions of the organisation, as a voting member for the
2025-28 term.
b. Sarah Brunton to Hornby Community Care Trust pursuant to the
constitutions of the organisation, as a voting member for the 2025-28 term.
6. Nominates
Debbie Mora as a representative from the Board to participate in judging the
Christchurch Beautifying Association’s Christchurch Street and Garden
Awards 2026 to 2028.
7. Nominates
Debbie Mora and Mark Peters to be appointed to the Airport Noise Liaison
Committee.
Cody Cooper/Mark
Peters Carried
|
|
Community Board Decided HHRB/2025/00118
Part A
That the Waipuna
Halswell-Hornby-Riccarton Community Board recommends that the Council:
1. Appoints Cody Cooper to the Ruapuna Community Liaison Committee.
Cody Cooper/Mark
Peters Carried
|
|
16. Waipuna
Halswell-Hornby-Riccarton Community Board Governance Arrangements 2025-2028
|
|
|
Officer Recommendations Ngā
Tūtohu
That the Waipuna
Halswell-Hornby-Riccarton Community Board:
1. Receives the information in the Waipuna
Halswell-Hornby-Riccarton Community Board Governance Arrangements 2025-2028 Report.
2. Notes
that the decision in this report is assessed as low
significance based on the Christchurch City Council’s Significance and
Engagement Policy.
Consideration of a Casting Vote
3. Resolves whether or not the Chairperson of the Board is to have a
casting vote.
Submissions
4. Delegates
authority to the Community Board Chairperson and Deputy Chairperson to, in
consultation with Board members, consider submission opportunities and decide
whether to lodge submissions on behalf of the Board.
5. Delegates
authority to the Community Board Chairperson and Deputy Chairperson,
following consultation with Board members, to approve, finalise, and lodge
submissions on behalf of the Board.
6. Authorises
the Board Chairperson, Deputy Chairperson (or a member nominated by the Board
Chairperson and Deputy Chairperson for this purpose) to:
a. appear
and speak on behalf of the Board at any hearing of submissions;
b. following
consultation with members, withdraw (in whole or part) a submission made on
behalf of the Board.
7. Requests
that all submissions be reported to the Board for record-keeping purposes.
Waipuna Halswell-Hornby-Riccarton
Youth Development, Off the Ground Fund and Summer with your Neighbours Funds
2025-26
8. Acknowledges
the decision-making process approved by the previous Board on 14 August 2025
for grants from the 2025-26 Waipuna Halswell-Hornby-Riccarton Youth
Development, Off the Ground Fund, and Summer with Your Neighbours Funds as
follows:
Waipuna Halswell-Hornby-Riccarton Youth
Development Fund:
· Delegation to the Waipuna Halswell-Hornby-Riccarton Community
Governance Manager the authority to make decisions on allocations from the
2025–26 Halswell-Hornby-Riccarton Youth Development Fund, where the
staff recommendation is up to and including $400.
· Adopts the
following decision-making process for the allocation of grants from the
2025–26 Waipuna Halswell-Hornby-Riccarton Youth Development Fund where
the staff recommended amount exceeds $400:
· Staff to email a
summary of the application and recommendation on it to all members.
· Where at least
five (5) Board members respond by email within two working days, the majority
view on allocation will be adopted and actioned by staff.
· Details of
approved grants to be reported to the Board for record purposes.
2025-26
Waipuna Halswell-Hornby-Riccarton Off the Ground Fund:
· Delegation to the
Waipuna Halswell-Hornby-Riccarton Community Governance Manager to decide
grants up to and including $400 from the 2025-26 Waipuna
Halswell-Hornby-Riccarton Off the Ground Fund.
2025-26 Waipuna
Halswell-Hornby-Riccarton Summer with Your Neighbours Fund grant applications:
· Delegation to the
Waipuna Halswell-Hornby-Riccarton Community Governance Manager to decide
grants up to and including $200 from the Summer with Your Neighbours Fund.
9. Confirms
that it adopts the decision-making process for grants from Youth Development,
Off the Ground and Summer with your Neighbours Funds as per (8) above, for
the remainder of the 2025-26 year.
|
|
|
Community Board Resolved HHRB/2025/00119
Part C
That the Waipuna
Halswell-Hornby-Riccarton Community Board:
1. Receives the information in the Waipuna
Halswell-Hornby-Riccarton Community Board Governance Arrangements 2025-2028 Report.
2. Notes
that the decision in this report is assessed as low
significance based on the Christchurch City Council’s Significance and
Engagement Policy.
Consideration
of a Casting Vote
3. Resolves that the Chairperson of the Board shall not have a
casting vote.
Submissions
4. Delegates
authority to the Community Board Chairperson and Deputy Chairperson to, in
consultation with Board members, consider submission opportunities and decide
whether to lodge submissions on behalf of the Board.
5. Delegates
authority to the Community Board Chairperson and Deputy Chairperson,
following consultation with Board members, to approve, finalise, and lodge
submissions on behalf of the Board.
6. Authorises
the Board Chairperson, Deputy Chairperson (or a member nominated by the Board
Chairperson and Deputy Chairperson for this purpose) to:
a. appear
and speak on behalf of the Board at any hearing of submissions;
b. following
consultation with members, withdraw (in whole or part) a submission made on
behalf of the Board.
7. Requests
that all submissions be reported to the Board for record-keeping purposes.
Waipuna
Halswell-Hornby-Riccarton Youth Development, Off the Ground Fund and Summer
with your Neighbours Funds 2025-26
8. Acknowledges
the decision-making process approved by the previous Board on 14 August 2025
for grants from the 2025-26 Waipuna Halswell-Hornby-Riccarton Youth
Development, Off the Ground Fund, and Summer with Your Neighbours Funds as
follows:
Waipuna Halswell-Hornby-Riccarton Youth
Development Fund:
· Delegation to the Waipuna Halswell-Hornby-Riccarton Community
Governance Manager the authority to make decisions on allocations from the
2025–26 Halswell-Hornby-Riccarton Youth Development Fund, where the
staff recommendation is up to and including $400.
· Adopts the
following decision-making process for the allocation of grants from the
2025–26 Waipuna Halswell-Hornby-Riccarton Youth Development Fund where
the staff recommended amount exceeds $400:
· Staff to email a
summary of the application and recommendation on it to all members.
· Where at least
five (5) Board members respond by email within two working days, the majority
view on allocation will be adopted and actioned by staff.
· Details of
approved grants to be reported to the Board for record purposes.
2025-26
Waipuna Halswell-Hornby-Riccarton Off the Ground Fund:
· Delegation to the
Waipuna Halswell-Hornby-Riccarton Community Governance Manager to decide
grants up to and including $400 from the 2025-26 Waipuna
Halswell-Hornby-Riccarton Off the Ground Fund.
2025-26
Waipuna Halswell-Hornby-Riccarton Summer with Your Neighbours Fund grant
applications:
· Delegation to the
Waipuna Halswell-Hornby-Riccarton Community Governance Manager to decide
grants up to and including $200 from the Summer with Your Neighbours Fund.
9. Confirms
that it adopts the decision-making process for grants from Youth Development,
Off the Ground and Summer with your Neighbours Funds as per (8) above, for
the remainder of the 2025-26 year.
Cody
Cooper/Helen Broughton Carried
|
|
17. Waipuna
Halswell-Hornby-Riccarton Community Board Discretionary Response Fund 2025-26
- Seven Applications
|
|
|
Community
Board Consideration
The report on the application by Halswell
Residents’ Association was withdrawn under Standing Order 6.8 to allow
for additional investigation.
Mark Peters declared an interest in the
Hope Presbyterian Church (Hornby Presbyterian Community Church) application
and took no part in any discussion or voting on this.
|
|
|
Officer Recommendations Ngā
Tūtohu
That the Waipuna
Halswell-Hornby-Riccarton Community Board:
1. Receives the information in the Waipuna
Halswell-Hornby-Riccarton Community Board Discretionary Response Fund 2025-26
- Seven Applications Report.
2. Notes that the decisions in this report are assessed as low
significance based on the Christchurch City Council’s Significance and
Engagement Policy.
3. Approves a grant of $800 from its 2025/26 Discretionary Response
Fund to the Christchurch Rock 'n' Roll Club towards the Promotional Free
Lessons project.
4. Approves a grant of $5,000 from its 2025/26 Discretionary Response
Fund to the Halswell Residents Association Incorporated towards the
Mataī Installation at Te Hāpua: Halswell Centre, including the
creation of the artwork and the associated narrative.
5. Approves a grant of $3,000 from its 2025/26 Discretionary Response
Fund to the Halswell Softball Club Inc towards the Hire of the Halswell
League Clubrooms and Eftpos machine hire project.
6. Approves a grant of $2,000 from its 2025/26 Discretionary Response
Fund to the Hope Presbyterian Church (Hornby Presbyterian Community Church)
towards sound, stage and lighting for the Combined Churches Carols in the
Park 2025 event.
7. Approves a grant of $2,000 from its 2025/26 Discretionary Response
Fund to the Riccarton Sports Hub Trust towards the Multi-Sports Holiday
Festival.
8. Approves a grant of $3,500 from its 2025/26 Discretionary Response
Fund to the St John of God Hauora Trust towards event and activity costs
associated with Community Engagement Activities for Disabled Whānau in
Halswell.
9. Approves a grant of $2,100 from its 2025/26 Discretionary Response
Fund to Welcome Academy Trust towards venue hire and volunteer recognition
for an end of year gathering.
|
|
|
Community Board Resolved HHRB/2025/00120
Part C
That the Waipuna
Halswell-Hornby-Riccarton Community Board:
1. Receives the information in the Waipuna
Halswell-Hornby-Riccarton Community Board Discretionary Response Fund 2025-26
- Seven Applications Report.
2. Notes that the decisions in this report are assessed as low
significance based on the Christchurch City Council’s Significance and
Engagement Policy.
3. Approves a grant of $800 from its 2025/26 Discretionary Response
Fund to the Christchurch Rock 'n' Roll Club towards the Promotional Free
Lessons project.
5. Approves a grant of $3,000 from its 2025/26 Discretionary Response
Fund to the Halswell Softball Club Inc towards the Hire of the Halswell
League Clubrooms and Eftpos machine hire project.
6. Approves a grant of $2,000 from its 2025/26 Discretionary Response
Fund to the Hope Presbyterian Church (Hornby Presbyterian Community Church)
towards sound, stage and lighting for the Combined Churches Carols in the
Park 2025 event.
7. Approves a grant of $2,000 from its 2025/26 Discretionary Response
Fund to the Riccarton Sports Hub Trust towards the Multi-Sports Holiday
Festival.
8. Approves a grant of $3,500 from its 2025/26 Discretionary Response
Fund to the St John of God Hauora Trust towards event and activity costs
associated with Community Engagement Activities for Disabled Whānau in
Halswell.
9. Approves a grant of $2,100 from its 2025/26 Discretionary Response
Fund to Welcome Academy Trust towards venue hire and volunteer recognition
for an end of year gathering.
Andrei
Moore/Helen Broughton Carried
|
|
18. Waipuna
Halswell-Hornby-Riccarton Community Board Area Report - December 2025
|
|
|
Community Board Resolved HHRB/2025/00121 Officer
recommendation accepted without change
Part B
That the Waipuna
Halswell-Hornby-Riccarton Community Board:
1. Receives the information in the Waipuna
Halswell-Hornby-Riccarton Community Board Area Report - December 2025.
Cody
Cooper/Marie Pollisco Carried
|
19. Elected
Members’ Information Exchange Te Whakawhiti Whakaaro o Te
Kāhui Amorangi
Part B
|
Members exchanged information
on the following:
· It
was noted that some residents on Kirkwood Avenue are concerned about the
effects of construction work in the street.
|
Karakia
Whakamutunga
Meeting
concluded at 5.41pm.
CONFIRMED THIS 10TH DAY
OF FEBRUARY 2026
Marie Pollisco
Chairperson
|
7. Correspondence
|
|
Reference Te Tohutoro:
|
26/216461
|
|
Responsible Officer(s) Te Pou Matua:
|
Faye
Collins, Community Board Advisor
|
|
Accountable ELT Member Pouwhakarae:
|
Andrew
Rutledge, General Manager Citizens and Community
|
1. Purpose of Report Te Pūtake Pūrongo
Correspondence has been received from:
|
Name
|
Subject
|
|
Nora Rangi
|
Support for the installation of a bus
shelter at bus stop number 38197, located at 100 Amyes Road, Hornby
|
2. Officer Recommendations Ngā Tūtohu
That the Waipuna
Halswell-Hornby-Riccarton Community Board:
1. Receives the correspondence from Nora Rangi regarding support for
the installation of a bus shelter at bus stop number 38197, located at 100
Amyes Road, Hornby.
Attachments Ngā Tāpirihanga
|
No.
|
Title
|
Reference
|
Page
|
|
a ⇩ 
|
Waipuna Halswell-Hornby-Riccarton Community Board Correspondence -
Nora Rangi
|
26/219688
|
28
|
|
8. Proposed
Lane Names - 201 Halswell Road, Halswell
|
|
Reference Te Tohutoro:
|
26/130779
|
|
Responsible Officer(s) Te Pou Matua:
|
Sean
Ward, Team Leader Planning
|
|
Accountable ELT Member Pouwhakarae:
|
John
Higgins, General Manager Strategy, Planning & Regulatory Services
|
1. Purpose and Origin of the Report Te Pūtake Pūrongo
1.1 The
purpose of this report is for the Waipuna Halswell-Hornby-Riccarton Community
Board to approve the proposed lane names at 201 Halswell Road, Halswell.
1.2 The
report is staff-generated resulting from a naming request received from the
developer.
2. Officer Recommendations Ngā Tūtohu
That the Waipuna
Halswell-Hornby-Riccarton Community Board:
1. Receives the information in the Proposed
Lane Names - 201 Halswell Road, Halswell Report.
2. Notes that the decision in this report is assessed as low
significance based on the Christchurch City Council’s Significance and
Engagement Policy.
3. Approves the following new road names for 201 Halswell Road (RMA/2025/930)
a. Lane 1 - Watercress Lane
b. Lane 2 - Tench Lane
c. Lane 3 - Waihora Lane
d. Lane 4 - Pāmu Lane
3. Detail Te Whakamahuki
Introduction Te Whakatkinga
3.1 A
road naming request has been submitted by the developer. A preferred name and
alternative names have been put forward for the lanes.
3.2 The
recommended road names have been checked against existing road names in
Christchurch and bordering districts, for duplication, alternative spelling, or
other similarities in spelling or pronunciation to avoid the potential for
confusion. The proposed names are considered sufficiently different to existing
road names.
3.3 The
recommended road names have been checked against the Council’s Naming
Policy dated 15 November 2023 and are considered to be consistent with this
policy. The specific criteria for assessing a name from clause 2 is set out
below.
3.3.1 A traditional or
Māori name which is acceptable to the Rūnanga or Iwi; this may be a
name reflecting the physical characteristics of an area, an activity or event
associated with the area or of a notable ancestor.
3.3.2 A feature of
historical, social, cultural, environmental or physical importance in the area
(e.g., Carlton Mill Road or Carlton Mill Reserve*).
3.3.3 The name of a notable
family, person or event associated with the locality or with the wider
Christchurch area.
3.3.4 A name in recognition
of a person’s service. This can be for community service, conservation,
sport, the arts, science and research or other sphere of activity.
3.3.5 Consistency with a
common or established theme for naming in a subdivision or locality.
3.3.6 A name that reflects
the diverse cultures and communities of the locality or of Christchurch
generally.
3.3.7 The name of an event
or activity strongly associated with the immediate location including an
informal name for the area that is (or was historically) in common usage.
3.3.8 A name associated
with a person, event or activity of significance to Christchurch including
names associated with people, events, or places of national and international
significance.
3.4 The
criteria for names that are not suitable for approval from clause 6 are set out
below.
3.4.1 Names of people,
flora, fauna or geographical features not associated with the area, e.g., names
of native trees which are not present in the area or views that cannot be
identified, except where the name continues a current naming theme in the
locality.
3.4.2 Currently trading
commercial organisations except for sponsorship names for facilities and leased
parks.
3.4.3 Anagrams,
amalgamations or derivatives of people's names.
3.4.4 Names of living
persons.
3.4.5 Names related to the
developer of a subdivision.
3.4.6 Name of a person,
club or organisation associated with a privately owned building on Council
land, where the club or organisation does not hold the ground lease for the
building.
3.4.7 Names for roads which
may cause confusion because they are associated with another geographical
location or feature e.g., Parklands Drive which is not located in the Parklands
suburb.
3.5 The
recommended road names have also been checked against the Australia and New
Zealand Standard AS/NZA 4819:2011 Rural and Urban Addressing. The names are
considered to be consistent with the Standard.
3.6 Under
the Roads and Right-of-Way Naming Policy, the names considered must be
requested by the developer. There is no ability to consider alternative names
without first checking whether there are any duplications or similarities with
other road and right-of-way names.
3.7 Consultation
has been undertaken with Land Information New Zealand who have raised no
concerns with the proposed names.
3.8 Consultation
under the policy with rūnanga is not required because the roads to be
named are not collector roads and/or site(s) of significance under the District
Plan (clause 3 of the Naming Policy).
3.9 No
addresses of neighbouring properties are affected by the proposed road naming
(clause 12.2 of the Naming Policy).
3.10 The names requested
have been accompanied by an explanation of the background of the names, which
is summarised below.
Assessment of Significance and Engagement Te
Aromatawai Whakahirahira
3.11 The decisions in
this report are assessed as low significance based on the Christchurch City
Council’s Significance and Engagement Policy.
3.12 The level of
significance was determined by the number of people affected and/or with an
interest.
3.13 Council’s Paeārahi
| Senior Treaty Relationships Advisor has been consulted and has raised no
concerns with the suitability of the proposed Te Reo Māori names as set
out below.
3.14 Due to the
assessment of low significance, no further community engagement and
consultation is required.
Proposed Names
3.15 The proposed
lanes are shown in Attachment A.
3.16 The proposed
names are themed for the natural environment and local history.
3.17 The application
states: “Historically, the site was farmland where native flora and
fauna flourished. The theme of our street name proposals includes reference to
the flora and fauna of Halswell and the surrounding region, as well as other
historical features from Halswell.”
3.18 All other roads
have had names approved in earlier applications.
3.19 Lane 1 - Watercress
Lane
3.20 Watercress is a
species of aquatic flowering plant. It is found growing in the wild around
clean fresh waterways of the region.
3.21 Lane 2 -
Tench Lane
3.22 Tench (Tinca
tinca) is an introduced fresh-water and brackish-water fish and is found in
the nearby Halswell River.
3.23 Lane 3 - Waihora Lane
3.24 Te Waihora is the te reo Māori name for the nearby lake
Ellesmere.
3.25 Lane 4 -
Pamū Lane
3.26 Māori word
for ‘to farm,’ relating to the Hallgrow Farm located here previously
Alternative Names
3.27 Scaup Lane - The New Zealand scaup (Aythya
novaeseelandiae) is a diving duck species of the genus Aythya endemic to
New Zealand. They are diving ducks commonly found throughout Canterbury native
areas and wetlands
3.28 Tahatika Lane - Tahatika is a te reo
Māori word for a riverbank or the shoreline for a lake or the sea. There
are several waterways nearby.
3.29 Purutone Lane - Purutone is a te re
Māori word for Bluestone, which is a stone quarried locally.
3.30 Festuca Lane - Festuca
novae-zelandiae is a species of long-lived caespitose grass that is native
to New Zealand and found in the Canterbury region.
3.31 Shelduck Lane - The paradise shelduck (Tadorna
variegata) is a species of shelduck, a group of goose-like ducks, which is
endemic to New Zealand. They are widely distributed in pasture, tussock
grasslands and wetlands throughout the region.
3.32 Foothills Lane - Foothills, low hills at
the base of a mountain or mountain range. Referring to the development location
at the foothills of the Port Hills.
3.33 Patē Lane - Patē (Schefflera
digitata) is a tree endemic to New Zealand. Also known as the seven-finger,
or umbrella tree. It is a small forest tree which has hand-shaped leaves with
fine teeth and three to nine 'fingers'.
3.34 Poaka Lane - Poaka is a te reo
Māori word for Pig, swine, or hog. Referring to the old Hallgrow Farm that
was on part of the site previously.
Assessment of Names
3.35 The proposed
names are considered to be consistent with the policy.
3.36 Notwithstanding, the discretion lies with the Community Board to
approve any of the above name options, including the alternative names.
Attachments Ngā Tāpirihanga
|
No.
|
Title
|
Reference
|
Page
|
|
a ⇩
|
RMA/2025/930 - Proposed Lane Names Plan - 201 Halswell Road
|
26/130711
|
37
|
Signatories Ngā Kaiwaitohu
|
Authors
|
Leashelle
Miller - Planner Level 2
Sean Ward -
Team Leader Planning
|
|
Approved By
|
Mark Stevenson
- Head of Planning & Consents
|
|
9. Reading
Street - Proposed No Stopping Restrictions
|
|
Reference Te Tohutoro:
|
25/2362650
|
|
Responsible Officer(s) Te Pou Matua:
|
Edwin
Tiong, Traffic Engineer
|
|
Accountable ELT Member Pouwhakarae:
|
Brent
Smith, General Manager City Infrastructure
|
1. Purpose and Origin of the Report Te Pūtake Pūrongo
1.1 The
purpose of this report is to seek the approval of the Waipuna
Halswell-Hornby-Riccarton Community Board to approve the recommendation to
install no stopping restrictions in Reading Street.
1.2 This
report has been written following concerns that have been raised by residents
about the function of the street especially at the southern end of the
cul-de-sac.
1.3 The recommended option is to install No Stopping restrictions in
accordance with Attachment A.
2. Officer Recommendations Ngā Tūtohu
That the Waipuna
Halswell-Hornby-Riccarton Community Board:
1. Receives the information in the Reading
Street - Proposed No Stopping Restrictions Report.
2. Notes that the decision in this report are assessed as low
significance based on the Christchurch City
Council’s Significance and Engagement Policy.
3. Under Clause 6(2) of the Christchurch City Council Traffic and
Parking Bylaw 2017 revokes any previous resolutions
pertaining to traffic controls made pursuant to any bylaw to the extent that
they are in conflict with the parking or stopping restrictions described in
resolution 4a below.
4. Approves pursuant to Clause 7 of the Christchurch City Council
Traffic and Parking Bylaw 2017 that:
a. the stopping of all vehicles be prohibited at any time, on the eastern
side of Reading Street commencing at a point 66 metres from the intersection
with Kiltie Street and extending first in a southerly direction, then following
the kerb in a clockwise direction, around the cul-de-sac head, then extending
in a westerly direction for a distance of 15 metres as shown on Plan TG151653,
dated 17/11/2025 as shown on Attachment A to the report on the meeting
agenda.
5. Approves that the above resolution take effect when parking signage
and/or road markings that evidence the restrictions described in 3 and 4 are in
place (or removed in the case of revocations).
3. Executive Summary Te Whakarāpopoto Matua
3.1 Reading Street is an approximately 9-metre-wide, two-way, residential
street. We have received service requests from residents stating that access to
their properties is being regularly compromised by vehicles parking across
driveways.
3.2 Implementing
the No Stopping restriction recommendation will improve accessibility by
reducing the likelihood of parked vehicles blocking driveway access.
3.3 The
preferred option is to install no stopping restrictions in accordance with Attachment
A.
3.4 The
recommendations in this report will help to achieve the desired community
outcome of a well-connected and accessible city through improved road access.
4. Background/Context Te Horopaki
4.1 An
issue with through access has been brought to Council’s attention by
residents of southern end of Reading Street, in particular entry to a
private service lane, Peerswick Court, that serves approximately 15
properties. The entry of this service lane is through Reading Street and
runs through to Waimairi Road.
4.2 Vehicles
often park at the the southern end of Reading Street cul-de-sac, causing access
issues to neighbouring properties. In addition, delivery vehicles have been
unable to access Peerswick Court at times. Residents are also concerned about
parked vehicles restricting emergency vehicle access.
4.3 The
location is close to Bush Inn Centre and Reading Street and has a high parking
demand.
4.4 The proposal removes approximately two parking spaces from
the cul-de-sac. However, most vehicles cannot legally park here anyway as the effective
width between the driveways is insufficient to
accommodate a standard-length vehicle.
Options Considered Ngā
Kōwhiringa Whaiwhakaaro
4.5 The
following reasonably practicable options were considered and are assessed in
this report:
4.5.1 Mark No Stopping
restrictions on Reading Street, as shown on Attachment A
4.5.2 Maintain the status
quo – do nothing.
Options Descriptions Ngā
Kōwhiringa
4.6 Preferred
Option: Install No Stopping Restrictions as shown on Attachment A
4.6.1 Option Advantages
· Addresses the issues residents are having with access to and from
their properties caused by the current vehicle crossing layout.
· Addresses concerns relating to access of larger vehicles, including
emergency and waste collection vehicles.
4.6.2 Option
Disadvantages
4.7 Removes
approximately two unrestricted parking spaces. Note that most vehicles cannot legally park here as the effective
width between the driveways is insufficient to
accommodate a standard-length vehicle length.Maintain the status quo – do
nothing:
4.7.1 Option Advantages
· Retains approximately two on street parking spaces, noting that most vehicles cannot legally park here anyway as the effective
width between the driveways is insufficient to
accommodate a standard-length vehicle length..
4.7.2 Option
Disadvantages
· Does not address the issues residents are having with access to and
from their properties.
· Does not address the concern relating to access of larger vehicles,
including emergency vehicle access.
5. Financial Implications Ngā Hīraunga Rauemi
Capex/Opex Ngā Utu Whakahaere
|
|
Recommended Option
|
Option 2 – Do Nothing
|
|
Cost to Implement
|
Approximately $250
|
$0
|
|
Maintenance/Ongoing Costs
|
Covered by the existing Maintenance
Contract
|
Negligible
|
|
Funding Source
|
Traffic Operations Team traffic signs and
markings budget
|
N/A
|
|
Funding Availability
|
Available
|
N/A
|
|
Impact on Rates
|
N/A
|
N/A
|
6. Considerations Ngā Whai Whakaaro
Risks and Mitigations Ngā
Mōrearea me ngā Whakamātautau
6.1 None
identified.
Legal Considerations Ngā
Hīraunga ā-Ture
6.2 Statutory
and/or delegated authority to undertake proposals in the report:
6.2.1 Part 1, Clause 7 of
the Christchurch City Council Traffic and Parking Bylaw 2017 provides Council
with the authority to install parking or stopping restrictions by resolution.
6.2.2 Clause 6(2) of the
Christchurch City Council Traffic and Parking Bylaw 2017 provides Council with
the authority to subsequently amend or revoke any resolution made under this
bylaw at any time.
6.2.3 The Community Boards
have delegated authority from the Council to exercise the delegations as set
out in the Delegations Register. The list of delegations for the Community
Boards includes the resolution of stopping and traffic control devices.
6.2.4 The installation of any signs and/or markings associated with
traffic control devices must comply with the Land Transport Rule: Traffic
Control Devices 2004.
6.3 Other Legal Implications:
6.3.1 There is no other
legal context, issue, or implication relevant to this decision.
6.3.2 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 this report.
Strategy and Policy Considerations Te Whai
Kaupapa here
6.4 The
required decisions:
6.4.1 Align with the Christchurch
City Council’s Strategic Framework.
6.4.2 The
recommendations in
this report are consistent with the Suburban Parking Policy.
6.4.3 The decisions in this
report are assessed as low significance based on 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.
6.5 The
community engagement and consultation outlined in this report reflect the
assessment.
6.6 This
report supports the Council's
Long Term Plan (2024 - 2034):
6.7 Transport
6.7.1 Activity: Transport
· Level of Service: 10.3.3 Maintain customer
satisfaction with the ease of use of Council on-street parking facilities -
>=50%
Community Impacts and Views Ngā Mariu
ā-Hāpori
6.8 Affected
property owners and residents were advised of the recommended option by way of
a letter drop. There has been follow up correspondence where required.
6.9 Eighteen
residents and twenty-two property owners were advised of the proposals by
letter.
6.10 We
received four responses all in support of the proposal. One response suggested
to extend the no stopping restrictions outside 8/5 Reading Street.
After checking rubbish truck turning movements, we concluded that
rubbish trucks will still need to do a three-point turn at the end of
cul-de-sac. Therefore parking outside 8/5 Reading Street is recommended to be
retained.
6.11 The Team Leader
Parking Compliance supports the preferred option.
6.12 The decision
affects the following wards/Community Board areas:
6.12.1 Waipuna
Halswell-Hornby-Riccarton.
Impact on Mana Whenua Ngā Whai Take
Mana Whenua
6.13 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.
6.14 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
6.15 The proposals in this report are
unlikely to contribute significantly to adaptation to the impacts
of climate change or emissions reductions.
6.16 This is a minor
proposal that is principally intended to address safety issues at these
locations. Due to the minor nature of the works, it is not expected to have any
impact on climate change.
7. Next Steps Ngā Mahinga ā-muri
7.1 If
approved, staff will arrange for the new road markings to be installed in the
current financial year.
Attachments Ngā Tāpirihanga
|
No.
|
Title
|
Reference
|
Page
|
|
a ⇩
|
Reading Street
Proposed No Stopping Restrictions drawing TG151653 For Board Approval
|
25/2623908
|
45
|
|
b ⇩
|
Reading Street
Proposed No Stopping Restrictions drawing TG151653 Truck Tracking Plan
|
25/2624150
|
46
|
In addition to the attached documents, the following background
information is available:
|
Document
Name – Location / File Link
|
|
Not
applicable
|
Signatories Ngā Kaiwaitohu
|
Author
|
Edwin Tiong -
Traffic Engineer
|
|
Approved By
|
Kathy Graham -
Team Leader Traffic Operations
Stephen Wright
- Manager Operations (Transport)
|
|
10. Whakatā Christchurch Cemetery Concept
Plan
|
|
Reference Te Tohutoro:
|
25/1361079
|
|
Responsible Officer(s) Te Pou Matua:
|
Eric
Banks, Senior Parks and Policy Planner
Hannah Ballantyne, Senior Engagement Advisor
|
|
Accountable ELT Member Pouwhakarae:
|
Andrew
Rutledge, General Manager Citizens and Community
|
1. Purpose and Origin of the Report Te Pūtake Pūrongo
1.1 The
purpose of this report is to present the results of public consultation on a
draft concept plan for Whakatā Christchurch Cemetery to the Waipuna
Halswell-Hornby-Riccarton Community Board and to seek approval of the final
amended plan.
1.2 The
report has been prepared in response to Council resolution CNCL/2019/0023 of 12
September 2019 to prepare a draft development plan for a cemetery and sports
park on Council owned land at 173 Maddisons Rd and to investigate options for
augmenting the area of land available.
2. Officer
Recommendations Ngā Tūtohu
That the Waipuna
Halswell-Hornby-Riccarton Community Board recommends that the Council:
1. Receives the information in the Whakatā
Christchurch Cemetery Concept Plan Report.
2. Notes that the decision in this report is assessed as High significance
based on the Christchurch City Council’s Significance and Engagement
Policy.
3. Approves the preferred option of the amended Whakatā
Christchurch Cemetery Concept Plan, Attachment C to the report on the meeting
agenda.
3. Executive Summary Te Whakarāpopoto Matua
3.1 Staff
have investigated options for maintaining city wide cemetery capacity across
the city. On 2 August 2018, the Council resolved to retain 173 Maddisons Road
for a future strategic purpose (a possible cemetery and sports park being
proposed).
3.2 In
September 2019 the Council requested staff prepare a development plan for a
cemetery and sports park on the site and to investigate options for augmenting
the area of land available.
3.3 The
decisions in this report relate to the concept plan for stage 1 of the
cemetery. Details of Stage 2 of the cemetery will be determined at a future
date via a public process. Additional lots have been considered for augmenting
the area of land available. At present the adjacent lot on Maddisons Road with
the greatest potential benefits of adding to the Council land is not available
for acquisition.
3.4 Investigations
and extensive engagement have taken place with local residents and cultural
groups to inform the cemetery portion of the concept plan.
3.5 A
draft concept plan was made available for consultation in June / July 2025. The
results of that engagement and how they were used to modify the draft plan are
described in this report.
3.6 Following
Council approval, detailed design, consenting, and implementation of the
approved concept plan can begin.
4. Background/Context Te Horopaki
4.1 The
Burial and Cremation Act 1964 requires the Council to provide for the burial
needs of the community. Existing Council cemeteries have a limited life span
and new land is required to provide for future burials.
4.2 As
per the Council report of 2019, Council owned land at Templeton has been
identified as a suitable site to provide that burial capacity for the next 100
years.
4.3 The
Council resolution of 12 September 2019 requested staff prepare a draft
development plan for a cemetery and sports park on Council owned land at 173
Maddisons Road and to investigate options for augmenting the land area
available.
4.4 A
draft concept plan for stage 1 of the cemetery is the subject of this report.
Options for augmenting the land area available have been considered. One of the
options considered is land held by Health New Zealand at 215 Maddisons Road.
Health New Zealand have yet to make a decision on the disposal of this land or
not and no decision has been formally made to acquire it if it does become
available. There would be several advantages for the Council if this land were
to be acquired to complement the cemetery development. This land will be
further considered if it becomes available to acquire in the future and will be
reported to the Council at that time.
4.5 A
draft concept plan was prepared following extensive engagement with
stakeholders and a number of investigations including soil testing, stormwater
requirements, ground water, and a traffic study. The plan which was consulted
on is shown at Attachment A. This plan represents Stage 1 of the proposed
cemetery, to be followed by Stage 2 in roughly 35 years. See Attachment B for
staging and location. A design for Stage 2 will be considered and consulted on
once Stage 1 has been operational for several years and future demand can be
considered. Currently, there are no plans to progress a sports park / hub on
the site. A future report will make recommendations for the use of this
portion, shown on the location plan as a potential future sports park, at
Attachment B.
4.6 Consultation
was undertaken on the draft plans, Attachments A and B. Consultation details
and the results are outlined in section 6.9 Community Impacts and Views.
4.7 In
response to consultation feedback, the draft plan was modified, to –
4.7.1 put greater
distance between neighbours of the site to the southeast of the plan and the
area proposed for a children’s remembrance area and toilet. The proposed
pathway close to the southern boundary has been removed. For consistency, the
pathway adjacent to the other residential block in Azalea Place has also been
removed. The toilet adjacent to the children’s area has been removed
altogether.
4.7.2 put greater
distance between neighbours of the site on Maddisons Road and the proposed
sextons and maintenance facility.
4.7.3 increase the
distance between specimen trees to emphasise the preservation of views to the
mountains while also maintaining the additional screening of the cemetery.
4.8 Following
approval of the development plan concept, detailed design and consenting will
be undertaken involving further investigations as required, including a
detailed transport assessment, and further engagement with adjacent landowners
and other stakeholders as appropriate to refine the design. Construction
staging of the different areas within the approved plan will be determined at
this point.
4.9 The
first phase of cemetery development will be centred on the area indicated below
in red. The first several years of burials will be confined to this general
area and exclude areas immediately adjacent to the current residential zone, providing
time for landscape planting and screening to become well established.
4.10 The following related information session/workshops have taken place
for the members of the meeting:
Options Considered Ngā
Kōwhiringa Whaiwhakaaro
4.11 The following
reasonably practicable options were considered and are assessed in this report:
4.11.1 Preferred option: Approve
amended concept plan, Attachment C.
4.11.2 Option 2: Approve concept
plan with no amendments, Attachment A.
4.12 The following
options were considered but ruled out:
4.12.1 Prepare a new plan with
Stages 1 and 2 reversed:
· This option carries a greater risk of challenge at consenting stage
due to its proximity to Roydon Quarry.
· The current proposed cemetery staging maximises the distance between
the operating cemetery and the quarry operations. The quarry rock is being
extracted in a westerly direction over time. Reversing the staging would reduce
that distance. During the time Stage 1 is in operation, Stage 2 screen planting
could be planted along the western boundary whereas reversing the staging would
significantly limit screen planting growth time prior to cemetery use.
· Quarry traffic would have a greater impact on cemetery access and
vehicle movements.
· Open space benefits of the cemetery for the local community would be
reduced in the medium term due to greater distance from residential areas.
· Health New Zealand land at 215 Maddisons Road borders the Council
land, mainly adjacent to proposed Stage 2. Without the addition to the cemetery
of this land there are risks associated with an unknown future use of that land
including possible reverse sensitivities, impacts on cemetery use and
operations, a smaller road frontage, and reduced sightlines which would
constrain the design for this area of the cemetery based on the potential for
these risks to be realised. With the existing proposed staging, however, there
is a greater chance for certainty of use of the Health New Zealand land prior
to design.
· Would require complete re-design of the cemetery plan, possibly
including further targeted engagement and further specific investigations.
4.12.2 Do not approve a plan for
a cemetery (do nothing):
· Additional burial capacity is required for the city at around the
time a new cemetery at Templeton could be made available.
· Alternative sites would require land purchase and would involve
other significant constraints.
· There is a risk we would not meet our cemetery capacity requirements
in a timely fashion.
Options Descriptions Ngā
Kōwhiringa
4.13 Preferred
Option: Approve amended concept plan, Attachment C.
4.13.1 Option Description: The
draft concept plan is amended in response to consultation to put greater
distance between residential neighbours and some facilities, as described in
4.7.
4.13.2 Option Advantages
· Responsive to residents’ submissions on these points.
· Reduces future likelihood of sensitivities in these areas.
· Fewer risks and disadvantages associated with cost, timing, and
consenting compared with a complete redesign of staging.
· Greater certainty for residents on development of the land adjacent
to the current residential area compared with reversing Stages 1 and 2.
4.13.3 Option Disadvantages
· Of the residents who submitted against a cemetery on this site, half
(8) would prefer a switch of stages 1 and 2. While reversing Stages 1 and 2 is
not recommended, residents’ concerns can be partially addressed through
the phasing of Stage 1. It is therefore proposed that development of the area
adjacent to residential properties occur in the final phase of Stage 1,
providing time for landscape planting and screening to become well established.
4.14 Option 2: Approve
concept plan with no amendments, Attachment A.
4.14.1 Option Description: Approve
the concept plan that was consulted on as the final plan with no amendments,
Attachment A.
4.14.2 Option Advantages
· The draft concept plan was prepared following detailed consultation
with stakeholders. The plan is designed to enable a functioning cemetery
incorporating the varying demands and operational requirements of different
burial types.
· The pathway closer to the boundary was designed to better
accommodate recreational users to pass through the area. Retains a toilet block
adjacent to the children’s remembrance area saving a 550 metre journey to
the main toilet block.
4.14.3 Option Disadvantages
· Is not responsive to adjacent residents who submitted on requested
changes to the draft concept plan.
· Greater future likelihood of sensitivities in these areas.
Analysis Criteria Ngā Paearu
Wetekina
4.15 The plan must
allow the Council to meet its statutory obligations with respect to burial
provision.
4.16 Cemetery
development limits negative impacts on its neighbours.
4.17 Cemetery
development is designed to limit impacts of neighbours on the design and
operation of the cemetery.
5. Financial Implications Ngā Hīraunga Rauemi
Capex/Opex Ngā Utu Whakahaere
|
|
Recommended Option
|
Option 2
|
|
Cost to Implement
|
Cost to get to opening of Stage 1:
Minimum likely $15-20M depending on sub-staging.
|
Cost to get to opening of Stage 1:
Minimum likely $15-20M depending on sub-staging.
|
|
Maintenance/Ongoing Costs
|
$45k/yr
|
$45k/yr
|
|
Funding Source
|
41930 Whakatā
– Christchurch Cemetery Development (Templeton) and
77267 Programme – Cemeteries Future
Capacity Development
|
41930 Whakatā
– Christchurch Cemetery Development (Templeton) and
77267 Programme – Cemeteries Future
Capacity Development
|
|
Funding Availability
|
41930 FY25-27 $1.57m
77267 FY28-34 $33m
|
41930 FY25-27 $1.57m
77267 FY28-34 $33m
|
|
Impact on Rates
|
No immediate impact on rates as project
is budgeted in LTP.
|
No immediate impact on rates as project
is budgeted in LTP.
|
6. Considerations Ngā Whai Whakaaro
Risks and Mitigations Ngā
Mōrearea me ngā Whakamātautau
6.1 Under
the Rural Urban Fringe zoning, the proposed cemetery will require resource
consent as either a Discretionary or Non-complying activity and will likely
need to be notified. Factors that will assist in the consenting process include
the comprehensive community engagement and public consultation on the draft concept
plan already undertaken. In addition, the cemetery design, including the
proposed buffering and vegetative screening mitigation measures, will assist in
maintaining consistency with the key objectives of the zone of contributing to
the rural character and provision of community facilities compatible with the
rural – urban environment.
6.2 Risk
of unacceptable noise from excavation, processing, truck use, and dust from the
nearby quarry impacting the cemetery. Proposed buffer planting along western
boundary and within Stage 2 of the cemetery in addition to the quarry
consenting mitigation conditions will reduce the impact on the cemetery and
immediate neighbours. The proposed configurations of Stage 1 and Stage 2 would
minimise this risk to users of the cemetery.
6.3 Risk
of negative impacts on the cemetery (Stage 2 in particular) if land held by
Health New Zealand on Maddisons Road is developed for purposes not compatible
with the operation of a cemetery. If the land is not acquired by the Council,
the area of the cemetery adjacent to this land could potentially be designed to
reduce the negative impacts to some extent. If the proposed staging is
implemented, these risks and the potential design constraints needed will be
minimised.
Legal Considerations Ngā
Hīraunga ā-Ture
6.4 Statutory
and/or delegated authority to undertake proposals in the report:
6.4.1 The Council
has the authority to make the decisions in this report.
6.5 Other Legal Implications:
6.5.1 The Council
has a statutory obligation under section 4 of the Burial and Cremation Act 1964
to make sufficient provision for the burial of persons dying in its district.
If sufficient provision is not made then the Council will be in breach of its
statutory obligation.
6.5.2 The fact that
a cemetery is classified a public work within the meaning of the Public Works
Act 1981 and that land can be acquired or taken for cemeteries under the
provisions of that Act highlights the significance that Parliament has placed
on the provision of cemeteries.
Strategy and Policy Considerations Te Whai
Kaupapa here
6.6 The
required decisions:
6.6.1 Align with the
Christchurch
City Council’s Strategic Framework. Developing a cemetery contributes
to multiple community outcomes by providing for the diverse burial needs of the
community in an efficient and resilient manner.
6.6.2 Are assessed
as high significance based on the
Christchurch City Council’s Significance and Engagement Policy. The
level of significance was determined by using the Council’s significance
assessment which included the number and range of City residents affected if additional burial space is not provided for.
6.6.3 The decision
is consistent with the Christchurch City Council Cemeteries Master Plan 2013
which includes an action point to investigate additional cemetery land to the
west of the city to cater for future burial capacity.
6.6.4 The decision
is partly inconsistent with the District Plan Rural Urban Fringe zone and a
resource consent application to develop the land for cemetery purposes would be
processed as either a Restricted Discretionary or Non-complying activity.
6.7 This
report supports the Council's
Long Term Plan (2024 - 2034):
6.8 Parks, Heritage and Coastal Environment
6.8.1 Activity: Parks and Foreshore
· Level of Service: 6.4.2 Sufficient cemetery
capacity is available to cater for the burial needs of Christchurch - Minimum
2-year future interment capacity (full burial plots) is planned, consented, and
funded, ready to deliver
Community Impacts and Views Ngā Mariu
ā-Hāpori
6.9 Extensive
engagement with faith and cultural communities, funeral-based stakeholder
groups, and the Templeton community occurred from 2019-2020. This included in
person and online meetings. These conversations shaped the layout of the draft
concept plan.
6.10 Over April and
May 2025 some early conversations were had with the Templeton Residents’
Association regarding scale and consultation timeline.
6.11 Consultation
started on 5 June and ran until 7 July 2025.
6.12 Consultation
details including links to the project information shared on the Kōrero mai | Let’s
Talk webpage were advertised via:
· An email sent to 1,300 identified stakeholders, including the faith
and cultural communities engaged to-date, Templeton residents and businesses
engaged to-date, funeral-based stakeholders, and subscribers to Kōrero mai
| Let’s talk who elected to be notified when consultations like this
open.
· Consultation documents delivered to Templeton residents and owners
of property in Templeton.
· A Newsline
story posted (viewed 10,559 times) and shared to the Council’s
Facebook page, as well as the local Templeton community page twice.
· Paid advertising on social media and in The Star newspaper.
· Posters in libraries and service centres.
6.13 The Kōrero mai | Let’s
Talk page had 1,595 views throughout the consultation period.
6.14 A drop-in
session at Templeton School was held on 2 July 2025 and attended by
approximately 25 people. The themes discussed at this session are accurately
represented through the submission feedback.
Summary of Submissions Ngā Tāpaetanga
6.15 Submissions were
made by five recognised organisations and 46 individuals. All submissions are
available on the Kōrero mai webpage.
· Templeton Residents Association – somewhat
supported the plan. They understood the need for the cemetery but questioned
any benefit to the local community. Other concerns included neighbours
retaining rural mountain views, drainage, security, lighting, and traffic. They
questioned why stage 2 couldn’t be developed first.
· Templeton RSA – supported the plan
overall, noting their agreement with the layout. They questioned whether
parking would be an issue and if there are RSA plots (the latter was confirmed
during consultation with them).
· Kirant Society of New Zealand Incorporated – supported the plan, particularly the specific area for the Kirant
ethnic group.
· Dharma Yodha New Zealand Incorporated – submitted representing multiple Hindu community groups. They felt
that the current area allocated to the Hindu community was insufficient to
account for population growth. They requested a meeting/prayer hall with
various rooms including a kitchen and bathroom, and an outdoor area exclusively
for the Hindu community with trees and shaded seating. They expressed concern
around the practicalities of a shared ceremonial space, with their ceremonies
time-bound between the 10th and 13th days.
· Disabled Persons Assembly (DPA) New Zealand – supported the plan, particularly the shared ceremonial space and the
adequate number of accessible toilets. They requested accessible seating and
footpaths, and that the children’s remembrance area be made wheelchair
accessible.
6.16 Overall, 38% of
submitters supported the plans, 22% somewhat supported, 30% did not support,
with the remaining 13% (6) not knowing. All of those who did not support the
plans were Templeton residents and businesses. 83% of submitters from outside
of Templeton supported the plans.
6.17 What submitters
liked about the plan was:
· That it provides a park-like asset/the landscaping (15)
· That it responds to diverse needs (10)
· The layout (6)
· That it seems peaceful (6)
6.18 What submitters
didn’t like was:
· Increased traffic resulting from the development, with impacts
particularly on Kirk Road which some locals described as already dangerous (11)
· Fears of the cemetery devaluing local properties including through
proximity to a cemetery and loss of view (8)
· Safety concerns surrounding the cemetery i.e. anti-social behaviour
(7)
· The infant burial area being inappropriate due to its close
proximity to young families and/or the school (7)
· The pathway being too close to residential property on Roydon Drive
(5)
6.19 Submitters
requested:
· For stage two to be developed first (8)
· For existing traffic issues (particularly on Kirk Road) to be
addressed prior to adding more traffic to the area (6)
6.20 The decision
affects the following wards/Community Board areas:
6.20.1 The cemetery is for the whole
city but is located in the Waipuna Halswell Hornby Riccarton Community Board
area.
Impact on Mana Whenua Ngā Whai Take
Mana Whenua
6.21 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.
6.22 As
part of the wider Development Plan process, staff engaged with Ngāi
Tūāhuriri (Mana Whenua), Te Taumutu, and Ngā Maata Waka. Mana
Whenua did not have any objections to a cemetery in this location and have
indicated they wish to be kept informed of the wider Development Plan process
but did not wish to contribute design or cultural input over and above that
which had already been provided through earlier engagement for district wide
cemetery planning purposes. Maata Waka have provided some design guidelines for
the development of Urupa and the wider cemetery layout and facilities. Ngā
Maata Waka gifted the name Whakatā (resting place / at rest) for the
cemetery which was agreed to by Ngāi Tūāhuriri (Mana Whenua).
A cultural statement encompassing this general area of the city has been
provided by Mahaanui Kurataiao.
Climate Change Impact Considerations Ngā
Whai Whakaaro mā te Āhuarangi
6.23 The decisions in
this report are likely to:
6.23.1 Contribute positively to
adaptation to the impacts of climate change.
6.23.2 Contribute positively to emissions reductions.
6.24 The
cemetery site is resilient to the effects of climate change. This area of the
city is distant from water bodies and has low ground water (tested at between 9
-14 metres below ground level) and therefore not at risk from these elements of
climate change.
6.25 The
cemetery development will involve significant tree planting and contribute to
our urban forest.
6.26 For
some users, this site would require a slightly greater distance to travel for
burials than other possible locations, less distance for others. Compared with
an alternative burial provision involving many smaller cemetery sites, one
large site would require less travel for maintenance and operational vehicles.
7. Next Steps Ngā Mahinga ā-muri
7.1 Council
approval of the amended concept plan.
7.2 Detailed
design and consenting - This stage will involve working with adjacent residents
and other stakeholders as applicable. Preparation of additional reports /
information required for consent.
7.3 Construction
plan preparation and tendering.
7.4 Construction
period.
7.5 First
plots available around 2033.
Attachments Ngā Tāpirihanga
|
No.
|
Title
|
Reference
|
Page
|
|
a ⇩ 
|
Whakataa_Christchurch
Cemetery Templeton_Stage One_Concept Plan_Original Version
|
25/2596832
|
57
|
|
b ⇩
|
Whakatā
Christchurch Cemetery at Templeton location diagram
|
25/1503099
|
58
|
|
c ⇩
|
Whakataa_Christchurch
Cemetery Templeton_Stage One_Concept Plan_Amended Version
|
25/2596602
|
59
|
In addition to the attached documents, the following background
information is available:
|
Document
Name – Location / File Link
|
|
Not
applicable
|
Signatories Ngā Kaiwaitohu
|
Authors
|
Eric Banks -
Senior Parks & Policy Planner
Hannah
Ballantyne - Senior Engagement Advisor
Ron Lemm -
Manager Legal Service Delivery
|
|
Approved By
|
Kelly Hansen -
Manager Parks Planning & Asset Management
Al Hardy -
Manager Community Parks
Rupert Bool -
Head of Parks
|
|
11. English St/Main South Rd - Pedestrian Safety
Improvements
|
|
Reference Te Tohutoro:
|
25/2415747
|
|
Responsible Officer(s) Te Pou Matua:
|
Lachlan
Beban, Principal Advisor Transportation
|
|
Accountable ELT Member Pouwhakarae:
|
Brent
Smith, General Manager City Infrastructure
|
1. Purpose and Origin of the Report Te Pūtake Pūrongo
1.1 The
purpose of this report is to seek the approval of the Waipuna Halswell Hornby
Riccarton Community Board to proceed with safety improvements for pedestrians
crossing English Street at the intersection of English Street and Main South
Road.
1.2 The
report has been written following community requests to improve pedestrian
facilities at this intersection.
1.3 The recommended option is to install a pedestrian refuge island on
English Street.
2. Officer
Recommendations Ngā Tūtohu
That the Waipuna
Halswell-Hornby-Riccarton Community Board:
1. Receives the information in the English
St/Main South Rd - Pedestrian Safety Improvements Report.
2. Notes that the decision in this report is assessed as low significance
based on the Christchurch City Council’s Significance and Engagement
Policy.
3. Under Clause 6(2) of the Christchurch City Council Traffic and
Parking Bylaw 2017 revokes any previous resolutions pertaining to traffic
controls made pursuant to any bylaw to the extent that they are in conflict
with the parking or stopping restrictions described in resolutions 4 to 6
below.
4. Approves, pursuant to Section 331 and 334 of
the Local Government Act 1974, the road layout,
including all road surface treatments, pedestrian facilities and road markings
on English Street as detailed on Attachment A to the report on the meeting
agenda (Plan TG150149 dated 09/01/26).
5. Approves that in accordance with Clause 7 of the Christchurch City
Council Traffic and Parking Bylaw 2017, that the stopping of vehicles be
prohibited at any time on the southwestern side of English Street, commencing
at its intersection with Main South Road and extending in a north-westerly
direction for a distance of 14 metres, as detailed on Attachment A to the
report on the meeting agenda (Plan TG150149 dated 09/01/26).
6. Approves that in accordance with Clause 7 of the Christchurch City
Council Traffic and Parking Bylaw 2017, that the stopping of vehicles be
prohibited at any time on the northeastern side of English Street, commencing
at its intersection with Main South Road and extending in a north-westerly
direction for a distance of 21 metres, as detailed on Attachment A to the
report on the meeting agenda (Plan TG150149 dated 09/01/26).
7. Approves that these resolutions take effect when parking signage
and/or road markings that evidence the restrictions described in 3 to 6 are in
place or removed in the case of revocations.
3. Executive Summary Te Whakarāpopoto Matua
3.1 Concerns
have been raised around the safety of pedestrians crossing English Street near
its intersection with Main South Road.
3.2 It
is proposed to install a refuge island on the English Street approach to the
intersection.
3.3 No
stopping restrictions are also proposed to ensure that adequate visibility is
provided at crossing points.
4. Background/Context Te Horopaki
4.1 Improving
safety and accessibility on local roads in Christchurch is a priority for the
Council.
4.1.1 There are a
number of levels of service agreed as part of the Long-Term Plan 24-34 which
are relevant to this decision, such as measuring: safety statistics for
pedestrians and cyclists; and perceptions that Christchurch is a “walking
friendly city”.
4.1.2 Providing safe
infrastructure is key to helping people to get where they are going safely,
irrespective of their mode of travel.
4.2 There
are no formal facilities at this intersection to support people to cross
English Street, other than pedestrian cutdowns. The distance pedestrians
are required to cross is around 18m in length. There has also been feedback that the existing cutdowns
are too steep for wheelchair users.
4.3 English Street is classified
as a Local Street in the NZTA-Waka Kotahi One Network Framework and has an
estimated average daily traffic of around 1,600 vehicles per day.
4.4 There
have been five reported crashes at or within 30m of this intersection within
the last five years, one serious and four minor injury:
4.4.1 The serious
crash involved a car crossing the centreline on Main South Road colliding
head-on with a vehicle travelling in opposite direction. Driver fatigue was
attributed as a factor in this crash.
4.4.2 One minor
injury crash involved a vehicle waiting to turning right into English Street
being struck by a trailing vehicle.
4.4.3 One minor
injury crash involved a cyclist being side-swiped by a vehicle undertaking
another vehicle waiting to turn right into English St. The intersection
layout has changed since this crash with the South Express Major Cycle Route
works.
4.4.4 The other
minor injury crashes involved vehicles running off the road.
4.4.5 Three of the
crashes above involved cause factors relating to driver condition/behaviour
(e.g. fatigue and evading enforcement).
4.5 Bus
routes 5, 100 and 130 run along Main South Road with adjacent bus stops to the
north of the intersection (35m for outbound services and 60m for citybound
services).
4.6 There
is an existing pedestrian (zebra) crossing on Main South Road around 20m to the
southwest of the intersection.
4.7 There are several schools in the area with Te Kāpehu Riccarton School to the immediate east of
the intersection, Riccarton High School to the south and St Thomas’s and
Villa Maria in the surrounding area.
Options Considered Ngā
Kōwhiringa Whaiwhakaaro
4.8 The
following reasonably practicable options were considered and are assessed in
this report:
4.8.1 Pedestrian
refuge island.
4.8.2 Do nothing.
4.9 The
following options were considered but ruled out:
4.9.1 Kerb buildouts
(without a refuge island) – Providing kerb buildouts on both sides of the
intersection to reduce the distance that pedestrians are required to cross.
However, this option is considered less effective than the proposed refuge
island as it would still require pedestrians to assess multiple potential
conflicts with turning traffic in both directions of travel.
4.9.2 Kerb buildouts (with pedestrian refuge island) -
to further narrow the intersection and reduce the crossing distance.
There were issues with vehicle tracking on entry from Main South Road which
constrained this option. A side island on the exit from English Street
could be incorporated with the proposed option – however this would
constrain the approach width to a single lane.
Options Descriptions Ngā
Kōwhiringa
4.10 Preferred
Option: Pedestrian refuge island.
4.10.1 Option Description: Provide
a pedestrian refuge island on the English Street approach to the intersection,
with associated no stopping restrictions to provide adequate visibility at
crossing points. Pedestrian cutdowns will be amended to improve gradient
for wheelchair users.
4.10.2 Option Advantages
· Provides waiting space in the middle of the road to allow people to
cross in two stages of shorter distance.
· Pedestrians are able to cross one direction of traffic at a time,
making it easier to judge safe gaps in traffic.
· Tightens up the intersection, encouraging lower turning speeds from
motorists.
4.10.3 Option Disadvantages
· Cost to Council.
· Loss of on-street parking.
4.11 Option 2 –
Do Nothing.
4.11.1 Option Description: Do
Nothing.
4.11.2 Option Advantages
· No cost to Council.
4.11.3 Option Disadvantages
· Does not address safety and accessibility concerns for pedestrians.
5. Financial Implications Ngā Hīraunga Rauemi
Capex/Opex Ngā Utu Whakahaere
|
|
Recommended Option
|
Option 2 – Do Nothing
|
|
Cost to Implement
|
$67,000
|
$0
|
|
Maintenance/Ongoing Costs
|
To be covered under the roading
maintenance contract, the effect will be minimal to the overall asset.
|
No impact
|
|
Funding Source
|
Traffic Operations Minor Safety
Intervention Budget
|
N/A
|
|
Funding Availability
|
Funding available in the above-named
budget
|
N/A
|
|
Impact on Rates
|
None
|
None
|
5.1 These
are high level estimates only and not tendered prices.
6. Considerations Ngā Whai Whakaaro
Risks and Mitigations Ngā
Mōrearea me ngā Whakamātautau
6.1 The
proposal includes traffic safety measures that will reduce risk for pedestrians
at this location.
Legal Considerations Ngā
Hīraunga ā-Ture
6.2 Statutory
and/or delegated authority to undertake proposals in the report:
6.2.1 Part 1, Clause
7 of the Christchurch City Council Traffic and Parking Bylaw 2017 provides
Council with the authority to install parking or stopping restrictions by
resolution.
6.2.2 Clause 6(2) of
the Christchurch City Council Traffic and Parking Bylaw 2017 provides Council
with the authority to subsequently amend or revoke any resolution made under
this bylaw at any time.
6.2.3 The Community
Boards have delegated authority from 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 and traffic controls.
6.2.4 The
installation of any signs and/or markings associated with traffic control
devices must comply with the Land Transport Rule: Traffic Control Devices 2004.
6.3 Other Legal Implications:
6.3.1 There is no
legal context, issue, or implication relevant to this decision.
6.3.2 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 this report.
Strategy and Policy Considerations Te Whai
Kaupapa here
6.4 The
required decisions:
6.4.1 Align with the
Christchurch City Council’s Strategic Framework and Community Outcomes.
Improving the safety of our roads aligns with the Strategic Priorities and
Community Outcomes, in particular to be an inclusive and equitable city; build
trust and confidence by listening to and working with our residents; and
providing safe crossing points for people who walk and cycle will contribute to
a green, liveable city, where our neighbourhoods and communities are accessible
and well-connected.
6.4.2 This project
is assessed as low significance based on the Christchurch City Council’s
Significance and Engagement Policy. The level of significance was
determined by the low number of people directly impacted by the proposal.
6.4.3 The recommended option is consistent with Council’s Plans and Policies, in particular:
· LTP Activity Plan - Level of Service target to reduce the number of
deaths or serious injuries (DSI) from all crashes by 40% in 2030.
· The changes made align with road safety and liveable streets goals
in the Christchurch Transport Strategic Plan 2012–2042, and similarly in
the draft Transport Plan (safe streets).
· The changes made align with Kia tūroa te Ao - Ōtautahi
Christchurch Climate Resilience Strategy as set out in the Climate Change
Impact Considerations section below.
· Improving safety on local roads is a priority for the Council.
6.5 This
report supports the Council's
Long Term Plan (2024 - 2034):
6.6 Transport
6.6.1 Activity: Transport
· Level of Service: 16.0.10 Maintain the
perception (resident satisfaction) that Christchurch is a walking friendly city
- >=85% resident satisfaction
· Level of Service: 10.5.41 Increase access within
15 minutes to key destination types by walking (to at least four of the five
basic services: food shopping, education, employment, health, and open spaces)
- >=50% of residential addresses with a 15- minute walking access
· Level of Service: 10.5.1 Limit deaths and
serious injury crashes per capita for cyclists and pedestrians - <=12
crashes per 100,000 residents
· Level of Service: 16.0.10 Maintain the perception (resident
satisfaction) that Christchurch is a walking friendly city - >=85% resident
satisfaction
Community Impacts and Views Ngā Mariu
ā-Hāpori
6.7 Consultation started on 27 November and ran
until 18 December 2025.
6.8 Project details were advertised via:
· An email sent to
Te Kāpehu Riccarton School
· A flyer drop to 14 residents on
English Street and Main South Road
6.9 Summary of Submissions Ngā Tāpaetanga
6.10 No submissions were received from the
public. Te Kāpehu Riccarton
School asked whether modelling had taken place
to assess the potential impacts of the intersection changes
on school drop-off and pick-up. They school also
asked whether the crossing could be moved further down English
Street, closer to the school entrance. They were informed
that significant impacts on traffic flow are not anticipated, as
the intersection capacity is not changing. They were also
advised that current funding only allowed for one
pedestrian island and the proposed island
was located on the pedestrian desire line along Main South
Road.
6.11 The decision
affects the following wards/Community Board areas:
6.11.1 Riccarton Ward.
Impact on Mana Whenua Ngā Whai Take
Mana Whenua
6.12 The decision does not involve a significant
decision in relation to ancestral land, a body of water or other elements of
intrinsic value, therefore this decision does not specifically impact Mana
Whenua, their culture, and traditions.
6.13 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
6.14 The decisions in
this report are likely to:
6.14.1 Contribute positively to
adaptation to the impacts of climate change.
6.14.2 Contribute positively to emissions reductions.
6.15 The emission
reductions associated with this project have not been estimated.
6.16 Improving the
ability for people to walk, cycle, scoot and catch the bus are a key part of
the Council’s emissions reduction efforts by providing a safe, low
emission way for residents to move around the city.
6.17 Improving safety
and making these roads feel safer would address some of the barriers to people
making sustainable travel choices. Removing these barriers will lead to
reductions in vehicle kilometres travelled and consequently emissions from
transport.
7. Next Steps Ngā Mahinga ā-muri
7.1 If
the Community Board agrees to the recommendations in this report, staff will
engage with contractors to proceed with construction.
Attachments Ngā Tāpirihanga
|
No.
|
Title
|
Reference
|
Page
|
|
a ⇩
|
English Street
and Main South Road Proposed Pedestrian Improvements TG150149
|
26/50302
|
68
|
In addition to the attached documents, the following background
information is available:
|
Document
Name – Location / File Link
|
|
Not
applicable
|
Signatories Ngā Kaiwaitohu
|
Authors
|
Lachlan Beban
- Principal Advisor Transportation Signals
Daisy-Bea
Scrase - Engagement Advisor
Gemma Dioni -
Principal Advisor Transportation Safety
|
|
Approved By
|
Kathy Graham -
Team Leader Traffic Operations
Stephen Wright
- Manager Operations (Transport)
|
|
12. Nicholls Road/Oakridge Street - Pedestrian
Safety Improvements
|
|
Reference Te Tohutoro:
|
25/2415915
|
|
Responsible Officer(s) Te Pou Matua:
|
Lachlan
Beban, Principal Advisor Transportation
|
|
Accountable ELT Member Pouwhakarae:
|
Brent
Smith, General Manager City Infrastructure
|
1. Purpose and Origin of the Report Te Pūtake Pūrongo
1.1 The
purpose of this report is to seek the approval of the Waipuna Halswell Hornby
Riccarton Community Board to proceed with safety improvements for pedestrians
crossing Oakridge Street at the intersection of Nicholls Road and Oakridge
Street.
1.2 The
report has been written following community requests to improve pedestrian
facilities at this intersection.
1.3 The recommended option is to install a pedestrian refuge island on
Oakridge Street.
2. Officer
Recommendations Ngā Tūtohu
That the Waipuna
Halswell-Hornby-Riccarton Community Board:
1. Receives the information in the Nicholls
Road/Oakridge Street - Pedestrian Safety Improvements Report.
2. Notes that the decision in this report is assessed as low significance
based on the Christchurch City Council’s Significance and Engagement
Policy.
3. Under Clause 6(2) of the Christchurch City Council Traffic and
Parking Bylaw 2017 revokes any previous resolutions pertaining to traffic
controls made pursuant to any bylaw to the extent that they are in conflict
with the parking or stopping restrictions described in resolutions 4 to 8
below.
4. Approves, pursuant to Section 331 and 334 of
the Local Government Act 1974, the road layout,
including all road surface treatments, pedestrian facilities and road markings
on Nicholls Road and Oakridge Street as detailed on Attachment A to the report
on the meeting agenda (Plan TG151655 dated 09/01/26).
5. Approves that in accordance with Clause 7 of the Christchurch City
Council Traffic and Parking Bylaw 2017, that the stopping of vehicles be
prohibited at any time on the southwestern side of Oakridge Street, commencing
at its intersection with Nicholls Road and extending in a north-westerly
direction for a distance of 25 metres, as detailed on Attachment A to the
report on the meeting agenda (Plan TG151655 dated 09/01/26).
6. Approves that in accordance with Clause 7 of the Christchurch City
Council Traffic and Parking Bylaw 2017, that the stopping of vehicles be
prohibited at any time on the northeastern side of Oakridge Street, commencing
at its intersection with Nicholls Road and extending in a north‑westerly
direction for a distance of 24.5 metres, as detailed on Attachment A to the
report on the meeting agenda (Plan TG151655 dated 09/01/26).
7. Approves that in accordance with Clause 7 of the Christchurch City
Council Traffic and Parking Bylaw 2017, that the stopping of vehicles be
prohibited at any time on the northwestern side of Nicholls Road, commencing at
its intersection with Oakridge Street and extending in a northeasterly
direction for a distance of 32 metres, as detailed on Attachment A to the
report on the meeting agenda (Plan TG151655 dated 09/01/26).
8. Approves that in accordance with Clause 7 of the Christchurch City
Council Traffic and Parking Bylaw 2017, that the stopping of vehicles be
prohibited at any time on the northwestern side of Nicholls Road, commencing at
its intersection with Oakridge Street and extending in a south‑westerly
direction for a distance of 25 metres, as detailed on Attachment A to the
report on the meeting agenda (Plan TG151655 dated 09/01/26).
9. Approves that these resolutions take effect when parking signage
and/or road markings that evidence the restrictions described in 3 to 8 are in
place or removed in the case of revocations.
3. Executive Summary Te Whakarāpopoto Matua
3.1 Concerns
have been raised around the safety of pedestrians crossing Oakridge Street near
its intersection with Nicholls Road.
3.2 It
is proposed to install a refuge island on the Oakridge Street approach and
realign the kerb on one corner of the intersection.
3.3 No
stopping restrictions are also proposed to ensure that adequate visibility is
provided at crossing points.
4. Background/Context Te Horopaki
4.1 Improving
safety and accessibility on local roads in Christchurch is a priority for the
Council.
4.1.1 There are a
number of levels of service agreed as part of the Long-Term Plan 24-34 which
are relevant to this decision, such as measuring: safety statistics for
pedestrians and cyclists; and perceptions that Christchurch is a “walking
friendly city”.
4.1.2 Providing safe
infrastructure is key to helping people to get where they are going safely,
irrespective of their mode of travel.
4.2 Oakridge
Street is classified as a Local Street in the NZTA-Waka Kotahi One Network
Framework and has an average daily traffic of around 2,300 vehicles per day
(May 2023 survey).
4.3 There
are no formal facilities at this intersection to support people to cross
Oakridge Street, other than pedestrian cutdowns. The distance pedestrians
are required to cross is around 20m in length.
4.4 There
have been no reported crashes at or within 30m of this intersection within the
last five years.
4.5 Bus
routes 7 and 125 run through the intersection with adjacent bus stops 50 metres
to the northeast for outbound services and 60 metres to the southwest for
citybound services.
4.6 There
is an existing pedestrian refuge island and side island on Nicholls Road around
20 metres to the east of the intersection, providing connectivity to the
supermarket and shops to the south.
Options Considered Ngā
Kōwhiringa Whaiwhakaaro
4.7 The
following reasonably practicable options were considered and are assessed in
this report:
4.7.1 Pedestrian
refuge island.
4.7.2 Do nothing.
4.8 The
following options were considered but ruled out:
4.8.1 Kerb buildouts
– Providing kerb buildouts on both sides of the intersection (without a
refuge island) to reduce the distance that pedestrians are required to cross to
around 10 metres in length. However, this option is considered less effective
than the proposed refuge island as it would still require pedestrians to assess
multiple potential conflicts with turning traffic in both directions of travel.
Options Descriptions Ngā
Kōwhiringa
4.9 Preferred
Option: Pedestrian refuge island.
4.9.1 Option
Description: Provide a pedestrian refuge island on the Oakridge Street
approach to the intersection, with associated kerb realignment on northwest
corner of the intersection and no stopping restrictions to provide adequate
visibility at crossing points.
4.9.2 Option
Advantages
· Provides waiting space in the middle of the road to allow people to
cross in two stages of shorter distance.
· Pedestrians are able cross one direction of traffic at a time,
making it easier to judge safe gaps in traffic.
· Tightens up the intersection, encouraging lower turning speeds from
motorists.
4.9.3 Option
Disadvantages
· Cost to Council.
· Loss of on-street parking.
4.10 Option 2 –
Do Nothing.
4.10.1 Option Description: Do
Nothing.
4.10.2 Option Advantages
· No cost to Council.
4.10.3 Option Disadvantages
· Does not address safety and accessibility concerns for pedestrians.
5. Financial Implications Ngā Hīraunga Rauemi
Capex/Opex Ngā Utu Whakahaere
|
|
Recommended Option
|
Option 2 – Do Nothing
|
|
Cost to Implement
|
$58,000
|
$0
|
|
Maintenance/Ongoing Costs
|
To be covered under the roading
maintenance contract, the effect will be minimal to the overall asset.
|
No impact
|
|
Funding Source
|
Traffic Operations Minor Safety
Intervention Budget
|
N/A
|
|
Funding Availability
|
Funding available in the above-named
budget
|
N/A
|
|
Impact on Rates
|
None
|
None
|
5.1 These
are high level estimates only and not tendered prices.
6. Considerations Ngā Whai Whakaaro
Risks and Mitigations Ngā
Mōrearea me ngā Whakamātautau
6.1 The
proposal includes traffic safety measures that will reduce risk for pedestrians
crossing at this location.
Legal Considerations Ngā
Hīraunga ā-Ture
6.2 Statutory
and/or delegated authority to undertake proposals in the report:
6.2.1 Part 1, Clause
7 of the Christchurch City Council Traffic and Parking Bylaw 2017 provides
Council with the authority to install parking or stopping restrictions by
resolution.
6.2.2 Clause 6(2) of
the Christchurch City Council Traffic and Parking Bylaw 2017 provides Council
with the authority to subsequently amend or revoke any resolution made under
this bylaw at any time.
6.2.3 The Community
Boards have delegated authority from 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 and traffic controls.
6.2.4 The
installation of any signs and/or markings associated with traffic control
devices must comply with the Land Transport Rule: Traffic Control Devices 2004.
6.3 Other Legal Implications:
6.3.1 There is no
legal context, issue, or implication relevant to this decision.
6.3.2 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 this report.
Strategy and Policy Considerations Te Whai
Kaupapa here
6.4 The
required decisions:
6.4.1 Align with the
Christchurch City Council’s Strategic Framework and Community Outcomes.
Improving the safety of our roads aligns with the Strategic Priorities and
Community Outcomes, in particular to be an inclusive and equitable city; build
trust and confidence by listening to and working with our residents; and
providing safe crossing points for people who walk and cycle will contribute to
a green, liveable city, where our neighbourhoods and communities are accessible
and well-connected.
6.4.2 This project
is assessed as low significance based on the Christchurch City Council’s
Significance and Engagement Policy. The level of significance was
determined by the low number of people directly affected.
6.4.3 The recommended option is consistent with Council’s Plans and Policies, in particular:
· LTP Activity Plan - Level of Service target to reduce the number of
deaths or serious injuries (DSI) from all crashes by 40% in 2030.
· The changes made align with road safety and liveable streets goals
in the Christchurch Transport Strategic Plan 2012–2042, and similarly in
the draft Transport Plan (safe streets).
· The changes made align with Kia tūroa te Ao - Ōtautahi
Christchurch Climate Resilience Strategy as set out in the Climate Change
Impact Considerations section below.
· Improving safety on local roads is a priority for the Council.
6.5 This
report supports the Council's
Long Term Plan (2024 - 2034):
6.6 Transport
6.6.1 Activity: Transport
· Level of Service: 10.5.1 Limit deaths and
serious injury crashes per capita for cyclists and pedestrians - <=12
crashes per 100,000 residents
· Level of Service: 10.5.41 Increase access within
15 minutes to key destination types by walking (to at least four of the five
basic services: food shopping, education, employment, health, and open spaces)
- >=50% of residential addresses with a 15- minute walking access
· Level of Service: 16.0.10 Maintain the
perception (resident satisfaction) that Christchurch is a walking friendly city
- >=85% resident satisfaction
· Level of Service: 10.0.6.1 Reduce the number of
death and serious injury crashes on the local road network (DIA 1) - 4 less
than previous FY
· Level of Service: 10.0.6.2 Reduce the number of
death and serious injury crashes on the local road network - Five year rolling
average <95 crashes per year
· Level of Service: 10.0.2 Increase the share of
non-car modes in daily trips - >=37% of trips undertaken by non-car modes
· Level of Service: 16.0.10 Maintain the perception (resident
satisfaction) that Christchurch is a walking friendly city - >=85% resident
satisfaction
Community Impacts and Views Ngā Mariu
ā-Hāpori
6.7 Consultation started on 27 November and ran until 18 December 2025.
6.8 Project details were advertised
via a flyer drop to 22 residents on Oakridge Street and
Nicholls Road.
6.9 Summary of
Submissions Ngā Tāpaetanga
6.10 One resident
provided feedback. They supported the pedestrian island
and thanked the Council for the proposal.
6.11 The decision
affects the following wards/Community Board areas:
6.11.1 Halswell Ward.
Impact on Mana Whenua Ngā Whai Take
Mana Whenua
6.12 The decision does not involve a
significant decision in relation to ancestral land, a body of water or other
elements of intrinsic value, therefore this decision does not specifically
impact Mana Whenua, their culture, and traditions.
6.13 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
6.14 The decisions in
this report are likely to:
6.14.1 Contribute positively to
adaptation to the impacts of climate change.
6.14.2 Contribute positively to emissions reductions.
6.15 The emission
reductions associated with this project have not been estimated.
6.16 Improving the
ability for people to walk, cycle, scoot and catch the bus are a key part of
the Council’s emissions reduction efforts by providing a safe, low
emission way for residents to move around the city.
6.17 Improving safety
and making these roads feel safer would address some of the barriers to people
making sustainable travel choices. Removing these barriers will lead to
reductions in vehicle kilometres travelled and consequently emissions from
transport.
7. Next Steps Ngā Mahinga ā-muri
7.1 If
the Community Board agrees to the recommendations in this report, staff will
engage with contractors to proceed with construction.
Attachments Ngā Tāpirihanga
|
No.
|
Title
|
Reference
|
Page
|
|
a ⇩
|
Oakridge
Street and Nicholls Road Proposed Pedestrian Improvements TG151655
|
26/50308
|
75
|
In addition to the attached documents, the following background
information is available:
|
Document
Name – Location / File Link
|
|
Not
applicable
|
Signatories Ngā Kaiwaitohu
|
Authors
|
Lachlan Beban
- Principal Advisor Transportation Signals
Daisy-Bea
Scrase - Engagement Advisor
Gemma Dioni -
Principal Advisor Transportation Safety
|
|
Approved By
|
Kathy Graham -
Team Leader Traffic Operations
Stephen Wright
- Manager Operations (Transport)
|
|
13. Community Parks Rolling Renewal Programme
|
|
Reference Te Tohutoro:
|
25/1326036
|
|
Responsible Officer(s) Te Pou Matua:
|
Bridie
Gibbings, Manager Operations – Capital Development
|
|
Accountable ELT Member Pouwhakarae:
|
Andrew
Rutledge, General Manager Citizens and Community
|
1. Purpose and Origin of the Report Te Pūtake Pūrongo
1.1 The
purpose of this report is to seek approval to the amended Waipuna
Halswell-Hornby-Riccarton Community Boards Community Parks Rolling Renewal
Programme FY26-FY29.
1.2 This
approval will confirm the proposed four-year programme and lock in the
programme for FY27, incorporating the changes proposed by members of the Waipuna
Halswell-Hornby-Riccarton Community Board (Attachment A).
1.3 The
report has been generated by staff and includes the proposed Community Parks
Rolling Renewal Programme for FY26–FY29, incorporating feedback from the
Waipuna Halswell-Hornby-Riccarton Community Board members.
2. Officer
Recommendations Ngā Tūtohu
That the Waipuna
Halswell-Hornby-Riccarton Community Board:
1. Receives the information in the Community
Parks Rolling Renewal Programme Report.
2. Notes that the decision in this report is assessed as low significance
based on the Christchurch City Council’s Significance and Engagement
Policy.
3. Approves the Waipuna Halswell-Hornby-Riccarton Community Boards
Community Parks Rolling Renewal Programme as shown in Attachment A to the
report on the meeting agenda.
3. Executive Summary Te Whakarāpopoto Matua
3.1 The
Community Parks Capital Rolling Renewal Programme provides a structured
approach to maintaining and renewing park assets, ensuring they remain safe,
functional, and fit for purpose. Asset renewals are prioritised primarily on
condition, with the highest priority given to assets in poor condition or
presenting safety risks. Additional factors, including community use, asset
importance, and age, are also considered in determining renewal priorities.
3.2 Programme
delivery is further informed by cost, funding availability, project timing, and
statutory or legal requirements. This enables a coordinated and efficient
approach to renewal across the parks network.
3.3 Staff
presented the draft programme to the Community Board to seek feedback on local
priorities. The programme has subsequently been refined to incorporate this
feedback, ensuring alignment with both community expectations and Council
objectives.
3.4 The
projects included in the Community Parks Rolling Renewal Programme are as
follows:
· Waipuna Halswell-Hornby-Riccarton Community Board Local Play Space
Renewals (#73984)
· Community Parks - Planned Play Item Renewals (#64749)
· Community Parks Green Asset Renewals (#43687)
· Community Parks Hard Surface Renewals (#43686 - Footpaths and
Carparks)
· Individual projects containing play space, green or hard surface
asset renewals.
4. Background/Context Te Horopaki
4.1 During
the deliberation of the FY2024–25 Annual Plan, elected members expressed
concerns about the lack of visibility into individual renewal candidates within
the Parks Rolling Renewal Programmes. In response, the Parks Unit committed to
visiting all Community Boards annually to gather feedback on the proposed
Rolling Renewal Programmes.
4.2 Last
year staff presented the draft Parks Rolling Renewal Programmes to seek
feedback on the plan. Requested alternations by the community board members
were implemented.
4.3 To
enhance transparency in the rolling renewal programme, staff amended the
process so that the programme can be formally agreed once all requested
alterations have been implemented.
4.4 Staff
attended the Waipuna Halswell-Hornby-Riccarton Community Board Workshop on 28
August 2025 to present the draft Community Park Rolling Renewal Programme
(Attachment B). The board was given one month to submit feedback on the
programme, including any suggested amendments.
4.5 Staff
did not receive any amendments to the Community Parks Rolling Renewal FY26-FY29
draft plan.
4.6 The following related memos/information were circulated to the
meeting members:
|
Date
|
Subject
|
|
28/8/2025
|
WHHR Draft Renewals Programme FY26-FY29
(Attachment B)
|
4.7 The following related information session/workshops have taken place
for the members of the meeting:
Options Considered Ngā
Kōwhiringa Whaiwhakaaro
4.8 The
following reasonably practicable options were considered and are assessed in
this report:
4.8.1 The Community
Board adopt the proposed Community Parks Rolling Renewal Programme FY26-FY29.
4.8.2 The Community
Board does not approve the proposed Community Parks Rolling Renewal Programme
FY26-FY29 and requests that staff consider further amendments.
4.9 The
following options were considered but ruled out:
4.9.1 Do not renew
the proposed assets – choosing not to renew these assets would pose a
risk to public safety and reduce levels of service.
Options Descriptions Ngā
Kōwhiringa
4.10 Preferred
Option: The Community Board adopt the proposed Community Parks Rolling
Renewal Programme FY26-FY29.
4.10.1 Option Description: Adopt
the proposed programme.
4.10.2 Option Advantages
· The assets identified for renewal that have come to the end of their
life can be renewed to ensure levels of service are met.
· Engagement
with the Community Board ensures the programme reflects local priorities and
expectations.
· The structured process, including formal agreement after requested
alterations, enhances transparency and accountability in how renewal decisions
are made.
4.10.3 Option Disadvantages
· There are no specific disadvantages to this option.
4.11 The Community
Board does not approve the proposed Community Parks Rolling Renewal Programme
FY26-FY29.
4.11.1 Option Description: The
Community Board does not approve the proposed Community Parks Rolling Renewal
Programme FY26-FY29 and requests that staff consider further amendments.
4.11.2 Option Advantages
· Further investigation into the reprioritisation of asset renewal can
take place
4.11.3 Option Disadvantages
· Delay to the asset renewal programme, potentially resulting in
budget underspend
Analysis Criteria Ngā Paearu Wetekina
4.12 The programme is
evaluated against key criteria to ensure safe, efficient, and community-focused
asset renewal:
· Safety & Asset Condition: High
priority given to assets in poor condition or posing safety risks
· Community Use & Importance: Assets
supporting significant community activity are prioritised to maintain service
levels
· Cost, Funding & Timing: Renewal
projects are assessed for feasibility, funding availability, and coordinated
delivery
· Legal Compliance: All renewals meet
statutory and health and safety requirements
· Community Feedback: The programme has
been refined based on Community Board input to reflect local priorities
· Long-Term Sustainability: Planned
renewals extend asset life and reduce reactive maintenance costs.
4.13 The rolling
renewal programme provides a transparent, structured, and sustainable approach,
balancing immediate safety and service needs with long-term asset management
and community expectations.
5. Financial Implications Ngā Hīraunga Rauemi
Capex/Opex Ngā Utu Whakahaere
|
|
Recommended Option
|
Option 2
|
Option 3
|
|
Cost to Implement
|
|
|
|
|
Waipuna Halswell-Hornby-Riccarton Local
Play Space Renewal (#73984)
|
Budget available across financial years
26-29 -$390,586
|
Budget available across financial years
26-29 -$390,586
|
|
|
Community Parks - Planned Play Item
Renewals (#64749)
|
Budget available across financial years
26-29 -$452,233
|
Budget available across financial years
26-29 -$452,233
|
|
|
Community Parks Green Asset Renewals
(#43687)
|
Budget available across financial years
26-29 -$1,027,176
|
Budget available across financial years
26-29 -$1,027,176
|
|
|
Community Parks Hard Surface Renewals
(#43686 - Footpaths and Carparks)
|
Budget available across financial years
26-29 -$3,186,378
|
Budget available across financial years
26-29 -$3,186,378
|
|
|
Maintenance/Ongoing Costs
|
N/A – No change
|
N/A – No change
|
|
|
Funding Source
|
LTP
|
LTP
|
|
|
Funding Availability
43686, 43687, 64749, 73980
|
|
|
|
|
Impact on Rates
|
No Impact
|
No Impact
|
|
5.1 It
is important to note that the above costs allocated to implementing the renewal
programme is set at a city-wide level, except for the Local Play Space Renewals
Projects which are allocated per Community Board. Costs are allocated at the
programme level once work has been competitively priced.
6. Considerations Ngā Whai Whakaaro
Risks and Mitigations Ngā
Mōrearea me ngā Whakamātautau
6.1 In
relation to construction, no specific risks have been identified other than
those ordinarily associated with managing work in a public park environment.
Legal Considerations Ngā
Hīraunga ā-Ture
6.2 Statutory
and/or delegated authority to undertake proposals in the report:
6.2.1 Under the
Reserves Act, staff hold the delegation to renew assets within an existing
reserve that does not alter the original landscape. However, staff are seeking
approval from the Waipuna Halswell-Hornby-Riccarton Community Board for the
rolling renewal programme, to provide greater transparency in the renewal
process.
6.3 Other Legal Implications:
6.3.1 There is no
legal context, issue, or implication relevant to this decision.
Strategy and Policy Considerations Te Whai
Kaupapa here
6.4 The
required decision aligns with:
6.4.1 The
Christchurch City Council’s Strategic Framework that our residents have
the opportunity to actively participate in community and city life, have a
strong sense of belonging and identity, and feel safe.
6.4.2 Is consistent with Council’s Plans and
Policies: Physical Recreation and Sports Strategy 2022.
6.4.3 Are assessed
as low significance based on the
Christchurch City Council’s Significance and Engagement Policy.
6.5 This
report supports the Council's
Long Term Plan (2024 - 2034):
6.6 Parks, Heritage and Coastal Environment
6.6.1 Activity: Parks and Foreshore
· Level of Service: 6.0.1 All Community Parks are
managed and maintained in a clean, tidy, safe, functional, and equitable manner
(Maintenance) - 90% Maintenance Plan key performance indicators are achieved
· Level of Service: 6.8.2.3 Parks are managed and
maintained in a clean, tidy, safe, functional, and equitable manner (Asset
Performance) - At least 90% of parks and associated public recreational assets
are available for safe public use during opening hours
Community Impacts and Views Ngā Mariu
ā-Hāpori
6.7 No
community feedback and been sought, as the programme does not increase levels
of service and renewed assets are replaced like for like.
6.8 Staff will initiate community consultation to the Play Space Renewal
Projects
Impact on Mana Whenua Ngā Whai Take
Mana Whenua
6.9 The decision
does not involve a significant decision in relation to ancestral land, a body
of water or other elements of intrinsic value, therefore this decision does not specifically impact Mana Whenua, their culture, and
traditions.
6.10 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.
6.11 The decision
affects the following wards/Community Board area: Waipuna
Halswell-Hornby-Riccarton Community Board.
Climate Change Impact Considerations Ngā
Whai Whakaaro mā te Āhuarangi
6.12 The decisions in
this report are likely to:
6.12.1 Contribute positively to
adaptation to the impacts of climate change
6.12.2 Contribute positively to emissions reductions.
6.13 Widespread
planting of shrubs, grasses, wetlands species, and groundcovers play an
important role in mitigating climate change by sequestering carbon and reducing
‘heat island’ effect.
7. Next Steps Ngā Mahinga ā-muri
7.1 Once
the programme is adopted, staff will begin scoping future locations for both
green asset and hard asset renewals and will initiate early engagement on
upcoming playground renewals.
Attachments Ngā Tāpirihanga
|
No.
|
Title
|
Reference
|
Page
|
|
a ⇩
|
Proposed HHR
Community Parks Renewals Programme FY26-FY29
|
26/223266
|
83
|
|
b ⇩
|
WHHR Draft
Renewals Programme FY26-FY29
|
25/1737854
|
85
|
In addition to the attached documents, the following background
information is available:
|
Document
Name – Location / File Link
|
|
Not
applicable
|
Signatories Ngā Kaiwaitohu
|
Author
|
Bridie
Gibbings - Manager Operations - Parks Development
|
|
Approved By
|
Al Hardy -
Manager Community Parks
Rupert Bool -
Head of Parks
|
|
14. Tree
Removals - Greens Stream Stormwater Facility Stream Enhancement
|
|
Reference Te Tohutoro:
|
25/2640199
|
|
Responsible Officer(s) Te Pou Matua:
|
Olga
Naumova, Project Manager
Melissa Thompson, Arboricultural Advisor
|
|
Accountable ELT Member Pouwhakarae:
|
Brent
Smith, General Manager City Infrastructure
|
1. Purpose and Origin of the Report Te Pūtake Pūrongo
1.1 The
purpose of this report is to seek approval to remove twenty (20) healthy
and structurally sound trees, and forty-six (46) structurally unsound
and unhealthy trees along Greens Stream proposed for removal for project
related reasons, to facilitate the ongoing development of the stormwater
facility and stream enhancement work.
1.1.1 Approval via
Community Board delegations, as specified in the Delegations Register, Part D,
Sub-Part 1, (Section 42 of the Reserves Act) is sought prior to the works being
carried out.
1.2 The
development and enhancement of Greens Stream is split between two parties:
Riverstone Development (Riverstone) and Christchurch City Council (Council),
with Council taking responsibility for the enhancement of the existing reaches
of Greens Stream, known as Package A in Figure 1-1 below, located
at 511A Halswell Road, and as provided by WSP.
2. Officer
Recommendations Ngā Tūtohu
That the Waipuna
Halswell-Hornby-Riccarton Community Board:
1. Receives the information in the Tree
Removals - Greens Stream Stormwater Facility Stream Enhancement Report.
2. Notes that the decision in this report is assessed as medium significance
based on the Christchurch City Council’s Significance and Engagement
Policy.
3. Notes the removal for project related reasons of forty-six (46)
unhealthy and structurally unsound trees, and approves removal of twenty (20)
healthy and structurally sound trees, within Package A (Figure 1-1),
located at 511A Halswell Road referred to in the Tree Report attached to
the report on the meeting agenda as Attachment A, to allow stormwater facility
and stream enhancement work to proceed.
4. Approves, in accordance with the Tree Policy, the minimum
replacement planting of one-hundred-and-thirty-two (132) specimen grade
(>25L) trees and a further 327 (approximately) revegetation grade
trees are planned for within Package A, referred to in the Tree Report
attached to the report on the meeting agenda as Attachment A.
3. Executive Summary Te Whakarāpopoto Matua
3.1 A comprehensive tree survey was undertaken within Package
A to inform decisions on tree retention, removal, and replacement planting.
3.1.1 The
survey identified 96 trees, of which 46 are recommended for
removal due to poor structural condition, and a further 20 trees due to
their pest species status, or incompatibility with the proposed riparian
enhancement design. The remaining 30 trees, while predominantly exotic,
are recommended for retention to maintain shading, soil stabilisation, and
habitat value during the transition phase.
3.2 The removal of
inappropriate species will enable the implementation of a robust ecological
restoration plan, including the planting of over 300 indigenous trees,
including 132 specimen grade trees (>25L), and approximately 14,000
native shrubs. These interventions will improve stream health, enhance
biodiversity, and provide long-term landscape and amenity benefits for the
community.
3.3 Approval is
sought from the Community Board to proceed with the removal of the identified
trees within Package A, ensuring alignment with Council’s
ecological objectives, safety considerations, and the overall enhancement
vision for Greens Stream.
4. Background/Context Te Horopaki
4.1 Once
farmland and now situated on Council-owned land, Greens Stream is a lowland
watercourse bordered by a mix of unmanaged exotic and native vegetation,
including shelterbelt like plantings.
4.2 To
support the naturalisation of Greens Stream and improve connectivity for both
wildlife and nearby residential areas, whilst several trees are proposed for
removal for project related reasons, the landscaping plans proposed focus on
providing the following benefits in time;
4.2.1 in-stream
enhancement features such as fresh plains, riffles, reclaimed wood edging and
access platforms,
4.2.2 stream
narrowing and deepening in places to provide habitat diversity and re-shaping
of the banks to create new areas for riparian planting and to provide access,
visibility and shading to the stream for aquatic life,
4.2.3 native
planting corridors to improve native bush connectivity and enhanced ecological
and habitat values,
4.2.4 the
installation of two pedestrian bridges and a 3m wide shared use (pedestrian and
cycle) tracks (gritted), and smaller and narrower 1.5m connection tracks, and
4.2.5 new
maintenance access and support facilities for the adjacent stormwater facility.
Options Considered Ngā
Kōwhiringa Whaiwhakaaro
4.3 The
following reasonably practicable options were considered and are assessed in
this report:
4.3.1 Option 1:
Tree removal – undertake selective removal of sixty-six (66)
Council-owned trees within Package A (Figure 1-1) at 511A
Halswell Road, focusing on the area adjacent to the stream dominated by dense
self-sown wildling, and/or weed-species trees, and trees in poor health or
condition. This will facilitate the replanting of more ecologically appropriate
tree species to enhance habitats and connectivity for aquatic and bird life,
and improve access for maintenance purposes and recreational use.
4.3.2 Option 2:
Tree retention – do nothing. If no action is taken the area will remain
dominated by self-sown wildling, weed species, and aging shelterbelts trees,
and trees in poor health or structural condition. This will continue to limit
habitat quality for native wildlife, and restrict opportunities for riparian
planting. Access for maintenance and recreational use will remain constrained.
Ongoing management of risks, tree failures and control of weed species is
likely.
4.4 The
following options were considered but ruled out:
4.4.1 The
option to remove an additional thirty (30) trees to completely clear the
area was ruled out. Instead choosing to retain selected trees that will
preserve important local ecological functions such as wildlife habitats, soil
stability, and stream shading for aquatic life while newly planted trees and
understory plantings establish. Although not native, the retained trees
contribute aesthetic diversity to the canopy and provide partial wind
protection for the adjacent newly developed and developing residential areas.
Options Descriptions Ngā
Kōwhiringa
4.5 Preferred
Option: Option 1 – Tree Removal
4.5.1 Option
Description: selective removal of sixty-six (66) Council-owned trees
within Package A (Figure 1-1) at 511A Halswell Road to enable the
Greens Stream Stormwater Facility and Enhancement project to proceed.
· Approval is sought from the Waipuna Halswell-Hornby-Riccarton
Community Board to remove twenty (20) healthy and structurally sound
trees and forty-six (46) structurally unsound and unhealthy trees, for
project related reasons.
4.5.2 Option
Advantages
· The landscape enhancements and planting planned includes over 400
indigenous trees and approximately 15,000 mixed native shrubs to strengthen
ecological value, improve habitat connectivity for birds and aquatic species,
reduce erosion, stabilise stream banks, and enhance water quality.
· Improves access for maintenance purposes, and increased connectivity
and safer opportunities for recreational use.
4.5.3 Option
Disadvantages
· Loss of tree canopy cover in the short term.
4.6 Option
2: Option 2 – Tree Retention
4.6.1 Option
Description: Retain the trees – do nothing
4.6.2 Option
Advantages
· No direct costs incurred with tree removal.
· Canopy would be retained for a longer period.
4.6.3 Option
Disadvantages
· Access for maintenance and recreational use will remain limited.
Ongoing management of tree health, risks associated with structural tree
failures, and control of weed species would be required. Habitat quality and
attractants for native birds and aquatic species would remain limited compared
to the benefits a restored riparian environment would provide.
Analysis Criteria Ngā Paearu
Wetekina
4.7 n/a
5. Financial Implications Ngā Hīraunga Rauemi
Capex/Opex Ngā Utu Whakahaere
|
|
Recommended Option
|
Option 2 – Tree Retention
|
|
Cost to Implement
|
$15,000
|
$0
|
|
Maintenance/Ongoing Costs
|
Covered in existing drain maintenance
contract
|
Covered in existing drain maintenance
contract
|
|
Funding Source
|
CAPEX
|
N/A
|
|
Funding Availability
|
$1,000,000 allocated in the project
budget
|
N/A
|
|
Impact on Rates
|
NIL
|
NIL
|
5.1 The
cost for the tree removals comes from a tendered price from a contractor for a
similar project.
6. Considerations Ngā Whai Whakaaro
Risks and Mitigations Ngā
Mōrearea me ngā Whakamātautau
6.1 There
is potential risk of community objection to the proposed tree removals, which
could result in delays to construction.
6.1.1 To mitigate
this risk, the Council has previously undertaken engagement with the community
and the Waipuna Halswell-Hornby-Riccarton Community Board.
6.1.2 This
consultation has ensured that community values and concerns are acknowledged
and considered, whilst reflecting the importance and benefits of this project
to the wider community and ecological environment.
Legal Considerations Ngā
Hīraunga ā-Ture
6.2 Statutory
and/or delegated authority to undertake proposals in the report:
6.2.1 Council’s
Delegations Register, Part D (Sub-Part 1), Section 42, delegates Community
Boards the powers to remove twenty (20) healthy and structurally sound
trees; and forty-six (46) structurally unsound and unhealthy
trees, for project related reasons.
6.2.2 Global Consent
RMA/2021/2059 can be used to remove the trees.
6.3 Other Legal Implications:
6.3.1 There is no
legal context, issue, or implication relevant to this decision.
Strategy and Policy Considerations Te Whai
Kaupapa here
6.4 The
required decisions:
6.4.1 Align with the
Christchurch
City Council’s Strategic Framework.
6.4.2 Are assessed
as medium significance based on the Christchurch City Council’s
Significance and Engagement Policy.
6.4.3 Are consistent with Council’s Plans and Policies.
6.5 This
report supports the Council's
Long Term Plan (2024 - 2034), Volume 2,
Infrastructure Strategy, to provide;
6.5.1 A
green, liveable city: Our neighbourhoods and communities are accessible and
well-connected, supporting our goals to reduce emissions, build climate
resilience and protect and regenerate the environment, especially our
biodiversity, water bodies and tree canopy.
6.5.2 An
inclusive and equitable city which puts people at the centre of developing our
city and district, prioritising wellbeing, accessibility and connection.
6.5.3 Protection
and enhancement of reserves and native biodiversity.
6.5.4 Fit-for-purpose
infrastructure, such as roads, footpaths and wharves, that enable access to
local areas, sites of significance, waterways, and coastal waters.
6.6 If
the preferred option is approved, the Council’s Tree Policy Section 1.9
will be met as two trees will be planted along Greens Stream, Package A
area, for every tree removed, replacing the canopy which is lost within 20
years.
Community Impacts and Views Ngā Mariu
ā-Hāpori
6.7 The decision affects the following Community Board area:
6.7.1 Waipuna
Halswell-Hornby-Riccarton Community Board
Impact on Mana Whenua Ngā Whai Take
Mana Whenua
6.8 The decisions do not involve a significant decision in relation
to ancestral land, a body of water or other elements of intrinsic value,
therefore this decision does not specifically impact
Mana Whenua, their culture, and traditions.
6.9 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.
6.10 This report
relates to the removal of exotic and native tree species with no cultural
significance, and the trees removed would be replaced in accordance with
Council’s Tree Policy.
Climate Change Impact Considerations Ngā
Whai Whakaaro mā te Āhuarangi
6.11 The decisions in
this report are likely to:
6.11.1 Contribute positively to
adaptation to the impacts of climate change in time.
6.11.2 Contribute positively to emissions reductions in the long term.
6.12 While removal of
sixty-six (66) trees will return their stored carbon to the atmosphere
in the short term, replacement of two trees for every one tree removed, as
required by the Council’s Tree Policy, will gradually replace that which
has been taken.
7. Next Steps Ngā Mahinga ā-muri
7.1 If
the preferred option to remove twenty (20) structurally sound and
healthy trees, and forty-six (46) structurally unsound and unhealthy
trees for project related reasons is approved by the Waipuna
Halswell-Hornby-Riccarton Community Board, a contractor will be engaged to
undertake the works.
7.1.1 Construction
work is planned for February 2026.
7.2 If
the preferred option is approved, a combined total replanting of a minimum of (132)
specimen grade (>25L) along with revegetation grade trees within the same
location (Package A), will take place in accordance with the
Council’s Tree Policy, and is planned to be completed during the 2026 and
2027 planting seasons.
Attachments Ngā Tāpirihanga
|
No.
|
Title
|
Reference
|
Page
|
|
a ⇩
|
Tree Report -
Greens Stream Stormwater Facility Stream Enhancement
|
25/996254
|
96
|
|
b ⇩
|
Greens Stream
Landscape Plans (Tender Issue) - May 2025
|
26/226668
|
136
|
In addition to the attached documents, the following background
information is available:
|
Document
Name – Location / File Link
|
|
Not
applicable
|
Signatories Ngā Kaiwaitohu
|
Author
|
Melissa
Thompson - Aboricultural Advisor
|
|
Approved By
|
Olga Naumova -
Project Manager
Gavin
Hutchison - Head of Three Waters
|
|
15. Calverton
Place Proposed No Stopping Restrictions
|
|
Reference Te Tohutoro:
|
26/54918
|
|
Responsible Officer(s) Te Pou Matua:
|
Andrew
Hensley, Traffic Engineer
|
|
Accountable ELT Member Pouwhakarae:
|
Brent
Smith, General Manager City Infrastructure
|
1. Secretarial Note
1.1 The
Board previously considered this report at its meeting on 10th July
2025. At that meeting the Board decided to lay the report on the table and asked
staff to investigate and report back on the possibility of additional
no-stopping restrictions on the western side of Calverton Place.
1.2 A
staff memorandum dated 2 December 2025, Attachment B, provided the requested
advice on additional no-stopping restrictions on the western side of Calverton
Place. The staff investigations reconfirmed the original staff recommendation
within the report, to install no stopping restrictions on the eastern side of
Calverton Place.
2. Purpose and Origin of the Report Te Pūtake Pūrongo
2.1 The
purpose of this report is to seek the approval of the Waipuna Halswell Hornby
Riccarton Community Board to install no stopping restrictions in Calverton
Place.
2.2 This
report has been written following requests from the community to address
congestion issues due to inconsiderate parking.
2.3 The
community engagement and consultation outlined in the report reflect the
significance.
2.4 The
recommended option is to install no stopping restrictions in accordance with
Attachment A.
3. Officer Recommendations Ngā Tūtohu
That the Waipuna
Halswell-Hornby-Riccarton Community Board:
1. Receives the information in the Calverton
Place Proposed No Stopping Restrictions Report.
2. Notes that the decision in this report are assessed as low
significance based on the Christchurch City
Council’s Significance and Engagement Policy.
3. Revokes any previous resolutions pertaining to traffic controls made
pursuant to any bylaw to the extent that they are in conflict with the parking
or stopping restrictions described in resolutions 4 – 5 below.
4. Approves that in accordance with Clause 7 of the Christchurch City
Council Traffic and Parking Bylaw 2017, that the stopping of vehicles be
prohibited at any time on the north eastern side of Patterson Terrace, commencing at its intersection with
Calverton Place and extending in a south easterly direction for a distance of 8
metres, as detailed on Attachment A to the report on the meeting agenda (Plan
TG107501 Issue 1 dated 17/6/2025).
5. Approves that in accordance with Clause 7 of the Christchurch City
Council Traffic & Parking Bylaw 2017, that the stopping of vehicles be
prohibited at any time on the eastern side of Calverton Place, commencing at
its intersection with Patterson Terrace and extending in a northerly direction
for a distance of 69 metres, as detailed on Attachment A to the report on the
meeting agenda (Plan TG107501 Issue 1 dated 17/6/2025).
6. Approves that these resolutions take effect when parking signage
and/or road markings that evidence the restrictions described in this staff
report are in place (or removed in the case of revocations).
4. Executive Summary Te Whakarāpopoto Matua
4.1 Residents
have raised concerns about inconsiderate parking in Calverton Place restricting
vehicle access, both along the street and at private vehicle crossings.
Implementing the noted recommendations will lead to a reduction in the chance
of access being restricted.
4.2 The
recommended option is to Install No Stopping restrictions in accordance with
Attachment A.
4.3 The
recommendations in this report will help to achieve the desired community
outcome of a well-connected and accessible city through improved road safety.
5. Background/Context Te Horopaki
5.1 Calverton Place is a local road within the Westlake area.
5.2 There is a long history of parking issues in Calverton Place related
to its narrow width (less than six metres along much of its length), irregular
alignment and inconsiderate parking. Previous proposals to address the
situation have not been implemented due to mixed community views. The most
recent of these is understood to be in 2010 with a proposal to install no
stopping restrictions on the western side of Calverton Place.
5.3 Street
access can be restricted if vehicles are parked on both sides of the narrow
section of Calverton Place. This is largely dependent on the positioning of
parked vehicles in relation to other parked vehicles, and the subsequent gap
provided for vehicles to pass between. There is also an issue if vehicles park
inconsiderately on the bend outside 6 Calverton Place, as this can restrict the
ease of access from 8 Calverton Place.
5.4 Staff
have observed that generally there are low-moderate demands for on-street
parking, and the occurrence of inconsiderate parking is considered to be
sporadic.
5.5 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)
Options Considered Ngā
Kōwhiringa Whaiwhakaaro
5.6 The
following reasonably practicable options were considered and are assessed in
this report:
5.6.1 Install no stopping
restrictions as shown in Attachment A.
5.6.2 Do Nothing.
5.7 The
following options were considered but ruled out:
5.7.1 Install no stopping
restrictions on both sides of Calverton Place.
5.7.2 Install no stopping
restrictions on the western side of Calverton Place.
Options Descriptions Ngā
Kōwhiringa
5.8 Preferred
Option: Install no stopping restrictions.
5.8.1 Option
Description: Install no stopping on the eastern side of Calverton Place.
5.8.2 Option Advantages
· Reduces the chance of inconsiderate parking occurring along
Calverton Place.
· Eliminates the ability to park inconsiderately on the bend outside 6
Calverton Place.
· Supports lower vehicle speeds entering Calverton Place with parking
remaining on the left hand side.
· Retains a greater amount of on street parking compared to if no
stopping was installed on the western side of Calverton Place.
5.8.3 Option
Disadvantages
· Removes the ability to park on the eastern side of Calverton Place.
· Does not address requests for no stopping restrictions to be
installed on the western side of Calverton Place.
5.9 Option
2- Do Nothing
5.9.1 Option
Description: Do not install no stopping restrictions.
5.9.2 Option Advantages
· Does not remove on-street parking.
5.9.3 Option
Disadvantages
· Does not address the requests to address issues of street access and
private property access.
6. Financial Implications Ngā Hīraunga Rauemi
Capex/Opex Ngā Utu Whakahaere
|
|
Recommended Option
|
Option 2 – Do Nothing
|
|
Cost to Implement
|
Approximately $250
|
$0
|
|
Maintenance/Ongoing Costs
|
Covered by the existing Maintenance
Contract
|
$0
|
|
Funding Source
|
Traffic Operations Team traffic signs and
markings budget
|
N/A
|
|
Funding Availability
|
Available
|
N/A
|
|
Impact on Rates
|
N/A
|
N/A
|
7. Considerations Ngā Whai Whakaaro
Legal Considerations Ngā
Hīraunga ā-Ture
7.1 Statutory
and/or delegated authority to undertake proposals in the report:
7.1.1 Part 1, Clause 7 of
the Christchurch City Council Traffic and Parking Bylaw 2017 provides Council
with the authority to install parking or stopping restrictions by resolution.
7.1.2 The Community Boards
have delegated authority from the Council to exercise the delegations as set
out in the Delegations Register. The list of delegations for the Community
Boards includes the resolution of stopping and traffic control devices.
7.1.3 The installation of any signs and/or markings associated with
traffic control devices must comply with the Land Transport Rule: Traffic
Control Devices 2004.
7.2 Other Legal Implications:
7.2.1 There is no other
legal context, issue, or implication relevant to this decision.
7.2.2 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 this report.
Strategy and Policy Considerations Te Whai
Kaupapa here
7.3 The
required decisions
7.3.1 Align with the Christchurch
City Council’s Strategic Framework.
7.3.2 The
recommendations in this report are consistent with the Christchurch Suburban
Parking Policy.
7.3.3 The decisions in this
report are assessed as low significance based on 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.
7.4 The
community engagement and consultation outlined in this report reflect the
assessment.
7.5 This
report supports the Council's
Long Term Plan (2024 - 2034):
Community Impacts and Views Ngā Mariu
ā-Hāpori
7.6 Affected
property owners and residents were advised of the recommended option by way of
a letter drop. There has been follow up correspondence where required.
7.7 Responses
were received from eight properties. Four properties supported the proposal,
and four properties did not and requested that the no stopping restrictions be
installed on the other side of Calverton Place. Of the four that did not
support the proposal, two of these did however support the installation of no
stopping at the bend outside 6 Calverton Place.
7.8 Given
the mixed views it is not possible to achieve an outcome that everyone will be
in agreement with. In light of this, and within the context of previous
attempts to improve the situation, the preferred option in this report reflects
the best option from a technical perspective.
7.9 The
Team Leader Parking Compliance supports the preferred option.
7.10 The decision
affects the following wards/Community Board areas:
7.10.1 Waipuna Halswell Hornby
Riccarton.
Impact on Mana Whenua Ngā Whai Take
Mana Whenua
7.11 The decisions do not involve a significant decision concerning
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.
7.12 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
7.16 The proposals in this report are unlikely to contribute significantly to
adaptation to the impacts of climate change or emissions reductions.
7.17 This is a minor
proposal that is principally designed to address access issues at this
location. Due to the minor nature of the works, it is not expected to have any
impact on climate change.
8. Next Steps Ngā Mahinga ā-muri
8.1 If
approved, staff will arrange for the new road markings to be installed.
Attachments Ngā Tāpirihanga
|
No.
|
Title
|
Reference
|
Page
|
|
a ⇩
|
Calverton
Place Proposed No Stopping Restrictions Plan TG107501 dated 17/6/2025.
|
25/1224572
|
154
|
|
b ⇩
|
Staff
Memorandum - Calverton Place - Proposed No Stopping Restrictions
|
25/2593643
|
155
|
In addition to the attached documents, the following background
information is available:
|
Document
Name – Location / File Link
|
|
Not
applicable
|
Signatories Ngā Kaiwaitohu
|
Author
|
Andrew Hensley
- Traffic Engineer
|
|
Approved By
|
David
McCormick - Senior Traffic Engineer
Stephen Wright
- Manager Operations (Transport)
|
|
16. Waipuna
Halswell-Hornby-Riccarton Community Board Area Report - February 2026
|
|
Reference Te Tohutoro:
|
25/2497565
|
|
Responsible Officer(s) Te Pou Matua:
|
Bailey
Peterson, Manager Community Governance
|
|
Accountable ELT Member Pouwhakarae:
|
Andrew
Rutledge, General Manager Citizens and Community
|
1. Purpose of Origin of the Report Te Pūtake Pūrongo
1.1 This
report provides the Board with an overview of initiatives and
issues current within the Community Board area.
1.2 This
report is staff-generated monthly.
2. Officer Recommendations Ngā Tūtohu
That the Waipuna
Halswell-Hornby-Riccarton Community Board:
1. Receives the information in the Waipuna
Halswell-Hornby-Riccarton Community Board Area Report - February 2026.
3. Community Support, Governance and Partnership Activity
3.1 Community Governance Projects
· Community Pride Garden Awards
Judging for the Community Pride Garden Awards 2026 is currently
underway and will continue until 16 February 2026.
The awards encourage civic pride, acknowledging those who have
contributed to maintaining the image of Christchurch as the Garden City by
beautifying their streets and gardens. Their efforts contribute to the
character and vibrancy of local neighbourhoods, creating environments that
everyone can enjoy.
To celebrate these contributions, a drop‑in day
will be held in April, where award recipients will be invited to collect their
certificates. This gathering acknowledges their hard work and brings the
community together in appreciation of the care and creativity shown throughout
the Board area.
· Summer with your Neighbours
Summer with your neighbours is
about bringing people closer together and celebrating the unique and diverse
mix of each neighbourhood.
Several events have taken place,
bringing people together over good food and conversation. New neighbours have
been able to meet, and communities have enjoyed opportunities to reconnect and
celebrate with one another.
Halswell Downs residents spent several
hours sharing stories, discussing local developments, and enjoying food
together, with some long‑time residents meeting for the first time.
The Oaklands neighbourhood held a Christmas
gathering, enjoying games and each other’s company, with people bringing
food that was special to them at Christmas time.
3.2 Community Events
· Christmas events
Numerous Christmas events were held across the Community Board area
in the weeks leading up to Christmas Day, supported by a significant amount of
volunteer time and effort. These included (but not limited to);
· Combined
Churches Carols in the Park event at Wycola Park
· Carols
in the Quarry by Halswell Lions at Halswell Quarry
· Carols Service
by Riccarton House & Bush at Pūtaringamotu Riccarton Bush
· Carol
Service by Hei Hei Bromfield Community Development Trust at 126 on the Corner
· Hornby Community Christmas Fun Day by the Greater Hornby
Residents’ Association at Gilberthorpe School
Carols in the Quarry
Hornby Community Christmas Fun Day
· House of Hoopz Riccarton
The House of Hoopz programme, delivered by Youth and Cultural
Development (YCD) has provided an exciting opportunity for rangatahi to engage
in basketball, build confidence, and form positive social connections in a
supportive environment.
The Riccarton House of Hoopz was held on 20 January at
Harrington Park and was a great success, bringing young players together to
test their skills in a fun tournament setting.
· Matatiki Pool Party
A vibrant Matatiki Pool Party event took place on Friday 23 January
at Matatiki Hornby Centre, drawing young people from across the community for
an evening of fun, connection, and positive energy.
Organised by Youth and Cultural Development (YCD), the success of
the evening highlights the value of youth‑focused
initiatives and the positive impact they have within the wider community.
· Community Parks
Between November and January, Community Partnership Rangers worked
alongside community groups on a range of activities, including:
Muir Park:
Local residents participated in a weeding and plant rescue session.
Westlake
Reserve: Kō Taku Reo students worked with Community Partnership
Rangers to spread mulch and collect rubbish.
Aidanfield
Service Day: Ninety students undertook weeding and mulching activities and
constructed bug hotels at Westlake Reserve.
3.3 Community
Funding Summary
3.3.1 For information, a
summary is provided on the status of the Board's 2025-26 funding as at 22
January 2026 (see Attachment A).
3.3.2 Youth Development Fund
Under authority
delegated by the Community Board the following allocations were made in
December 2025:
· $300 to Mya Johnson towards representing Canterbury at the New
Zealand U17 Softball Tournament in Palmerston North.
· $500 to Caden Ledbrook towards attending the Oceania BMX
Championships in Brisbane, Australia.
Under authority delegated to the Community Governance Manager, the
following allocation was made in December 2025:
· $300 to Medha Baadkar towards participating in the National Rotary
Youth Science Forum in Auckland.
3.3.3 Summer with your
Neighbours
Under authority
delegated to the Community Governance Manager the following allocation was made
in December 2025:
· $100 to Helen Kellett, towards a street party for Kahurangi Road
residents.
There is
currently $300 remaining in the Halswell-Hornby-Riccarton Summer with your
neighbours 2025/26 fund.
Applications for a small funding subsidy can be made by completing
an application form available by emailing halswell.hornby.riccarton@ccc.govt.nz
3.3.4 Off the Ground
Fund
Under authority
delegated to the Community Governance Manager, the following allocation was
made in December 2025:
· $400 to Canterbury Fiji Social Services Trust towards purchase of
plants and garden supplies for the Community Backyard Gardening Workshop.
3.3.5 Authentic Fijian
Food and Recipes project
Canterbury Fiji Social Services
Trust received Off the Ground Funding towards their Authentic Fijian Food and
Recipes project. Over three sessions attendees were able to revisit,
learn, and share traditional Fijian recipes.
Participants practised cooking
methods with coastal communities focused on fish dishes, while inland
communities emphasised eggplant meals.
The talanoa/rohe session
throughout added value through storytelling, meet-and-greet opportunities, and
building stronger social connections.
The project offered a refreshing
break from fast food habits driven by busy work lives, helping participants
reconnect with cultural food traditions.
3.4 Participation
in and Contribution to Decision Making
3.4.1 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]
· Engagement for development for the Community Board Plan 2025-28 is
currently underway.
3.4.2 Council Engagement
and Consultation.
· Future
of Lichfield Carpark
In December 2025 the Board lodged a
submission in response to the consultation on the Future of Lichfield Carpark
(see Attachment B). The Board supports Option 1: where the Council
retains ownership of the carpark but changes the operating model to improve
financial performance.
· Cashmere
/ Sutherlands / Hoon Hay Valley Road speed limit changes
Consultation on
proposals to lower the speed on Cashmere Road, Sutherlands Road, and Hoon Hay
Valley Road was open from 4 July 2025 to 18 August 2025.
The Board
lodged a submission on the proposals. The Board did not support proposals to
reduce the current speed limit of 60 kilometres per hour on parts of Sutherlands
Road and Cashmere Road to 40 kilometres per hour but suggested instead a
reduction to 50 kilometres per hour and prioritisation of the installation of
footpaths on these stretches as it considers that this is necessary to
significantly improve pedestrian safety. In relation to the speed limit
on Hoon Hay Valley Road, the Board supported the proposed reduction from 60 kilometres
per hour to 50 kilometres per hour.
The Board spoke
to its submission when the Council considered the report and recommendations in
December 2025.
4. Advice Provided to the Community Board Ngā Kupu Tohutohu ka
hoatu ki te Poari Hapori
4.1 Division
Street wastewater drainage system
At its 11 September 2025 meeting the Board requested staff
investigate Division Street wastewater pipes to identify any blockages
affecting properties at the south end of the street and provide advice on any
remedial measures that can be taken to address the cause of blockages, including
provision of public information and/or education.
In response staff have advised that CCTV work has been completed, identifying
a small issue with pipe gradient in one location. The location of the issue is
at the end of Division Street just before Blenheim Road. As regular
cleaning will manage this issue the pipe has been added to the regular cleaning
schedule to ensure any build‑up is removed and good flow is maintained.
The Trade Waste investigation has also been completed, covering all
Trade Waste sites in the area. The significant contributors to blockages
are commercial and industrial liquid waste which discharge into the
Council’s wastewater network. Please see link from the Council website - Trade
waste : Christchurch City Council. Maintenance job information is used
across the network to inform targeted preventative maintenance throughout the
year.
Aside from general information and advice on the website information
flyers are also used for individual customers.
4.2 Harvard
Avenue Traffic Plan and Branston Street traffic movements
At its 13 March 2025 meeting the Board requested advice on:
1. Ways to improve the traffic flow out of Harvard
Avenue, including the possible implementation of a one way exit system from
Harvard Avenue onto Corsair Drive and a 30km per hour speed limit.
2. The possible reclassification of Amyes Road
from minor arterial to collector road with heavy traffic restrictions to
alleviate heavy vehicle traffic on Branston Street.
3. Any measures to address anti-social road use in
the vicinity of Branston Street.
Staff
have responded:
1. Harvard Avenue carries an average of 1,384
vehicles per day (2024) and is defined as a local road in the District Plan and
a Local Street in the One Network Framework classification. The recorded
traffic volume is consistent with a lower volume local road. A potential
one-way system could have implications including (but not limited to) the
following:
· Impacts on property access – including potentially increasing
the distance needed to travel to/from properties along the street(s) including
the cul de sacs,
· Increases in traffic on Henry Wigram Drive,
· Substantial cost to retrofit the road to a one-way system.,
The Council’s Transport Strategy prioritises urban freight,
public transport and emergency service vehicle movement. Transport Network
modelling has not identified a significant network delay on Harvard Avenue, and
any such delays are unlikely to impact significantly upon freight or public
transport efficiency and so any efficiency improvement project for Harvard
Avenue would be a low priority. The current legislation – the Land
Transport: Setting of Speed Limits Rule 2024 - does not permit Council to set a
30 kilometre per hour speed limit on Harvard Avenue.
2. The re-classification of Amyes Road from minor
arterial to collector road with heavy traffic restrictions to alleviate heavy
vehicle traffic on Branston Street is not appropriate. Amyes Road currently
carries (according to traffic counts in June 2025) an average daily traffic
count of between 10,615 and 12,143 vehicles. Based on these traffic volumes,
the most appropriate classification for Amyes Road is a minor arterial, and not
a collector road. The western side of Branston Street is currently zoned industrial
in the District Plan and so heavy traffic restrictions connecting to Branston
Street are unlikely to be effective if heavy traffic has a legitimate reason to
use the road.
3. Anti-social road use in the vicinity of
Branston Street should be reported to the police.
4.3 South
Express Cycleway Project Update
Staff have provided an update on the progress of the Puari ki
Niho-toto South Express Cycleway, that connects Templeton to the Central City,
via Islington, Sockburn, Hornby, Upper Riccarton and Riccarton (see Attachment
C).
A Start Works Notice has been issued to notify residents and
stakeholders of investigative works being carried out prior to the contractor
taking over the site in February 2026. Some of the works require access to land
owned by KiwiRail. While formal application to work in this area will come from
the contractor, staff from Council and KiwiRail have been in contact to try to
minimise the risk of delay. It is expected that construction will take
approximately 5 months to complete.
The Project Team has looked to co-ordinate with other projects in
the area to reduce disruption to the community. The Council’s Three
Waters team has a project around the Waterloo Road/Kirk Road intersection. A
joint communications approach will be adopted so the local community is kept
informed of what to expect and progress on both projects.
4.4 Calverton
Place - Proposed No Stopping Restrictions
At its 10 July 2025 meeting the Board received a report recommending
no stopping restrictions on the eastern side of Calverton Place and a
deputation on the report. The Board decided to lay the report on the table and
ask staff to investigate and report back on additional no stopping restrictions
on the western side of Calverton Place.
A staff memorandum outlining the investigations and providing the
requested further advice has been provided (see Attachment D). The staff
investigations reconfirmed the original staff recommendation within the report,
to install no stopping restrictions on the eastern side of Calverton Place.
4.5 Community
Patrols
· Community
Patrols of New Zealand is dedicated to helping build safer communities in
partnership with NZ Police and other organisations. Patrols in the Board area
include the Halswell, Hornby and Riccarton Community Patrols. Their Monthly
Patrol Statistics can be found on the Community Patrols of New Zealand website:
Halswell
Community Patrol Inc statistical information
Hornby
Community Patrol Inc statistical information
Riccarton Community Patrol
Inc statistical information
4.6 Graffiti
Snapshot
· For the
Board’s information, attached is a copy of the November 2025, December 2025
and 2025 Yearly Graffiti Snapshots (see Attachments E, F and G).
4.7 Customer
Service Requests/Hybris Report
· For the
Board’s information, attached is a copy of the November and December 2025
Hybris Reports (see Attachments H and I).
· The
reports provide an overview of the number of Customer Service Requests that
have been received, including the types of requests being received and a
breakdown of how they are being reported.
Attachments Ngā Tāpirihanga
|
No.
|
Title
|
Reference
|
Page
|
|
a ⇩
|
Waipuna Halswell-Hornby-Riccarton Community Board Funding Update -
22 January 2026
|
26/126246
|
167
|
|
b ⇩
|
Future of Lichfield Carpark - Waipuna Halswell-Hornby-Riccarton
Community Board Submission
|
26/182351
|
169
|
|
c ⇩
|
Staff Memorandum - South Express Cycleway Project Update Contract
awarded for Templeton works
|
26/126553
|
171
|
|
d ⇩ 
|
Staff Memorandum - Calverton Place - Proposed No Stopping
Restrictions
|
25/2593643
|
174
|
|
e ⇩
|
Graffiti Snapshot - November 2025
|
26/126214
|
176
|
|
f ⇩
|
Graffiti Snapshot - December 2025
|
26/169661
|
178
|
|
g ⇩
|
Yearly 2025 Graffiti Snapshot
|
26/169706
|
180
|
|
h ⇩ 
|
Community Board Hybris Ticket Report - Halswell-Hornby-Riccarton -
November 2025
|
26/126309
|
182
|
|
i ⇩
|
Community Board Hybris Ticket Report - Halswell-Hornby-Riccarton -
December 2025
|
26/70436
|
183
|
Signatories Ngā Kaiwaitohu
|
Authors
|
Noela Letufuga
- Support Officer
Faye Collins -
Community Board Advisor
Marie Byrne -
Community Development Advisor
Eileen Yee -
Community Development Advisor
Helen Miles -
Community Recreation Advisor
|
|
Approved By
|
Bailey
Peterson - Manager Community Governance, Halswell-Hornby-Riccarton
Matthew
McLintock - Manager Community Governance Team
John Filsell -
Head of Community Support and Partnerships
|
|
17. Elected
Members’ Information Exchange Te Whakawhiti Whakaaro o Te
Kāhui Amorangi
|
This item provides an opportunity for Board Members to
update each other on recent events and/or issues of relevance and interest to
the Board.
Karakia Whakamutunga
|
Unuhia, unuhia
Unuhia ki te uru tapu nui
Kia wātea, kia māmā, te ngākau,
Te tinana te wairua i te ara takatā
Koia rā e Rongo, whakairia ake ki runga
Kia tina! TINA! Hui e! TĀIKI E!
|
Draw on, draw on,
Draw on the supreme sacredness
To clear, to free the heart, the body and the spirit of mankind
Rongo, suspended high above us (i.e. in ‘heaven’)
Draw together! Affirm!
|
Actions Register Ngā Mahinga
When decisions are made at meetings, these
are assigned to staff as actions to implement. The following lists
detail any actions from this meeting that were:
- Open at the time the agenda was
generated.
- Closed since the last ordinary meeting
agenda was generated.
Open Actions Ngā Mahinga Tuwhera
|
REPORT TITLE/AGENDA SECTION
|
MEETING DATE
|
ACTION DUE DATE
|
UNIT
|
TEAM
|
|
Public Forum - Hornby
Menzshed
|
10 April 2025
|
16 February 2026
|
Community Support & Partnerships
|
Governance Process
|
|
Public Forum - Cycling
priorities in the Community Board area
|
14 August 2025
|
28 February 2026
|
Transport & Waste
|
Asset Planning
|
|
Public Forum - Te Kuru
Wetlands Interpretive Centre Project
|
10 July 2025
|
28 February 2026
|
Parks
|
Parks & Recreation Planning
|
|
Visibility of traffic island
- Sparks Road, Halswell
|
10 August 2023
|
28 February 2026
|
Transport & Waste
|
Asset Planning
|
|
Petition - Traffic Calming
Measures on Awatea Gardens, Wigram
|
11 December 2025
|
12 March 2026
|
Transport & Waste
|
Traffic Operations
|
|
Play space renewal - Bermuda
Reserve - Design Approval
|
11 December 2025
|
12 March 2026
|
Parks
|
Community Parks
|
|
Public Forum - Kyle Park Pump
Track
|
11 December 2025
|
12 March 2026
|
Parks
|
Parks & Recreation Planning
|
|
Parking issues at the corner
of Puriri Street and Riccarton Road
|
11 September 2025
|
26 March 2026
|
Transport & Waste
|
Traffic Operations
|
|
Halswell Quarry Dog Exercise
Area
|
14 August 2025
|
31 March 2026
|
Parks
|
Parks & Recreation Planning
|
|
William Brittan / Milns /
Kearns intersection
|
15 May 2025
|
30 April 2026
|
Transport & Waste
|
Asset Planning
|
Actions Closed Since the Last Meeting
Ngā Mahinga kua Tutuki nō Tērā Hui
|
REPORT TITLE/AGENDA SECTION
|
MEETING DATE
|
DUE DATE
|
ACTION CLOSURE DATE
|
UNIT
|
TEAM
|
|
Kennedys Bush Road upgrade
|
15 May 2025
|
15 December 2025
|
15 January 2026
|
Transport & Waste
|
Asset Planning
|
|
Quaifes Road Corridor
|
15 May 2025
|
15 December 2025
|
15 January 2026
|
Transport & Waste
|
Asset Planning
|
|
Canterbury Riding for
Disabled - proposed new lease
|
14 August 2025
|
20 January 2026
|
16 December 2025
|
Facilities & Property Unit
|
Property Consultancy
|
|
Division Street wastewater
drainage system
|
11 September 2025
|
15 January 2026
|
13 January 2026
|
Three Waters
|
Service Excellence
|
|
Gilberthorpes Reserve Tree
Planting Plan
|
11 December 2025
|
12 March 2026
|
16 December 2025
|
Parks
|
Botanic and Garden Parks
|
|
Oaklands School Parking
Restrictions
|
11 December 2025
|
12 March 2026
|
20 January 2026
|
Transport & Waste
|
Travel Demand Management
|
|
Proposed Road Names - 122
Kennedys Bush Road, Halswell
|
11 December 2025
|
12 March 2026
|
15 December 2025
|
Planning & Consents
|
Resource Consents
|
|
Quadrant Drive Proposed No
Stopping Restrictions
|
11 December 2025
|
12 March 2026
|
8 January 2026
|
Transport & Waste
|
Traffic Operations
|
|
Rotherham Street Proposed No
Stopping Restrictions
|
11 December 2025
|
12 March 2026
|
7 January 2026
|
Transport & Waste
|
Traffic Operations
|
|
Waipuna Halswell Hornby
Riccarton Community Board - Adoption of 2026-2028 Meeting Schedule
|
11 December 2025
|
12 March 2026
|
27 January 2026
|
Community Support & Partnerships
|
Governance (Hal-Hor-Ric)
|
|
Waipuna Halswell Hornby
Riccarton Community Board: Representation on Committees and External
Organisations, 2025–2028
|
11 December 2025
|
12 March 2026
|
27 January 2026
|
Community Support & Partnerships
|
Governance (Hal-Hor-Ric)
|
|
Waipuna
Halswell-Hornby-Riccarton Community Board Discretionary Response Fund 2025-26
- Seven Applications
|
11 December 2025
|
12 March 2026
|
22 December 2025
|
Community Support & Partnerships
|
Governance (Hal-Hor-Ric)
|
|
Waipuna
Halswell-Hornby-Riccarton Community Board Governance Arrangements 2025-2028
|
11 December 2025
|
12 March 2026
|
27 January 2026
|
Community Support & Partnerships
|
Governance (Hal-Hor-Ric)
|
|
Waipuna
Halswell-Hornby-Riccarton Community Board Recess Committee 2025-2026
|
11 December 2025
|
12 March 2026
|
27 January 2026
|
Community Support & Partnerships
|
Governance (Hal-Hor-Ric)
|
