CHRISTCHURCH CITY COUNCIL AGENDA
WEDNESDAY 10 DECEMBER 2014
10.30AM
AND
THURSDAY 11 DECEMBER 2014
9.30AM
COUNCIL CHAMBER, CIVIC OFFICES, 53 HEREFORD STREET
Watch Council meetings live on the web: http://councillive.ccc.govt.nz/live-stream
AGENDA - OPEN
CHRISTCHURCH CITY COUNCIL
Thursday 11 December 2014 at 9.30am in the Council Chamber, Civic Offices, 53 Hereford Street
Council: The Mayor, (Chairperson). Councillors, Vicki Buck, Jimmy Chen, Phil Clearwater, Pauline Cotter, David East, Jamie Gough, Yani Johanson, Ali Jones, Glenn Livingstone, Paul Lonsdale, Raf Manji, Tim Scandrett, Andrew Turner
ITEM DESCRIPTION PAGE NO. NO
1. APOLOGIES 1
2. DECLARATION OF INTEREST 1
3. DEPUTATIONS BY APPOINTMENT 1
4. PRESENTATION OF PETITIONS 1
5. CONFIRMATION OF MINUTES - COUNCIL MEETINGS OF 27 NOVEMBER 2014 AND 1 5 DECEMBER 2014
6. REPORT OF THE AKAROA/WAIREWA COMMUNITY BOARD MEETING OF 8 OCTOBER 2014 11
7. REPORT OF THE LYTTELTON/MT HERBERT COMMUNITY BOARD MEETING OF 17 15 OCTOBER 2014
8. CHAIRPERSON’S REPORT OF THE LYTTELTON/MT HERBERT COMMUNITY BOARD 23 MEETING OF 19 NOVEMBER 2014
9. REPORT OF THE HAGLEY/FERRYMEAD COMMUNITY BOARD MEETING OF 29 5 NOVEMBER 2014
10. REPORT OF THE HAGLEY/FERRYMEAD COMMUNITY BOARD MEETING OF 35 19 NOVEMBER 2014
11. REPORT OF THE RICCARTON/WIGRAM COMMUNITY BOARD MEETING OF 53 4 NOVEMBER 2014
12. REPORT OF THE RICCARTON/WIGRAM COMMUNITY BOARD MEETING OF 57 18 NOVEMBER 2014
13. REPORT OF THE RICCARTON/WIGRAM COMMUNITY BOARD EXTRAORDINARY MEETING 73 OF 25 NOVEMBER 2014
14. REPORT OF THE SHIRLEY/PAPANUI COMMUNITY BOARD MEETING OF 5 NOVEMBER 2014 75
15. REPORT OF THE SHIRLEY/PAPANUI COMMUNITY BOARD MEETING OF 87 19 NOVEMBER 2014
16. REPORT OF THE SPREYDON/HEATHCOTE COMMUNITY BOARD MEETING OF 91 4 NOVEMBER 2014
17. REPORT OF THE SPREYDON/HEATHCOTE COMMUNITY BOARD MEETING OF 95 21 NOVEMBER 2014
18. REPORT OF THE BURWOOD/PEGASUS COMMUNITY BOARD MEETING OF 103 3 NOVEMBER 2014
19. REPORT OF THE BURWOOD/PEGASUS COMMUNITY BOARD MEETING OF 105 17 NOVEMBER 2014
COUNCIL 11. 12. 2014
ITEM DESCRIPTION PAGE NO. NO
20. REPORT OF THE FENDALTON/WAIMAIRI COMMUNITY BOARD MEETING OF 111 3 NOVEMBER 2014
21. REPORT OF THE FENDALTON/WAIMAIRI COMMUNITY BOARD MEETING OF 115 17 NOVEMBER 2014
22. REPORT OF THE CHAIRPERSON OF THE FENDALTON/WAIMAIRI COMMUNITY BOARD 121 MEETING OF 1 DECEMBER 2014
23. REPORT OF THE REGULATION AND CONSENTS COMMITTEE MEETING OF 131 20 NOVEMBER 2014
24. REPORT OF THE STRATEGY AND FINANCE COMMITTEE MEETING OF 20 NOVEMBER 2014 133
25. REPORT OF THE GREATER CHRISTCHURCH URBAN DEVELOPMENT STRATEGY 167 IMPLEMENTATION COMMITTEE MEETING OF 21 NOVEMBER 2014
26. REPORT OF THE AUDIT AND RISK MANAGEMENT COMMITTEE MEETING OF 169 25 NOVEMBER 2014
27. REPORT OF THE INFRASTRUCTURE, TRANSPORT AND ENVIRONMENT COMMITTEE - MEETING OF 4 DECEMBER 2014 (TO BE SEPARATELY CIRCULATED)
28. REPORT OF THE COMMUNITIES, HOUSING AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE - MEETING OF 4 DECEMBER 2014 (TO BE SEPARATELY CIRCULATED)
29. DUDLEY CREEK FLOOD REMEDIATION CONSULTATION 175
30. CHRISTCHURCH EARTHQUAKE MAYORAL RELIEF FUND: APPLICATIONS 217
31. AMENDMENT OF REGISTER OF COUNCILLORS’ AND EXECUTIVE LEADERSHIP TEAM 223 INTERESTS
32. CHRISTCHURCH CITY COUNCIL’S SUBMISSION TO THE PRODUCTIVITY COMMISSION’S 229 ISSUES PAPER “USING LAND FOR HOUSING”
33. LIBRARIES 2025 FACILITIES PLAN – UPDATED PLAN 253
34. COUNTERPARTY CREDIT RISK – CALCULATION FOR TREASURY INSTRUMENTS 305
35. RESIDENTIAL ADVISORY SERVICE: FUNDING REQUEST 307
36. REPORT ON SUBMISSION PANEL QUORUM 315
37. APPOINTMENT OF TAYLOR’S MISTAKE WORKING PARTY - (TO BE SEPARATELY CIRCULATED)
38. NOTICES OF MOTION 317
39. RESOLUTION TO EXCLUDE THE PUBLIC 317
1 COUNCIL 11. 12. 2014
1. APOLOGIES
2. DECLARATION OF INTEREST
Members are reminded of the need to be vigilant to stand aside from decision making when a conflict arises between their role as a member and any private or other external interest they might have.
3. DEPUTATIONS BY APPOINTMENT
Deputations will be taken will be taken from 10.30am – 12.30pm only on Wednesday 10 December 2014.
4. PRESENTATION OF PETITIONS
4.1 A petition will be presented from Generation Zero regarding the Riccarton Public Transport Hub Super Stop and Waiting Lounge contained in item 27 - Report of the Infrastructure, Transport and Environment Committee meeting of 4 December 2014.
5. CONFIRMATION OF MINUTES
5.1 Council Meeting of 27 November 2014 – attached
5.2 Council Meeting of 5 December 2014 – to be separately circulated.
2 3
MINUTES
MINUTES OF A MEETING OF THE CHRISTCHURCH CITY COUNCIL HELD AT 9.30AM ON THURSDAY 27 NOVEMBER 2014
PRESENT: Councillor Vicki Buck, (Deputy Chairperson). Jimmy Chen, Phil Clearwater, Pauline Cotter, David East, Yani Johanson, Ali Jones, Glenn Livingstone, Raf Manji, Tim Scandrett and Andrew Turner.
Councillor Buck assumed the Chair at the beginning of the meeting.
1. APOLOGIES
Apologies for absence were received from The Mayor, Councillors Gough and Lonsdale. Apologies for lateness were received from Councillors Jones and Manji.
It was resolved on the motion of Councillor Buck, seconded by Councillor Turner, that the apologies be accepted.
The agenda was dealt with in the following order.
2. DECLARATION OF INTEREST
Councillor East declared an interest in items 4.2 to 4.4 and item 12.
3. CONFIRMATION OF MINUTES - COUNCIL MEETING OF 23 OCTOBER 2014 AND 13 NOVEMBER 2014
It was resolved on the motion of Councillor Johanson, seconded by Councillor Livingstone, that the open minutes of the Council meeting held on 23 October 2014 be confirmed.
It was resolved on the motion of Councillor East, seconded by Councillor Clearwater, that the open minutes of the Council meeting held on 13 November 2014 be confirmed.
Councillors Jones and Manji arrived at 9.35 am.
4. DEPUTATIONS BY APPOINTMENT
4.1 Kevin Simcock, Pam Richardson and Paula Smith,representatives from the Banks Peninsula Water Management Zone Committee regarding item 21, Wairewa Addendum: Banks Peninsula Zone Implementation Programme.
17. WAIREWA ADDENDUM: BANKS PENINSULA ZONE IMPLEMENTATION PROGRAMME
It was resolved on the motion of Councillor Turner, seconded by Councillor Clearwater, that the Council:
17.1 Endorse the Wairewa Addendum to the Banks Peninsula Zone Implementation Programme.
17.2 Note that a Little River Flood Mitigation Working Party has been established and will report to Environment Canterbury and Christchurch City Council on flood mitigation proposals.
4 COUNCIL 11. 12. 2014 CHRISTCHURCH CITY COUNCIL 27. 11. 2014 - 2 -
4. DEPUTATIONS BY APPOINTMENT (CONT’D)
4.2 Sara Harnett on behalf of quieter please addressed the council regarding item 12 in public Report of the District Plan Appeals Subcommittee and item 25, considered in public excluded, PC52 (Ruapuna Noise Management)
4.3 Keith Cowan and Amanda Dewar on behalf of the Canterbury Car Club addressed the Council regarding item 12 report of the District Plan Appeals subcommittee and item 25, considered in public excluded, PC52 (Ruapuna noise management)
4.4 Andrew Schulte on behalf of the Christchurch Speedway Association addressed the Council regarding item 12 report of the District Plan Appeals Subcommittee, and item 25, considered in public excluded, PC52 (Ruapuna Noise Management)
The meeting adjourned at 10.35 and resumed at 11.05
Councillor Manji left the meeting at 10.53 am.
5. PRESENTATION OF PETITIONS
Nil.
15. PROPOSED MAIN ROAD MASTER PLAN HEARINGS PANEL RECOMMENDATIONS
It was resolved on the motion of Councillor Johanson, seconded by Councillor Cotter, that the Council:
15.1 Receive the recommendations of the Hearings Panel on the Main Road Master Plan (Attachment 2),
15.2 Adopt the amended Main Road Master Plan (Attachment 3) subject to the further amendments yet to be made as shown in red in the Schedule of Amendments (Attachment 2).
15.3 Enable detailed design work on enhancements to Scott Park to commence by giving priority to reinstating the Estuary Edge Master Plan, to enable a holistic and integrated approach between the Estuary Edge and the Main Road Master Plans, the three-laning of Main Road between Ferry Road bridge and the Causeway, and the Coastal Pathway project.
15.4 Give priority to commencing detailed design work for the proposed road layout through the Redcliffs Village Centre (Action “M2”) to enable further public consultation to commence as soon as possible.
The hearing panel noted the various concerns raised about the concept design for the Redcliffs Village Centre roading design in relation to minimum width standards and loss of car parking. The hearings panel as such recommends that there is urgent public consultation on the detailed design proposed for this area of the plan that incorporates the SCIRT works and Main Road proposal.
The Council noted that the work on the Estuary Edge Masterplan is intended to recommence in the new calendar year
6. REPORT OF THE CHIEF EXECUTIVE
It was resolved on the motion of Councillor Livingstone, seconded by Councillor Chen, that the report be received.
5 COUNCIL 11. 12. 2014 CHRISTCHURCH CITY COUNCIL 27. 11. 2014 - 3 -
29. RESOLUTION TO BE PASSED - SUPPLEMENTARY REPORTS
It was resolved on the motion of Councillor Clearwater, seconded by Councillor Livingstone, that the following reports and additional information numbers 30 and 32 and the information regarding item 19 be received and considered at the meeting of the Council on 27 November 2014:
Residential Advisory Service: Funding (item 30) District Plan Subcommittee Delegation (item 32) Memo re: Amendments to the Proposed Significance and Engagement Policy (item 19).
7. REPORT OF THE SUBMISSIONS PANEL MEETING OF 3 NOVEMBER 2014
It was resolved on the motion of Councillor Jones, seconded by Councillor Clearwater, that the report be received.
8. REPORT OF THE DISTRICT PLAN REVIEW SUBCOMMITTEE MEETING OF 4 NOVEMBER 2014
It was resolved on the motion of Councillor Scandrett, seconded by Councillor Livingstone, that the report be received.
32. DISTRICT PLAN SUBCOMMITTEE DELEGATIONS
It was resolved on the motion of Councillor Scandrett, seconded by Councillor Livingstone, that the Council:
32.1 Affirm that the District Plan Subcommittee is established by Council as follows:
(a) Chair: The Mayor. (b) Membership: All Councillors. (c) Quorum: Three members. (d) Meeting Cycle: Meetings will be held as required. (e) Reports to: Council. (f) Terms of Reference: The Subcommittee has responsibility and authority to:
Ensure the District Plan meets the requirements and timeframes of the Canterbury Earthquake (Christchurch Replacement District Plan) Order 2014; Make decisions on the review of the District Plan; Ensure all councillors and Community Board Chairs are invited to all briefing sessions on Stage 2 chapters/maps.
32.2 Affirm the following resolutions of the District Plan Subcommittee at its meetings on 4th and 12th November 2014:
(a) Confirm that the Council will not lodge any further submissions to the proposed Christchurch Replacement District Plan; (b) Note that the Council’s experts and consultants giving evidence are independent neutral experts assisting the Hearings Panel, not advocates for the Council; (c) Note that the Council’s officers and consultants may give evidence agreeing with changes to the District Plan Review proposed in submissions; (d) Note that the Hearing Panel may direct the Council to take part in expert conferencing or mediation; (e) Delegate authority to the Chief Planning Officer to appoint the officers and/or consultants to take part in mediation;
6 COUNCIL 11. 12. 2014 CHRISTCHURCH CITY COUNCIL 27. 11. 2014 - 4 -
9. REPORT OF THE DISTRICT PLAN REVIEW SUBCOMMITTEE MEETING OF 12 NOVEMBER 2014
It was resolved on the motion of Councillor Chen, seconded by Councillor Cotter, that the report be received.
10. REPORT OF THE INFRASTRUCTURE, TRANSPORT AND ENVIRONMENT COMMITTEE MEETING OF 6 NOVEMBER 2014
(1). FOOD RESILIENCE, FOOD FORESTS AND EDIBLE PLANTINGS
It was resolved on the motion of Councillor Clearwater, seconded by Councillor Cotter, that the Council:
1.1 Thank the members of the Food Resilience Network for generously volunteering their time to help the Council develop the Food Resilience Policy and Community Gardens Guidelines.
1.2 Adopt the 2014 Food Resilience Policy for the city recognising that implementation will be supported through Council’s 2015-25 Long Term Plan. It is noted that this is a living growing policy and the Council will seek to respond to initiatives as they arise.
1.3 Adopt the 2014 Community Gardens Guidelines recognising that implementation will be supported through the Council’s 2015-25 Long Term Plan.
1.4 Replace the Council’s 2003 Community Gardens Policy with the newly adopted 2014 Community Gardens Guidelines.
1.5 Agree to becoming a signatory to the Edible Canterbury Charter.
1.6 That the guidelines be circulated as the Council’s draft policy to community boards for their thoughts/input.
It was resolved on the motion of Councillor Clearwater, seconded by Councillor Cotter, that the report as a whole be adopted.
12. REPORT OF THE DISTRICT PLAN APPEAL SUBCOMMITTEE MEETING OF 18 NOVEMBER 2014
It was resolved on the motion of Councillor Johanson, seconded by Councillor Scandrett, that the report be received.
13. REPORT BY THE CHAIRPERSON OF THE SHIRLEY/PAPANUI COMMUNITY BOARD 5 NOVEMBER 2014
(1). PROPOSED SPEED LIMIT CHANGES, GENERAL SPEED LIMIT REVIEW, SHIRLEY/PAPANUI WARD
It was resolved on the motion of Councillor Cotter, seconded by Councillor Jones, that the Council resolve:
1.1 Pursuant to Section 5 of Christchurch City Council Speed Limits Bylaw 2010, speed limits be revoked and set as listed below in Clauses 5.1.1 to 5.1.14 below, and include the resulting changes in the Christchurch City Register of Speed Limits and Speed Limit Maps:
1.1.1 Revoke the 80 kilometres per hour speed limit on Belfast Road, easterly, generally, from a point measured 240 metres west of Blakes Road to Marshland Road. 7 COUNCIL 11. 12. 2014 CHRISTCHURCH CITY COUNCIL 27. 11. 2014 - 5 -
13 Cont’d
1.1.2 Approve that the speed limit on Belfast Road be set at 80 kilometres per hour commencing at its intersection with Marshland Road and extending in a westerly direction to a point measured 180 metres west of Blakes Road.
1.1.3 Revoke the 70 kilometres per hour speed limit on Cavendish Road from Styx Mill Road southerly, generally, to a point measured 100 metres north from Sturrocks Road.
1.1.4 Approve that the speed limit on Cavendish Road be set at 70 kilometres per hour commencing at its intersection with Styx Mill Road and extending in a southerly direction for a distance of 50 metres.
1.1.5 Revoke the 80 kilometres per hour speed limit on Gardiners Road from a point measured 50 metres south of Wilkinsons Road, south generally, to a point measured 80 metres north from Sawyers Arms Road.
1.1.6 Approve that the speed limit on Gardiners Road be set a 80 kilometres per hour commencing at a point measured 160 metres north of Sawyers Arms Road and extending in a northerly direction to a point 100 metres south of Wilkinsons Road.
1.1.7 Revoke the 70 kilometres per hour speed limit on Marshland Road from a point measured 230 metres north of Lake Terrace Road to a point measured 50 metres north of Prestons Road.
1.1.8 Revoke the 80 kilometres per hour speed limit on Marshland Road southerly, generally, along Marshland Road from Main North Road to a point 50 metres north of Prestons Road.
1.1.9 Approve that the speed limit on Marshland Road be set at 70 kilometres per hour commencing at a point measured 230 metres north of Lake Terrace Road and extending in a northerly direction to its intersection with Main North Road/Spencerville Road.
1.1.10 Revoke the 80 kilometres per hour speed limit on Main North Road northerly, generally, along Main North Road from Marshland Road/ Spencerville Road to Waimakariri city boundary.
1.1.11 Approve that the speed limit on Main North Road be set at 70 kilometres per hour commencing at its intersection with Marshland Road / Spencerville Road and extending in a northerly direction for a distance of 230 metres.
1.1.12 Approve that the speed limit on Main North Road be set at 80 kilometres per hour commencing at a point 230 metres north of its intersection with Marshland Road / Spencerville Road and extending in a northerly direction to the Waimakariri River bridge (boundary with Waimakariri District Council).
1.1.13 Revoke the 80 kilometres per hour speed limit on Wilkinsons Road from Johns Road easterly, generally, to a point measured 150 metres from Gardiners Road
1.1.14 Approve that the speed limit on Wilkinsons Road be set at 80 kilometres per hour commencing at its intersection with Johns Road (SH1) and extending in an easterly direction for a distance of 150 metres.
1.2 That the speed limit changes contained within this report come into force on 1 December 2014.
It was resolved on the motion of Councillor Cotter, seconded by Councillor Jones, that the report as a whole be adopted. 8 COUNCIL 11. 12. 2014 CHRISTCHURCH CITY COUNCIL 27. 11. 2014 - 6 -
14. APPOINTMENT OF A PROXY FOR A SPECIAL GENERAL MEETING OF NEW ZEALAND LOCAL GOVERNMENT INSURANCE CORPORATION LTD.
It was resolved on the motion of Councillor Johanson, seconded by Councillor Jones, that the Council:
14.1 The Council note the date of the New Zealand Local Government Insurance Corporation Ltd Special General Meeting is on 5 December 2014.
14.2 The Council exercise its right to vote at the SGM on 5 December 2014 by proxy.
14.3 The Council’s vote be exercised in favour of items 1 and 2 of the agenda set out on the attached proxy form.
14.4 The Council authorises the Chief Financial Officer or the Legal Services Manager to attend the SGM and exercise the Proxy vote on its behalf.
18. EXTENSION OF TERM OF APPOINTMENT OF COUNCIL DIRECTORS OF CHRISTCHURCH CITY HOLDINGS LTD
It was resolved on the motion of Councillor Scandrett, seconded by Councillor Clearwater, that the Council extend the term of appointment of Councillors. Buck, Gough, Johanson and Manji as the four Council Directors to Christchurch City Holdings Ltd until 30 June 2015.
None of the Directors named took part in this decision.
The meeting adjourned from 12 noon to 2.04 pm.
11. REPORT OF THE COMMUNITIES, HOUSING AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE MEETING OF 6 NOVEMBER 2014
(1). COMMUNITY FACILITIES REBUILD UNIT SOCIAL HOUSING PROGRAMME STATUS UPDATE
It was resolved on the motion of Councillor Turner, seconded by Councillor Livingstone, that the report be received.
It was resolved on the motion of Councillor Turner, seconded by Councillor Livingstone, that the report as a whole be adopted.
16. REPORT OF THE HEARINGS PANEL ON THE PSYCHOACTIVE PRODUCTS RETAIL LOCATIONS POLICY
It was resolved on the motion of Councillor Turner seconded by Councillor Clearwater, that the Council:
16.1 That the Council receives The Hearings Panel’s report and adopts the recommended Psychoactive Products Retail Locations Policy with the amendments agreed by the Hearings Panel (Attachment One).
16.2 That the Council review the Psychoactive Products Retail Locations Policy two years after the Retail Regulations developed under the Act are in place.
Councillor Jones asked that her voted against the resolution be recorded.
9 COUNCIL 11. 12. 2014 CHRISTCHURCH CITY COUNCIL 27. 11. 2014 - 7 -
19. SIGNIFICANCE AND ENGAGEMENT POLICY PROPOSED FOR ADOPTION
It was resolved on the motion of Councillor Cotter, seconded by Councillor Jones, that the Council:
19.1 Adopt the Significance and Engagement Policy in Attachment 1.
19.2 Direct staff to notify the Significance and Engagement Policy by 1 December 2014.
19.3 That the recommended changes in Attachment Two of this report be endorsed by the Council and incorporated into the policy adopted by Council.
20. LAND USE RECOVERY PLAN: RICCARTON RACECOURSE (CHAMPIONS MILE) MEDIUM DENSITY HOUSING EXEMPLAR PROJECT
Councillor Turner moved, seconded by Councillor Clearwater, that the Council:
20.1 Acknowledge and thank the Racecourse Trustees and Ngai Tahu Property Limited team for their efforts in bringing forward a potential exemplar project on the Riccarton Racecourse land in response to the opportunity offered in the Land Use Recovery Plan.
20.2 Approve the submitted proposal as ‘qualified approval in principle’ in relation to energy efficiency, density, appropriateness to locality and showing-casing of the exemplar development.
20.3 Invite Ngai Tahu to continue to develop the specifics of the exemplar proposal with the LURP Partner agencies in order to achieve full ‘approval in principle’ of the proposal as an exemplar medium density housing project.
20.4 Note the alternative routes available to secure rezoning of the land for residential activity through the District Plan Review process or a private plan change under the Order in Council or a future private plan change process.
The clauses were put to the meeting as follows.
Clauses 6.1, 6.3 and 6.4 when put to the meeting were declared carried.
Clause 6.2 when put to the meeting was declared carried. Councillors Cotter and Johanson asked that their vote against the resolution be recorded.
30. RESIDENTIAL ADVISORY SERVICE: FUNDING REQUEST
It was resolved on the motion of Councillor Buck, seconded by Councillor East, that the Residential Advisory Service: Funding Request, be deferred until the Council meeting on 11 December 2014.
21. NOTICES OF MOTION
Nil.
22. RESOLUTION TO EXCLUDE THE PUBLIC
At 3.05 pm it was resolved on the motion of Councillor Buck, seconded by Councillor Clearwater, that the resolution to exclude the public set out on page 455 of the agenda be adopted.
10 COUNCIL 11. 12. 2014 CHRISTCHURCH CITY COUNCIL 27. 11. 2014 - 8 -
The meeting concluded at 3.45 pm.
CONFIRMED THIS 11TH DAY OF DECEMBER 2014
MAYOR
11 COUNCIL 11. 12. 2014 Clause 6
AKAROA/WAIREWA COMMUNITY BOARD
8 OCTOBER 2014
Report of a meeting of the Akaroa/Wairewa Community Board held on Wednesday 8 October 2014 at 9.34am in the Akaroa Sports Complex, Akaroa Recreation Ground, 28 Rue Jolie, Akaroa
PRESENT: Pam Richardson (Chairman), Maria Bartlett, Lyndon Graham, Janis Haley, Bryan Morgan and Andrew Turner
APOLOGIES: Apologies for absence were received from Andrew Turner who departed the meeting at 11.37am and was not in attendance for Clauses 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 11, 12, 13, 14,15 and part of Clause 10, and Maria Bartlett, who departed the meeting at 11.50am and was not in attendance for 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 11, 12, 13, 14 and 15.
The Board reports that:
PART B – REPORTS FOR INFORMATION
1. DECLARATION OF INTEREST
There were no declaration of interests received.
2. DEPUTATIONS BY APPOINTMENT
2.1 DEMELZA DALGLISH
Demelza Dalglish attended the meeting to express her gratitude for the funding she had received from the Board‘s Youth Development Fund, towards the cost of advanced ballet training to complete her Advanced Two examination. Demelza informed the Board that she had been successful in attaining her Advanced Two status, gaining two gold medals as part of her examinations. The additional qualification had also helped her obtain a scholarship to St Andrews College.
Demelza was thanked for updating the Board. Board members congratulated her on her success and wished her well in future endeavours.
2.2 RIK TAINUI AND ALAN BATEMAN
Rik Tainui and Alan Bateman addressed the Board on the proposed development for the Onuku Marae. They gave a presentation and showed plans for the $4.2 million development. The Board was informed that a new sewerage system would be installed as part of the project, but that the long term goal was for the building, and possibly surrounding homes, to be connected to the Akaroa reticulated sewer and water systems. They requested support from the Board and through the Council’s Long Term Plan for this to occur.
Mr Tainui said that being connected to the Akaroa town water supply and wastewater system would benefit not only the new development but also local residents. He explained that the marae complex would be able to cater for larger crowds, the system would be more environmentally friendly and that valuable land could be freed up for other purposes.
Refer Part C Clause 2 of these minutes for the Board’s delegated decision.
2.3 MARCUS PUENTENER
2.3.1 Little River Wairewa Community Trust - Activities and Future Plans
Mr Puentener updated the Board on the many community projects the Trust was carrying out in the Little River area, including construction of a pump track on land behind the Railway Station. 12 COUNCIL 11. 12. 2014 Akaroa/Wairewa Community Board 8.10.2014
2 Cont’d
The Board decided to ask staff for information regarding the status of the land where the pump track had been constructed, and whether contractors had been instructed to no longer stockpile metal in that area.
2.3.2 Freedom Camping - consultation
Mr Puentener expressed his concern regarding the number of freedom campers coming into the area and felt public consultation was necessary regarding this problem. He said as a campground owner he had valuable information to contribute to any public consultation process. He also suggested that the Council consider charging freedom campers using a scheme similar to that operated by the Department of Conservation.
Mr Puentener was informed of the process the Council was taking to regarding freedom campers during the 2014-2015 Summer, including some proposed signage, statistical information gathering and enforcement of current bylaws. The information gathered through the summer would be reported back to the Council in March 2015, and Council would then decide whether it is necessary to introduce a specific bylaw to control freedom camping.
2.4 JOHN OLIVER AND HOWARD WILSON
John Oliver and Howard Wilson reported to the Board on a proposed site at the Duvauchelle Council Yard, which they believed would be suitable for the Men’s Shed.
It was reported that staff had the delegation to approve a lease for up to five years, and with no rights of renewal. The deputees confirmed they would be happy to accept a lease on those terms.
The Board decided to request staff to expedite a five year lease of the old wooden workshop at the Duvauchelle Council Yard, taking into account additional needs for use of a kitchen facility and storage area, and subject to normal processes including coordination with current users of the site.
The Chairman thanked all the deputations for attending and speaking to the Board.
3. PRESENTATION OF PETITIONS
Nil.
4. NOTICES OF MOTION
Nil.
5. CORRESPONDENCE
Nil.
6. RESERVE MANAGEMENT COMMITTEES
6.1 RESERVE MANAGEMENT COMMITTEES ORDINARY MINUTES
The Board received the minutes of the following Reserve Management Committee meetings:
- Awa-iti Reserve Management Committee – 1 May 2014 - Stanley Park Reserve Management Committee – 7 August 2014 13 COUNCIL 11. 12. 2014 Akaroa/Wairewa Community Board 8.10.2014 6 Cont’d
- Garden of Tane Reserve Management Committee – 19 August 2014 - Duvauchelle Reserve Management Committee – 8 September 2014.
Refer Part C Clause 6 of these minutes for the Board’s delegated decision.
7. COMMUNITY ORGANISATIONS REPORTS
7.1 BANKS PENINSULA WATER MANAGEMENT ZONE COMMITTEE – 19 AUGUST 2014
The Board received the minutes of the Banks Peninsula Water Management Zone Committee meeting held on Tuesday 19 August 2014.
7.2 ORTON BRADLEY PARK BOARD – 23 JUNE 2014
The Board received the minutes of the Orton Bradley Park Board meeting held on Monday 23 June 2014.
8. BRIEFINGS
Nil.
9. COMMUNITY BOARD ADVISER’S UPDATE
The Board received information from the Community Board Adviser on various matters.
Correspondence – Monica Brosnahan
The Board received the letter from Monica Brosnahan thanking the Board for funding she had received through the Board’s Youth Development Fund.
10. ELECTED MEMBERS’ INFORMATION EXCHANGE
Board members received information on various matters.
Containers Converted to Dwellings The Board decided to request staff for an update on the process required to enable containers to be converted into dwellings, and information on Council policy around people living in containers.
● Bank of New Zealand (BNZ) – Community Day The Board acknowledged the work of the Akaroa Bank of New Zealand staff who participated in clearing rubbish on local beaches, including Childrens Bay and the walkway, during the BNZ annual community day.
● Surplus Concrete The Board decided to request staff if the Council could make use of the surplus concrete that is often dumped from concrete trucks before they return to Christchurch, and whether there was an opportunity for Council to make use of the excess.
11. QUESTIONS UNDER STANDING ORDERS
Nil. 14 COUNCIL 11. 12. 2014 Akaroa/Wairewa Community Board 8.10.2014 PART C – DELEGATED DECISIONS
12. CONFIRMATION OF MEETING MINUTES – 10 SEPTEMBER 2014
The Board resolved that the minutes of its ordinary meeting held on Wednesday 10 September 2014 be confirmed,
13. ADOPTION OF SCHEDULE OF MEETINGS FOR THE 2013-2016 COUNCIL TERM
The Board considered a report to adopt the Akaroa/Wairewa Community Board meetings to the end of the 2013-2016 Triennial Term.
The Board resolved to:
13.1 Adopt the programme of meetings for the balance of the 2013 – 2016 Council Term as follows:
Wednesday 11 February 2015 9.30am Akaroa Wednesday 11 March 2015 9.30am Little River Wednesday 8 April 2015 9.30am Akaroa Wednesday 13 May 2015 9.30am Little River Wednesday 10 June 2015 9.30am Akaroa Wednesday 8 July 2015 9.30am Little River Wednesday 12 August 2015 9.30am Akaroa Wednesday 9 September 2015 9.30am Little River Wednesday 14 October 2015 9.30am Akaroa Wednesday 11 November 2015 9.30am Little River Wednesday 9 December 2015 9.30am Akaroa
Wednesday 10 February 2016 9.30am Little River Wednesday 9 March 2016 9.30am Akaroa Wednesday 13 April 2016 9.30am Little River Wednesday 11 May 2016 9.30am Akaroa Wednesday 8 June 2016 9.30am Little River Wednesday 13 July 2016 9.30am Akaroa Wednesday 10 August 2016 9.30am Little River Wednesday 14 September 2016 9.30am Akaroa
13.2 That delegated authority be given to the Akaroa/Wairewa Community Board Adviser to make changes as necessary to meet extraordinary circumstances.
13.3 That the fourth Wednesday of the month be set aside for additional workshops.
14. RUE BRITTAN – PROPOSED NO STOPPING RESTRICTIONS
The Board considered a report seeking its approval for the installation of No Stopping restrictions on Rue Brittan, at the Akaroa Boat Park.
The Board resolved to:
14.1 Approve that any existing parking restrictions on the western side of Rue Brittan commencing at a point 51 metres north west of its intersection with Rue Jolie and extending in a northerly direction for a distance of 80 metres, be revoked.
14.2 Approve that any existing parking restrictions on the northern kerb line of Rue Brittan commencing at a point 168 metres north west of its intersection with Rue Jolie, following its south western and western road edge, initially in a north westerly and then a northerly direction, and extending in an easterly direction for a distance of 15 metres, be revoked. 15 COUNCIL 11. 12. 2014 Akaroa/Wairewa Community Board 8.10.2014 14 Cont’d
14.3 Approve that the stopping of vehicles be prohibited between the hours of 9pm and 6am, seven days a week inclusive of public holidays, on the western side of Rue Brittan commencing at a point 51 metres north west of its intersection with Rue Jolie and extending in a northerly direction for a distance of 80 metres.
14.4 Approve that the stopping of vehicles be prohibited at any time on the northern kerb line of Rue Brittan commencing at a point 168 metres north west of its intersection with Rue Jolie, following its south western and western road edge, initially in a north westerly and then a northerly direction, and extending in an easterly direction for a distance of 15 metres.
The Board decided to ask staff to look at longer term options for control and utilisation of the Boat Carpark/Akaroa Slipway/Recreation Ground area through possible road stopping or realignment, and additional road markings.
15. APPLICATION TO AKAROA/WAIREWA COMMUNITY BOARD 2014/15 DISCRETIONARY RESPONSE FUND – LITTLE RIVER WAIREWA COMMUNITY TRUST
The Board considered an application for funding from its 2014/15 Discretionary Response Fund from the Little River Wairewa Community Trust on behalf of the Little River Pony Club for $700 towards upgrade of the Pony Club toilet.
The Board resolved to approve a grant of $700 from its 2014/15 Discretionary Response Fund to the Little River Wairewa Community Trust towards the upgrade of the Little River Pony Club toilet.
2. DEPUTATIONS BY APPOINTMENT (CONT’D)
2.2 RIK TAINUI AND ALAN BATEMAN (CONT’D)
The Board resolved to approve in principle the connection of the Onuku settlement to the Akaroa Wastewater and Water systems, and for the Board to support inclusion of funding in the Long Term Plan for investigation, planning and construction.
6. RESERVE MANAGEMENT COMMITTEES (CONT’D)
6.1 RESERVE MANAGEMENT COMMITTEES MINUTES (CONT’D)
6.1.1 Stanley Park Reserve Management Committee
The Board resolved to approve the appointment of Grant Ryan to the Stanley Park Reserve Management Committee.
The meeting concluded at 12.43pm
CONFIRMED THIS 12TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2014
PAM RICHARDSON CHAIRMAN 16 17 COUNCIL 11. 12. 2014 Clause 7
TE HAPORI O ŌHINEHOU RAUA KO AHU PĀTIKI LYTTELTON/MT HERBERT COMMUNITY BOARD 15 OCTOBER 2014
Report of a meeting of the Lyttelton/Mt Herbert Community Board held on Wednesday 15 October 2014 at 1pm in the Boardroom of the White Cottage, Orton Bradley Park, Charteris Bay
PRESENT: Jane Broughton (Deputy Chairperson), Ann Jolliffe, Adrian Te Patu, and Christine Wilson.
APOLOGIES: Apologies were received and accepted from Paula Smith and Andrew Turner.
KARAKIA TIMATANGA: Adrian Te Patu
The Board reports that:
PART B – REPORTS FOR INFORMATION
1. DECLARATION OF INTEREST
Nil.
2. CORRESPONDENCE
2.1 DIAMOND HARBOUR COMMUNITY HALL PARKING LOT
The Board received correspondence from John Riminton outlining his concerns regarding the untidiness of the Diamond Harbour Community Hall parking lot. To stop the drift of foliage from the long bank above the parking lot, Mr Riminton proposed construction of a protective barrier along the bottom of the bank. Staff advised that a barrier will not decrease the amount of foliage in the parking lot and that arrangements have been made for an increased cleaning schedule of the parking lot.
2.2 OLD COACH ROAD – THE FORESHORE TRACK
The Board received correspondence from Helen Chambers, of the Governors Bay Community Association, outlining the Association’s concerns regarding damage during high tides to the heritage listed Old Coach Road. Ms Chambers advised staff had not been to Old Coach Road to observe damage, and water has washed at the road during high tide.
The Board requested the letter be forwarded to the Lyttelton/Mt Herbert Head to Head Walkway Working Party, as part of the proposed walkway is along Old Coach Road.
The Board requested that staff look at the Old Coach Road – The Foreshore Track in Governors Bay to assess the situation and advise the Board of the remedial works to be done to stop the damage to the road.
18 COUNCIL 11. 12. 2014 Lyttelton/Mt Herbert Community Board 15. 10. 2014
2 Cont’d
2.3 PROPOSED GATED COMMUNITY – GOVERNORS BAY
The Board received correspondence from Karen Banwell, Chair, Governors Bay Community Association, outlining the Association’s concerns regarding the proposed gated subdivision at 179 Main Road, Governors Bay. Staff have advised that the proposed gated community has not yet been consented, but there is no provision in the Christchurch City Council District Plan to prevent this kind of subdivision within Governors Bay.
The Board requested that staff from the Resource Consents Unit provide a response to the Governors Bay Community Association, regarding the matter of gated communities being a permitted activity within the current Christchurch City Council District Plan.
2.4 MINISTRY OF EDUCATION – CHRISTCHURCH SCHOOLS REBUILD PROGRAMME
The Board received correspondence from Angela Hawkings, Programme Director, Educational Infrastructure Service, Ministry of Education, regarding an update on Christchurch Schools Rebuild Programme.
2.5 ACCESSIBLE CITY – TRANSPORT PROJECT
The Board received correspondence from Richard Osborne, Transport and Research Unit Manager, Strategy and Planning Group, Christchurch City Council, regarding An Accessible City – Transport Projects.
3. PETITIONS
Nil.
4. NOTICES OF MOTION
Nil.
5. COMMITTEE REPORT
5.1 HEAD TO HEAD WALKWAY WORKING PARTY
The Board received the notes of the Head to Head Walkway Working Party Meeting held on 2 September 2014.
6. EXTERNAL ORGANISATION REPORT
6.1 BANKS PENINSULA WATER MANAGEMENT ZONE COMMITTEE MEETING MINUTES – 19 AUGUST 2014
Interested Board members were invited to the Walkabout – Lyttelton Stormwater on Tuesday 21 October 2014 from 1pm-3.30pm.
The Board received the minutes of the Banks Peninsula Water Management Zone Committee Meeting held on 19 August 2014.
19 COUNCIL 11. 12. 2014 Lyttelton/Mt Herbert Community Board 15. 10. 2014
7. COMMUNITY BOARD ADVISER’S UPDATE
Board Funding Balances
A copy of the Board’s funding balances as at 2 October 2014 was attached for information.
Representation Review
The Council is currently undertaking early engagement with regard to the Representation Review focusing on defining local communities. Phase One engagement will take place throughout November 2014 and early December 2014.
Lyttelton/Mt Herbert Community Board Submission on the Proposed Christchurch Replacement District Plan
The Board received for information the submission prepared by the Lyttelton/Mt Herbert Community Board Submissions Committee on the Proposed Christchurch Replacement District Plan – Stage 1 (refer to the Board Agenda, Clause 9).
8. ELECTED MEMBERS’ INFORMATION EXCHANGE
Community Board Requirements for Lyttelton Service Centre
The Board requested staff to take into consideration the option for the Lyttelton/Mt Herbert Community Board Boardroom to be in the basement of the Lyttelton Library building.
Lyttelton Reserves Management Committee
Board members were advised the main issue raised at the most recent meeting of the Lyttelton Reserves Management Committee was around the process for using traps, which was decided upon in the Lyttelton Master Plan passed by the Board. Many Committee members are happy with the existing process. The Committee decided to hold an informal session to map out how to enhance its post-earthquake processes by utilising its strengths.
There is flooding coming off Urumau Reserve onto Foster Terrace. Council is looking further into this matter.
Project Lyttelton
At its 9 October 2014 meeting, Project Lyttelton proposed working closely with the Council around the soil contamination in Project Lyttelton’s community garden. Project Lyttelton discussed its role and perception in the community, and noted the importance of engaging with the community through conversations. 20 COUNCIL 11. 12. 2014 Lyttelton/Mt Herbert Community Board 15. 10. 2014
8 Cont’d
Lyttelton Community House
Board members discussed that Lyttelton Community House has been identifying increased and complex needs in the community, particularly among young families, who are struggling with mortgages, rent, and stress resulting from the earthquakes. Some people are unable to get to work because of stress. Community House staff are present at Project Lyttelton’s Garage Sale to engage with young mothers.
Recent research has found people who never used social services before the earthquakes are using these services now. It was noted it is a difficult time for the community, when adrenaline from the earthquakes is gone.
Public Engagement with South Harbour Bays – Long Term Plan
As part of a public engagement programme with the South Harbour Bays around the Christchurch Long Term Plan, flyers were distributed to letterboxes from Diamond Harbour to Teddington requesting feedback on Long Term Plan priorities. Flyers have been collected and feedback will be compiled by staff.
Diamond Harbour Tracks
The Board was advised repairing and rebuilding the tracks around Diamond Harbour is the top priority project the Council can implement for Diamond Harbour residents.
Intersection Mirrors in Lyttelton Harbour Basin
The Board was advised the community would like to have intersection mirrors installed and re-installed in the Lyttelton Harbour basin, as the roads have many blind corners.
The Board requested a staff report on the installation and re-installation of intersection mirrors within the Lyttelton Harbour basin.
Purau Flooding
Board members were advised that a private drainlayer, who owns a bach in the Purau settlement, has commenced repairs and clearance on the private drains within Purau to alleviate flooding, with no financial assistance from the residents. It was noted Banks Peninsula is one of the oldest sites of human settlement in New Zealand, so it is good that he is working with the Purau Residents’ Association to prevent impact on archaeological sites from the repairs.
9. QUESTIONS UNDER STANDING ORDERS
Nil.
21 COUNCIL 11. 12. 2014 Lyttelton/Mt Herbert Community Board 15. 10. 2014
PART C – REPORT ON DELEGATED DECISIONS
10. CONFIRMATION OF MEETING MINUTES – 17 SEPTEMBER 2014
The Board resolved that the minutes of the Board’s ordinary meeting held on Wednesday 17 September 2014 be confirmed, with the following amendments to Clause 2.5:
Nicky Sarson and Karen Colyer, Lyttelton Information Centre Board members, discussed with the Board the Lyttelton Farmers' Market. Ms Sarson advised she the Lyttelton Information Centre Board supports both the concept and current location of the Farmers’ Market. The Lyttelton Information Centre Board acknowledged that during the Market locals cannot park on London Street, but the lack of parking is likely expected by non- local visitors.
Ms Colyer advised she works at the Lyttelton Information Centre on Saturdays, when many people ask for more information about the Market. The Lyttelton Information Centre Board enjoys that the Market allows her people to be self-sufficient and get all her their food locally and believes that the Market also allows people without gardens to have access to fresh fruit and vegetables, and provides a venue for people to socialise.
The meeting concluded at 2:05pm.
KARAKIA WHAKAMUTUNGA: Adrian Te Patu
CONFIRMED THIS 19TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2014.
PAULA SMITH CHAIRPERSON 22 23 COUNCIL 11. 12. 2014 Clause 8
REPORT BY THE CHAIRPERSON OF TE HAPORI O ŌHINEHOU RAUA KO AHU PĀTIKI LYTTELTON/MT HERBERT COMMUNITY BOARD
19 NOVEMBER 2014
PART A - MATTERS REQUIRING A COUNCIL DECISION
1. LYTTELTON LIBRARY RETROFIT WITH SERVICE CENTRE AND BOARDROOM OPTIONS
Contact Contact Details Executive Leadership Team Director Council Facilities and Member responsible: Infrastructure Officer responsible: Libraries and Information Unit Manager Author: Carissa Ptacek Y 941 - 8494
1. PURPOSE AND ORIGIN OF REPORT
1.1 Provide an update on the options for the location of the Lyttelton/Mt Herbert Community Board boardroom.
1.2 Provide an update on the Lyttelton Library retrofit and potential options to accommodate staff.
1.3 Seek the Council’s approval to reconfigure the Lyttelton Recreation Centre to provide staff workspaces in the underutilised portions of the building.
1.4 Seek the Council’s approval for the location of the new Lyttelton/Mt Herbert Community Board boardroom.
2. BACKGROUND
2.1 The Lyttelton Service Centre at 35 London Street was severely damaged and the Council resolved for the demolition of the building on the 27 February 2014.
2.2 The Lyttelton Library located at 18 Canterbury Street has suffered damage and the Council has committed to repair the building and reconfigure the Library to better utilise the floorplan for public space and integrate the Service Centre into the existing library building.
2.3 This integration of the Lyttelton Library and Service Centre is in line with the Lyttelton Master Plan.
2.4 The 15 October 2014 Lyttelton / Mt Herbert minutes confirmed the Board’s desire for staff to investigate incorporating the boardroom into the Library basement.
2.5 Staff attended the Lyttelton/Mt. Herbert Community Board 19 August meeting to present a feasibility study for the Lyttelton Library and Service Centre integration. The Board had several suggestions prior to the design progressing. The main suggestions were for staff to investigate incorporation of the boardroom into the Library basement, and reviewing the space available for staff work areas.
3. COMMENT
3.1 A staff workshop was held to review and progress the suggestions from the Board and to define options to further investigate. Three options were proposed to be further investigated. First, was to progress the option for the boardroom to be located in the basement of the Library. Second, was to investigate relocating staff not involved in the Library or Customer Service tasks into the Lyttelton Recreation Centre. Third, was to investigate an option to renovate 25 Canterbury Street, which is owned by the Council, to house the Board boardroom. 24 COUNCIL 11. 12. 2014
1 Cont’d
3.2 Relocating staff into the Recreation Centre would use underutilised space in a Council owned property, provide for work storage (i.e. files) for staff, and better meet Unit staff requirements.
3.3 Reconfiguration of the space in the Recreation Centre would be required and could be added to the Lyttelton Recreation Centre repair and strengthen project that started recently. This would include at least an accessible new staff access and office fitout.
3.4 To incorporate this work into the current Lyttelton Recreation Centre repair and strengthening project approval of this option is required by end of 2014.
3.5 Staff have investigated the feasibility of incorporating the Board boardroom into the basement of the Library as well as renovating 25 Canterbury Street.
3.6 See Attachment 1 for a rendering of what the boardroom could look like if located in the Library basement.
3.7 The boardroom in the basement of the Library has obstructions to views due to columns in the middle of the room. In addition, load bearing walls would need to be removed to allow for the preferred size of room (approx. 70 m square). Due to the structural changes that would be required it appears that this option would be more expensive than 25 Canterbury Street and provide a less functional space.
3.8 The boardroom located in 25 Canterbury Street (See Attachment 2) provides an open floor plan with less structural changes to the building required. There is also an opportunity to maximise the new investment of Albion Square by creating a structure that connects London Street through the square. The space could be made bookable at times when it is not being used by the Community Board.
3.9 While both sites could accommodate the boardroom 25 Canterbury Street is the preferred staff recommendation.
3.10 A scaled down reconfiguration of the Library basement without fit out would be progressed if this is not the Community Board preferred boardroom location to future proof the design.
4. FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS
4.1. Funding for repairs to the Lyttelton Library, Lyttelton Service Centre (integration with Library) and Lyttelton boardroom replacement was confirmed by Council on 28 August.
4.2. All options are achievable within existing funding.
4.3. The option to relocate staff into the Lyttelton Recreation Centre would require a transfer of funding from the approved Lyttelton Service Centre (integration with Library) to the Lyttelton Recreation Centre repair and strengthening project not to exceed value of $400,000.
4.4. Passing of these recommendations does not preclude the Council obtaining their full insurance entitlement. 25 COUNCIL 11. 12. 2014
1 Cont’d
5. STAFF RECOMMENDATION
It is recommended that the Council approve
5.1 That staff proceed with adding the reconfiguration of the Lyttelton Recreation Centre to accommodate Council staff within Lyttelton from units other than the Library and Customer Services into the Lyttelton Recreation Centre repair and strengthening project.
5.2 To reallocate a portion of the funding, not to exceed $400,000, from the “Lyttelton Service Centre (integration with Library)” Project to the “Lyttelton Recreation Centre Repair and Strengthening” project. Funding to be used to reconfigure the Recreation Centre to accommodate staff.
5.3 Staff to proceed to renovate 25 Canterbury Street into the Lyttelton/Mt Herbert Community Board boardroom with the $458,459 funding allocated to the “Lyttelton Boardroom Replacement” Project.
5.4 Reconfirm the retrofitting of the Lyttelton Library to maximise the public space available and integrate the Customer Service Desk (formerly known as Service Centre) in the current Library at 35 London Street.
6. BOARD CONSIDERATION
6.1 The Board advises that the Community Board needs a “home” which includes a boardroom together with nearby office accommodation for the staff who support the Community Board and/or work in the ward with the community including the Parks Maintenance Contract Supervisor.
6.2 The Board wants a boardroom that maximises visibility in the community so that the Community Board activity is transparent. The Council must avoid a “backroom” set up.
6.3 The Boardroom needs to be spacious, and large enough to accommodate our former Banks Peninsula District Council oval table with space around it for easy movement, the oak sideboard from the previous boardroom and seating for about 20 extra people, including the public, media and staff.
6.4 There needs to be provision made for the Board Support Team to be included at the Board table. The screen needs to be placed in a position within the Boardroom so it can be easily seen by all attendees of a meeting and acoustics need to be investigated to ensure that attendees can hear what is being said.
6.5 The Boardroom should be available for community meetings when it is not being used by the Community Board or the Council including after hours.
6.6 The Boardroom needs adequate natural lighting, good ventilation and not be vulnerable to outside noise.
6.7 The Board notes that the general style of the proposed design concept shown for 25 Canterbury Street may be contentious. The Board notes the design concept would be less contentious if it fit more closely with existing building designs in Lyttelton.
7. BOARD RECOMMENDATION
That the staff recommendation be adopted. 26 COUNCIL 11. 12. 2014
ATTACHMENT TO CLAUSE 1 – ATTACHMENT 1
27 COUNCIL 11. 12. 2014
ATTACHMENT TO CLAUSE 1 – ATTACHMENT 2
28 29 COUNCIL 11. 12. 2014 Clause 9
HAGLEY/FERRYMEAD COMMUNITY BOARD 5 NOVEMBER 2014
Report of a meeting of the Hagley/Ferrymead Community Board held on Wednesday 5 November 2014 at 3.37pm in the Boardroom, 180 Smith Street, Linwood, Christchurch.
PRESENT: Sara Templeton (Chairperson), Alexandra Davids, Yani Johanson, Paul Lonsdale, Brenda Lowe-Johnson and Islay McLeod.
APOLOGIES: An apology for absence was received and accepted from Joe Davies.
The Board meeting adjourned from 5.23pm and resumed at 5.31pm.
The Board reports that:
PART B - REPORTS FOR INFORMATION
1. PROHIBITED TIMES ON ROAD – WOOLSTON INDUSTRIAL AREA
This item was presented to the 13 November 2014 Council meeting by way of a Chairperson’s Report.
2. MOORHOUSE AVENUE U TURN PROHIBITION
This item was presented to the 13 November 2014 Council meeting by way of a Chairperson’s Report.
3. DECLARATIONS OF INTEREST
Sara Templeton declared an interest in the item on the Facilities Rebuild Plan: Rebuild of Heathcote Community Facility considered as clause 18 of these minutes and withdrew from the meeting. Islay McLeod assumed the Chair for consideration of this item.
4. DEPUTATIONS BY APPOINTMENT
4.1 DAVID JONES, BETTER HEALTH GROUP AND NICOLA WOODWARD, AVIVA
David Jones, Managing Director of Better Health Group and Nicola Woodward, CEO of Aviva gave a presentation to the Board informing them of their plans for a healthcare and community hub located upstairs at Eastgate Shopping Centre.
The Board was advised of the vision for the Eastgate Healthcare and Community Hub and of the opportunities for collocation of services for the benefit of the community from new born to older adults
The Board Chairperson thanked David Jones and Nicole Woodward for the deputation.
4.2 TE POAKA TIPUA CHARITABLE TRUST
Veronica Stuart and Nick Nitro from the Te Poaka Tipua Charitable Trust presented a deputation to the Board on the work of the Trust and strategies for youth issues at Eastgate and shop areas. 30 COUNCIL 11. 12. 2014 Hagley/Ferrymead Community Board 5. 11. 2014
4 Cont’d
The Board was advised of concern in the community over drug and alcohol use and youth behaviour in the area. The Trust intends to provide an alternative education programme for at risk youth in the community, emergency accommodation facilities and a place for youth to develop new skills in an environment that is safe when they have nowhere else to go.
The Chairperson thanked the Trust for the deputation and their work in the community.
4.3 DRUCILLA KINGI-PATTERSON
The Board received written information on the establishment of the Phillipstown Youth Market from Drucilla Kingi-Patterson who was unable to attend.
5. PRESENTATION OF PETITIONS
Nil.
6. NOTICES OF MOTION
Nil.
7. CORRESPONDENCE
7.1 DAVID ROBINSON
The Board received correspondence from David Robinson opposing the proposed prohibition of the u-turn ban at Moorhouse Avenue, considered as clause 2 (Part A) of these minutes.
8. BRIEFINGS
8.1 LIBRARIES 2025 FACILITIES PLAN UPDATE
Sally Thompson and Carolyn Robertson briefed the Board on the Libraries 2025 Facilities Plan Review and sought support for the recommendations within.
The Board decided to endorse the Executive summary 2025 Library Facilities Plan update 2014 and request that staff keep the Board informed on progress and timing with Library Facilities.
The Board noted that further information and an updated volunteer library report will be circulated.
9. COMMUNITY BOARD ADVISER’S UPDATE
The Board received information from the Community Board Adviser on Board-related activities, including the following:
Upcoming Board meetings and activities and current Council consultations.
Information in response to Board requests for information on the ownership of 26 Pavitt Street, adjacent to Richmond Village Green Playground and advice available to the Board in preparation of its further submission to the Proposed Christchurch Replacement District Plan.
Clause 9 continued (Part C) of these minutes records the Board’s decision on the adoption of the Terms of Reference for the Sumner Community Facility Joint Working Group. 31 COUNCIL 11. 12. 2014 Hagley/Ferrymead Community Board 5. 11. 2014
10. QUESTIONS UNDER STANDING ORDERS
Nil.
11. ELECTED MEMBERS’ INFORMATION EXCHANGE
Board members were advised of information regarding the Redcliffs Pavillion and that the Board would be briefed on this at its meeting on 19 November 2014.
PART C – REPORT ON DELEGATED DECISIONS TAKEN BY THE BOARD
9. COMMUNITY BOARD ADVISER’S UPDATE CONTINUED
9.1 SUMNER COMMUNITY FACILITY – TERMS OF REFERENCE FOR THE JOINT WORKING GROUP
The Board discussed the previously circulated draft Terms of Reference for the Joint Working Group for the Sumner Community Facility.
The Board resolved to adopt the Terms of Reference for the Joint Working Group for the Sumner Community Facility.
The Board noted that the Sumner Community Facility will include a library, community centre and museum.
12. CONFIRMATION OF MEETING MINUTES – 15 OCTOBER 2014
It was resolved, that the minutes of the Hagley/Ferrymead Community Board ordinary meeting, open and public excluded, of 15 October 2014 be confirmed.
13. APPLICATION TO THE HAGLEY/FERRYMEAD COMMUNITY BOARD 2014/15 DISCRETIONARY RESPONSE FUND – RAWHITI COMMUNITY SPORTS INC
The Board considered a report seeking approval for an application from Rawhiti Community Sports Inc for funding from its Discretionary Response Fund towards the RCSI $1 Pool at Linwood Avenue School.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
It is recommended that the Hagley/Ferrymead Community Board approve a a grant of $20,000 from its 2014/15 Discretionary Response Fund to Rawhiti Community Sports Inc towards the RCSI $1 Pool at Linwood Avenue School for operational costs.
BOARD CONSIDERATION
The Board received additional information from staff on the project and the Woolston Pool Amateur Swimming Club (WPASC) Swimming Advancement Fund.
BOARD DECISION
The Board resolved to approve grants to Rawhiti Community Sports Inc towards the RCSI $1 Pool at Linwood Avenue School for operational costs as below:
13.1 $5,000 from the Woolston Pool Amateur Swimming Club Swimming Advancement Fund.
13.2 $15,000 from the Hagley/Ferrymead Community Board 2014/15 Discretionary Response Fund. 32 COUNCIL 11. 12. 2014 Hagley/Ferrymead Community Board 5. 11. 2014
14. APPLICATION TO THE HAGLEY/FERRYMEAD COMMUNITY BOARD 2014/15 DISCRETIONARY RESPONSE FUND – MT PLEASANT PRIMARY SCHOOL
This application was withdrawn.
15. APPLICATION TO THE HAGLEY/FERRYMEAD COMMUNITY BOARD 2014/15 YOUTH DEVELOPMENT FUND – RACHEL HICKLING
The Board considered a report seeking approval for funding from its Discretionary Response Fund for the amount of $400 to Rachel Hickling.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
It is recommended that the Hagley/Ferrymead Community Board makes a grant of $400 from the Hagley/Ferrymead Community Board 2014/15 Youth Development Scheme to Rachel Hickling to participate in a student exchange to Germany.
BOARD DECISION
The Board resolved to make a grant of $500 from the Hagley/Ferrymead Community Board 2014/15 Youth Development Scheme to Rachel Hickling to participate in a student exchange to Germany.
16. RESOLUTION TO BE PASSED – SUPPLEMENTARY REPORT
The Board resolved to adopt the recommendation set out on Page 67 of the Supplementary Agenda that the following report be received and considered at the meeting of the Hagley/Ferrymead Community Board on Wednesday 5 November 2014:
Moohouse Avenue U-Turn Prohibition.
17. RESOLUTION TO EXCLUDE THE PUBLIC
The Board resolved that the public be excluded from the following part of the meeting, namely item 18.
The public were excluded from the meeting at 5.23pm.
The open section of the meeting resumed at 6.13pm.
18. FACILITIES REBUILD PLAN: REBUILD OF HEATHCOTE COMMUNITY CENTRE
The Board considered a report on the Facilities Rebuild Plan rebuild of the Heathcote Community Centre in public excluded meeting. The decisions on this matter were released into public meeting.
The Board resolved:
18.1 That the Board’s decision regarding the location of the facility, the outcome of the purchase of the Fusion Homes Building and the decisions from this meeting be released from public excluded.
18.2 That the Board support a request for proposal for the Heathcote Community Centre being developed to be referred to the Contractor Panel and request:
18.2.1 That Council staff and the Board liaison meet with the community to advise them of the agreed process. 33 COUNCIL 11. 12. 2014 Hagley/Ferrymead Community Board 5. 11. 2014
18 Cont’d
18.2.2 That the proposals received will be short listed by staff and then discussed with the Board and the community prior to being reported to the Board for final decision by March 2015.
(Note: Sara Templeton declared an interest in this item, relinquished the Chair and left the room. Islay McLeod assumed the Chair for consideration of this item.)
The Board Chairperson declared the meeting closed at 6.44pm.
CONFIRMED THIS 19TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2014
SARA TEMPLETON CHAIRPERSON 34 35 COUNCIL 11. 12. 2014 Clause 10 Hagley/Ferrymead Community Board 19. 11. 2014
HAGLEY/FERRYMEAD COMMUNITY BOARD 19 NOVEMBER 2014
Report of a meeting of the Hagley/Ferrymead Community Board held on Wednesday 19 November 2014 at 3.30pm in the Boardroom, 180 Smith Street, Linwood, Christchurch.
PRESENT: Sara Templeton (Chairperson), Alexandra Davids, Yani Johanson, Paul Lonsdale and Islay McLeod.
APOLOGIES: An apology for absence was received and accepted from Joe Davies.
The Board meeting adjourned from 5.03pm and resumed at 5.13pm.
The Board reports that:
PART A - MATTERS REQUIRING A COUNCIL DECISION
1. MOUNT PLEASANT SCHOOL – 40 KILOMETRES PER HOUR SPEED ZONE
Contact Contact Details Executive Leadership Team General Manager, Community N Member responsible: Services Group Officer responsible: Unit Manager, Transport and City N Streets Author: Michael Thomson, Senior Traffic Y DDI 941 8950 Engineer
1. PURPOSE AND ORIGIN OF REPORT
1.1 This reports seeks the Council’s approval of a new variable speed limit (40 kilometres per hour school speed zone) on Major Hornbrook Road, Cannon Hill Crescent, Freeman Street, Billys Track and Mt Pleasant Road at, or adjacent to Mt Pleasant School (refer Attachment 1), and that the Council include it in the Christchurch City Council Register of Speed Limits.
1.2 This is a staff initiated report, in response to the Mt Pleasant school community requests and this site becoming top priority on the Council’s approved school zone implementation priority list.
2. BACKGROUND
2.1 The Council has a commitment to improve road safety. Reducing excessive vehicle speeds, where appropriate, outside schools during peak arrival and departure periods improves safety for children. The Council has a programme of installing 40 kilometres per hour variable speed limits (known as ‘School Speed Zones’) outside schools according to a prioritisation process. This process, including the methodology behind it, was endorsed on 25 August 2011 by the Council as the most appropriate method of improving road safety outside certain schools, where no other traffic control device(s) are practical or feasible.
2.2 For some time, the Mt Pleasant school community have raised concerns about the traffic environment around the school and the consequential road safety implications resulting for children on their way to and from school. 36 COUNCIL 11. 12. 2014 Hagley/Ferrymead Community Board 19. 11. 2014
1 Cont’d
2.3 At the time these concerns were raised with the Council (both with staff and elected members), a 40 kilometres per hour school zone was high on the priority list – a list for over 150 schools with nearly 300 frontage roads. While it was high on the list, other school frontages were higher and have been implemented each financial year.
2.4 There are a number of roads surrounding the school on which children need to cross, walk along or cycle along as part of their journey to and from school. These roads are: Major Hornbrook Road, Cannon Hill Crescent, Freeman Street, Billys Track and Mt Pleasant Road (in the vicinity of Billys Track).
2.5 Staff involved with the design and implementation of school speed zones have being doing so since “day one” of the approval of the zones as legal traffic control device. This experience highlighted an issue for staff for the upcoming Mt Pleasant school zone, based on experience with the Cashmere Primary school zone. This issue was in relation to the topography and problems with communication between the zone controller and each electronic sign. The effect of this was to install electronic signage on the roads where school children travel activity is occurring was technically difficult and extremely expensive.
2.6 This issue has recently been resolved, with the development of new school zone equipment and software. The situation now is that each electronic sign communicates via GPS and the internet to a desktop computer with pre programmed school days and travel times (for time of operation).
2.7 The combination of new technology and a new financial year where Mt Pleasant School is now top of the priority list means that this zone can be installed subject to the Council’s approval.
3. COMMENT
3.1 The proposed variable speed limit complies with the conditions specified and published by the Director of the New Zealand Transport Agency in the New Zealand Gazette (21/4/2011, No. 55, p. 1284) approving a variable speed limit of 40 kilometres per hour in school zones, and setting out conditions for those speed limits. A copy of that notice is attached (refer Attachment 2). A Council resolution is required to implement the speed limit restrictions and any traffic management changes required. The School Speed zone complies with The Land Transport Rule: Setting of Speed Limits 2003, The Land Transport Rule: Traffic Control Devices 2004, and the Christchurch City Council Speed Limits Bylaw 2010.
3.2 This project aligns with the Christchurch Transport Strategic Plan 2012-2042.
3.3 Before the Council can set a variable speed limit pursuant to Clause 5(1) of the Christchurch City Speed Limits Bylaw 2010, the public consultation requirements set out in Section 7.1 of the Land Transport Rule Setting of Speed Limits 2003 Rule 54001 must be complied with. Section 7.1(2) provides that the persons who must be consulted before the Council sets a speed limit are:
3.3.1 Road controlling authorities that are responsible for roads that join, or are near, the road on which the speed limit is to be set or changed;
3.3.2 A territorial authority that is affected by the existing or proposed speed limit;
3.3.3 Any local community that the road controlling authority considers to be affected by the proposed speed limit;
3.3.4 The Commissioner of Police; 37 COUNCIL 11. 12. 2014 Hagley/Ferrymead Community Board 19. 11. 2014
1 Cont’d
3.3.5 The Chief Executive Officer of the New Zealand Automobile Association Incorporated;
3.3.6 The Chief Executive Officer of the Road Transport Forum New Zealand;
3.3.7 Other organisations or road user groups that the road controlling authority considers to be affected by the proposed speed limit; and
3.3.8 The Director of Land Transport New Zealand now the New Zealand Transport Agency (NZTA).
3.4 Section 7.1(3) of the Rule provides:
3.4.1 A road controlling authority must consult by writing to the persons in 7.1(2) advising them of the proposed speed limit and giving them a reasonable time, which must be specified in the letter, to make submissions on the proposal. In terms of Section 7.1(2)(a) and 7.1(2)(b) there are no road controlling authorities or territorial authorities that are required to be consulted in respect of any of the proposed variable speed limits.
3.5 Representatives of the Commissioner of Police, the Director of NZTA, the Chief Executive Officer of the New Zealand Automobile Association Incorporated, and the Chief Executive Officer of the Road Transport Forum of New Zealand have received written advice of the proposed new variable speed limit in accordance with Section 7.1(2) (d), (e), (f) and (h). No other organisation or road user group is considered to be affected by the proposed speed limits. No neighbouring road controlling authority is affected.
3.6 A spokesperson for the New Zealand Transport Agency noted that the requirements of the warrant as set out in Traffic Note 37 Section 4 have been met (the school exceeds the requirement of 50 children crossing the road or entering a vehicle, and has traffic speeds above the requirements and/or are on a main traffic route).
Consultation Fulfilment
3.7 The publicity leaflet, with consultation plan, was distributed to the community and stakeholders for consultation on 5 September 2014. The feedback period closed on 26 September 2014. Approximately 200 pamphlets were distributed to businesses, residents, and property owners. Five submissions were received. Two submissions generally supported the proposal; one made no comment and two generally did not support the proposal.
3.8 Feedback relevant to the proposal was:
Extra Speed Zone signage:
3.8.1 Once the parked cars have departed, vehicles heading downhill on Cannon Hill Crescent accelerate once past the road narrowing by the rear school entrance, adjacent to 279 Cannon Hill Crescent. An extra school zone speed limit sign should be installed between the narrowing and the corner (adjacent 281 Cannon Hill) to provide reinforcement that the vehicles should still be travelling at a reduced speed. A similar argument could probably be made on Major Hornbrook Road due to the distance between the School Entrance and the Zone End signs. Speeding vehicles pose a continual risk to residents safely exiting their properties by the school. This is particularly the case during school pick-up and drop-off due to the cars parking alongside the playing fields and round the corner to 300 Cannon Hill Crescent. If an additional repeater sign was incorporated into the design it would raise awareness and lessen speed at other times of the day.
38 COUNCIL 11. 12. 2014 Hagley/Ferrymead Community Board 19. 11. 2014
1 Cont’d
Staff Response:
3.8.2 Sign positions are in line with the guidelines for school speed zones. Measurement of vehicle speeds at the two school frontages (generally midway within the school speed zone) are within the 40 kilometres per hour limit. Motorist’s speeds within the zone will be monitored once installed.
School Zone should be 30 kilometres per hour
3.8.3 Thirty kilometres per hour speed signs would be more appropriate around the school at the moment and a permanent 40 kilometres per hour anywhere else on the hill. With narrow roads, parking often on both sides of the roads, contractor trucks and equipment, it’s a nightmare for kids walking to school, especially Cannon Hill/Michael Avenue/Freeman/Major Hornbrook by Billy’s Track. There is a very good speed sign on Centaurus Road that lets you know your speed and thanks you for slowing down by way of a smiley face – would it be possible to have a sign like that positioned just about the school and have it set at 30 kilometres; it’s a nightmare around school drop off/pick up times and an accident waiting to happen, especially when buses are on the hill at the same time.
Staff Response:
3.8.4 The setting of any speed limit, including variable speed limits (school speed zones) is subject to New Zealand legislation. This legislation only allows for a 40 kilometres per hour school speed zone, within an urban area.
3.9 Each submitter that gave their contact details has received an acknowledgement that their submission has been received and later a second letter was sent giving the outcome of consultation, a summary of the feedback and advised that a report would be presented to this meeting of the Hagley/Ferrymead Community Board requesting their approval to install the School Speed Zone. Details of the Board meeting were also provided so that any interested residents could attend or address the Board prior to a decision being made.
4. FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS
4.1 The pre installation estimate for this zone based on supply and installation quotes, design, supervision and management costs, is $75,000. This is to be funded from the School Speed zone signs budget in the current LTP year.
5. STAFF RECOMMENDATION
That the Council:
5.1 Approve the installation of a 40 kilometres per hour variable speed limit on Major Hornbrook Road, Cannon Hill Crescent, Freeman Street, Billys Track and Mt Pleasant Road (school zone), as it meets the requirements of Section 7.1 of the Land Transport Setting of Speed Limits Rule 2003, and the New Zealand Gazette notice (21/04/2011, Number 55, page 1284) including the times of operation.
5.2 Approve that, subject to the Council approving recommendation 5.1, pursuant to Clause 5(1) of the Christchurch City Speed Limits Bylaw 2010, a variable speed limit (40 kilometres per hour School Speed zone) apply on:
5.2.1 Major Hornbrook Road, commencing at a point 33 metres south of the Freeman Street intersection and extending in a northerly (downhill) direction for a distance of 358 metres. 39 COUNCIL 11. 12. 2014 Hagley/Ferrymead Community Board 19. 11. 2014
1 Cont’d
5.2.2 Cannon Hill Crescent, commencing at a point 70 metres south of the Freeman Street intersection and extending in a northerly (downhill) direction for a distance of 342 metres.
5.2.3 Freeman Street, the entire length of this road (i.e. between Cannon Hill Crescent and Major Hornbrook Road).
5.2.4 Billys Track, the entire length of this road (i.e. between Major Hornbrook Road and Mt Pleasant Road).
5.2.5 Mt Pleasant Road commencing at a point 118 metres south of the Billys Track intersection and extending in a northerly ( downhill) direction for a distance of 273 metres.
5.3 Approve that subject to the Council approving recommendation 5.1, that the above mentioned variable speed limit shall come into force on completion of infrastructure installation and public notification.
6. BOARD RECOMMENDATION
That the staff recommendation be adopted.
PART B - REPORTS FOR INFORMATION
2. DECLARATION OF INTEREST
There were no declarations of interest.
3. DEPUTATIONS BY APPOINTMENT
3.1 JOHN ROBINSON AND PHIL KEEGAN, LINWOOD MEN’S RESEARCH PROJECT
John Robinson, from the Linwood Resource Centre and Phil Keegan presented a deputation to the Board regarding the Linwood Men’s Research Project.
The Board received a copy of the Linwood Men’s Research Project report presenting information on how men in Linwood view, interact and give service to the community and their needs. John Robinson acknowledged the supporters and contributors to the project, presented the six recommendations and outlined the local ideas and local action via the Linwood Resource Centre.
The Board Chairperson thanked John Robinson and Phil Keegan for the deputation.
3.2 STEVE BUSH AND TIM JENKINS, TREES FOR CANTERBURY
Steve Bush, Trees for Canterbury and Tim Jenkins Chairperson of the Green Effect Trust from Trees for Canterbury presented a deputation on the Board regarding the report on Request for New Deed of Lease – The Green Effect Trust considered as Clause 12 of these minutes.
The Board was advised of the background to the Trust and concerns regarding the proposed lease being at market rental. The deputation advised the Trust is a registered charity, providing trees to the community and commercially and work placements.
The Board Chairperson thanked Steve Bush and Tim Jenkins for the deputation. 40 COUNCIL 11. 12. 2014 Hagley/Ferrymead Community Board 19. 11. 2014
3 Cont’d
3.3 DEREK MCCULLOUGH AND LINDA RUTLAND, MOUNT PLEASANT MEMORIAL CENTRE AND RESIDENTS’ ASSOCIATION INCORPORATED
Derek McCullough, President and Linda Rutland, Coordinator of the Mount Pleasant Memorial Community Centre & Residents’ Association Incorporated gave a deputation and presentation on the Rebuilding of the Mount Pleasant War Memorial Community Centre, related to the report Deed of Surrender and Deed of Lease considered as Clause 13 of these minutes.
The Board was advised of the issues facing the community in signing the proposed lease, the history of the War Memorial Community Centre and requested to support the resolution of these matters. The deputation detailed the Association’s challenges with the proposed new lease for including the Entire Agreement clause and the new additional charges. The Board was requested to convene a meeting of relevant staff, elected members and Association representations to work through the challenges and the current lease only be surrendered upon the successful negotiation of a new lease, and that the re-establishment of the building be allowed to commence in the meantime.
The Board Chairperson thanked Derek McCullough and Linda Rutland for the deputation.
3.4 SAM FISHER AND GRANT MCIVER, THE TANNERY
Sam Fisher and Grant McIver from The Tannery presented a deputation and supporting information regarding bus stops in the vicinity of The Tannery included in the report Proposed Bus Stops Resulting From Metro Review considered as Clause 14 of these minutes.
The Board was advised of concerns with the changes to the bus routes, the effect this would have on staff and customers and increase in private parking in the area. The deputation sought the support of the Board for installation of a bus shelter at the new bus stop on Tanner Street, requested retention of the decommissioned bus stops in the vicinity of The Tannery and that the stop on Garlands Road become designated a coach and taxi stand.
The Board Chairperson thanked Sam Fisher and Grant McIver for the deputation.
3.5 ANDREW O’DELL
Andrew O’Dell, Hereford Street property owner, presented a deputation and supporting information regarding the proposed installation of a bus stop outside 265 Hereford Street for route 60, included in the report Proposed Bus Stops Resulting From Metro Review considered as Clause 14 of these minutes.
The Board was advised of concerns with the proposed placement of the bus stop on Hereford Street, outside residential units and opposite a community support facility, and the impact this may have on resident safety, customer safety and car parking. The deputation referred to the Council’s Bus Stop Location policy, suggested alternative locations for the stop and raised concerns on the consultation undertaken on the proposal.
The Board Chairperson thanked Andrew O’Dell for the deputation.
3.6 VIRGINIA IRVINE
Virginia Irvine, Hereford Street resident, presented a deputation and supporting information regarding the proposed installation of a bus stop outside 265 Hereford Street for route 60, included in the report Proposed Bus Stops Resulting Metro From Review considered as Clause 14 of these minutes. 41 COUNCIL 11. 12. 2014 Hagley/Ferrymead Community Board 19. 11. 2014
3 Cont’d
The Board was advised of concerns in placing the bus stop in the proposed location, of the inconvenience of the location, parking concerns and that anti-social behaviour of people accessing the community support facility opposite could potentially make waiting at this bus stop dangerous. The deputation suggested an alternative location for the stop and raised concerns on the consultation undertaken on the proposal.
The Board Chairperson thanked Virginia Irvine for the deputation.
3.7 PHILIP HAYTHORNTHWAITE - DISABLED PERSONS ASSEMBLY – CHRISTCHURCH AND DISTRICTS
Philip Haythornthwaite, President of the Disabled Persons Assembly – Christchurch and Districts, presented a deputation to the Board regarding the report Proposed Bus Stops Resulting From Metro Review considered as Clause 14 of these minutes.
The Board was advised of concerns regarding the disabled community and bus stops, the need for marked bus stops, bus shelters for protection in wet weather and the requirements under section 21 of the Humans Rights Act in relation to this matter. The deputation sought the installation of bus shelters on Worcester Street, as resolved in the past term of the Board, and that redundant kerb side cut downs be reinstated as infrastructure repairs are undertaken.
The Board Chairperson thanked Philip Haythornthwaite for the deputation.
3.8 JOHN MILLER
The deputation from John Miller did not take place.
4. PRESENTATION OF PETITIONS
Nil.
5. NOTICES OF MOTION
Nil.
6. CORRESPONDENCE
Nil.
7. BRIEFINGS
7.1 GRANT MACLEOD - REDCLIFFS PARK BUILDING
The Board received a briefing from Grant MacLeod, Senior Advisor Capital Programme – Parks and Facilities, on the Redcliffs Park Building.
The Board was advised of three possible repair options for the Council owned building, the foundations of which were damaged in the earthquake and that there is no current budget allocation for repairs. As several groups have shown interest in using the building an Expression of Interest (EOI) process would be required, investigation into remediation and any group would need to undertake some responsibilities in using it. .
The Board decided to arrange a meeting with Council staff, Board members and groups who have expressed an interest in using the building to discuss opportunities for repair, funding and future use. 42 COUNCIL 11. 12. 2014 Hagley/Ferrymead Community Board 19. 11. 2014
8. COMMUNITY BOARD ADVISER’S UPDATE
The Board received an update from the Community Board Adviser on Board related matters including the following:
Upcoming Board commitments and current Council consultations.
That the Hearing on the Proposed Christchurch Replacement District Plan, Chapter 3 and Chapter 1: 9 Strategic Outcomes would commence on 2 December 2014.
The request from the Christchurch West Melton Zone Committee for one representative from the Hagley/Ferrymead, Riccarton/Wigram and Spreydon/Heathcote Community Boards to be appointed to the Healthcote/Opawaho Working Group.
9. QUESTIONS UNDER STANDING ORDERS
Nil.
10. ELECTED MEMBERS’ INFORMATION EXCHANGE
Board members discussed matters relating to road conditions, parking issues and removal of trees as a result of development and infrastructure repairs throughout the ward.
The Board was updated regarding progress with the Scarborough Paddling Pool, the opening and naming of the facility.
PART C – REPORT ON DELEGATED DECISIONS TAKEN BY THE BOARD
11. CONFIRMATION OF MEETING MINUTES – 5 NOVEMBER 2014
The Board resolved that the minutes of the Hagley/Ferrymead Community Board meeting of 5 November 2014, open and public excluded, be confirmed.
12. REQUEST FOR NEW DEED OF LEASE – THE GREEN EFFECT TRUST
The Board considered a report seeking the approval of a new lease to The Green Effect Trust over part of 54 Charlesworth Reserve.
The Board received a deputation on this matter, Clause 3.2 of these minutes refers.
The Board discussed the contributions The Green Effect Trust and Trees for Canterbury provide to the community and that that the recommended contract rental should be reduced for part of the lease term and reviewed in three years.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
It is recommended that the Hagley/Ferrymead Community Board acting under the delegated authority of the Council resolve to:
12.1 Approve the granting of a new lease agreement to The Green Effect Trust, for a period of up to 10 years, over an area of approximately 1.5 hectares contained within 54 Charlesworth Street. 43 COUNCIL 11. 12. 2014 Hagley/Ferrymead Community Board 19. 11. 2014
12 Cont’d
12.2 Approve the contract rental being set at a market rate in accordance with Option One, as detailed in clause 4.1 of this report.
12.3 Authorise the Property Consultancy Manager to negotiate, conclude and administer all further terms and conditions of the lease agreement.
BOARD DECISION
The Board resolved to:
12.1 Approve the granting of a new lease agreement to The Green Effect Trust, for a period of up to 10 years, over an area of approximately 1.5 hectares contained within 54 Charlesworth Street.
12.2 Approve the contract rental being set at a rental of $5,000 per annum to be reviewed after three years and reported to the Board for decision.
12.3 Authorise the Property Consultancy Manager to negotiate, conclude and administer all further terms and conditions of the lease agreement.
13. DEED OF SURRERENDER AND DEED OF LEASE – MOUNT PLEASANT COMMUNITY CENTRE AND RATEPAYERS ASSOCIATION INCORPORATED CONTINUED
The Board considered a report regarding the lease to the Mount Pleasant Memorial Community Centre and Residents’ Association Incorporated, seeking recommendation to the Council that the current lease be surrendered, the plans for the new community centre be approved and a new deed of lease for the building of the new community centre and squash court granted. Staff provided additional advice regarding the current lease.
The Board received a deputation on this matter, Clause 3.3 of these minutes refers.
The Board discussed the staff recommendations, the matters raised by the Mount Pleasant Memorial Community Centre and Resident’s Association and the request to convene a meeting to discuss a new lease before surrendering the current lease.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
It is recommended that the Hagley/Ferrymead Community Board:
13.1 Recommend to the Council that the lease dated 6 April 2001 between the Mount Pleasant Community Centre and Ratepayers Association Incorporated and the Christchurch City and having a final expiry of 30 June 2019, be surrendered in order to grant a new lease;
and subject to 13.1:
13.2 Approve the design of the proposed rebuild of the Mount Pleasant Community Centre acknowledging that minor changes may be made to the landscaping plans.
13.3 Grant a new Deed of Lease to the Mount Pleasant Memorial Community Centre & Residents’ Association Incorporated over part of the land described as being approximately 6,184 square metres being Section 1 on SO 20183 and part of the land described in Certificate of Title 4B/1500 as local purpose (community buildings) reserve for a period of 33 years with a further right of renewal for 33 years once the former lease is surrendered.
13.4 Authorise the Property Consultancy Manager to negotiate, administer and conclude the terms and conditions of the lease agreement. 44 COUNCIL 11. 12. 2014 Hagley/Ferrymead Community Board 19. 11. 2014
13 Cont’d
BOARD DECISION
The Board resolved to:
13.1 Approve the design of the proposed rebuild of the Mount Pleasant Community Centre acknowledging that minor changes may be made to the landscaping plans.
13.2 Convene a meeting of relevant staff, elected representatives and representatives of the Mount Pleasant Memorial Community Centre & Residents’ Association Incorporated, to be reported back to the Board by March 2015, to discuss the matters raised with a view to a lease being developed to represent the war memorial status and maintenance issues.
14. PROPOSED BUS STOPS RESULTING FROM METRO REVIEW
The Board considered a report seeking its approval to install eleven new bus stops in its ward due to the recent Metro Review carried out by Environment Canterbury.
The Board received four deputations on this matter, Clauses 3.4, 3.5, 3.6 and 3.7 refer.
Following consideration of the deputations and staff advice, the Board supported the staff recommendations for all but one of the proposed bus stops and staff undertook to investigate the placement of the bus stop proposed to be installed outside 265 Hereford Street.
The Board decided to request staff work with The Tannery on opportunities for installation of a bus shelter at the bus stop adjacent to The Tannery.
The Board decided that the Board Chairperson write to the Chief Executive to express the Board’s concerns regarding consultation on the proposed bus stops resulting from the metro review. Noting the age of the aerial photography used in the report.
The Board noted concerns raised by the Disabled Persons Assembly regarding redundant kerb side cut downs and record its support that full kerb and channel be reinstated when infrastructure repair is undertaken.
The Board resolved to:
Bromley Road Stops
14.1 Revoke any existing parking restrictions on the south western side of Bromley Road commencing at a point 90 metres south east of its intersection with Raymond Road and extending in a south easterly direction for a distance of 26 metres.
14.2 Approve that the stopping of vehicles be prohibited at any time on the south western side of Bromley Road commencing at a point 90 metres south east of its intersection with Raymond Road and extending in a south easterly direction for a distance of four metres.
14.3 Approve that a marked bus stop be installed on the south western side of Bromley Road commencing at a point 94 metres south east of its intersection with Raymond Road and extending in a south easterly direction for a distance of 14 metres.
14.4 Approve that the stopping of vehicles be prohibited at any time on the south western side of Bromley Road commencing at a point 108 metres south east of its intersection with Raymond Road and extending in a south easterly direction for a distance of eight metres.
14.5 Revoke any existing parking restrictions on the north eastern side of Bromley Road commencing at a point 114 metres south east of its intersection with Raymond Road and extending in a south easterly direction for a distance of 26 metres. 45 COUNCIL 11. 12. 2014 Hagley/Ferrymead Community Board 19. 11. 2014
14 Cont’d
14.6 Approve that the stopping of vehicles be prohibited at any time on the north eastern side of Bromley Road commencing at a point 114 metres south east of its intersection with Raymond Road and extending in a south easterly direction for a distance of eight metres.
14.7 Approve that a marked bus stop be installed on the north eastern side of Bromley Road commencing at a point 122 metres south east of its intersection with Raymond Road and extending in a south easterly direction for a distance of 14 metres.
14.8 Approve that the stopping of vehicles be prohibited at any time on the north eastern side of Bromley Road commencing at a point 136 metres south east of its intersection with Raymond Road and extending in a south easterly direction for a distance of four metres.
Maces Road Stops
14.9 Revoke any existing parking restrictions on the south eastern side of Maces Road commencing at a point 116 metres north east of its intersection with Wickham Street and extending in a north easterly direction for a distance of 26 metres.
14.10 Approve that the stopping of vehicles be prohibited at any time on the south eastern side of Maces Road commencing at a point 116 metres north east of its intersection with Wickham Street and extending in a north easterly direction for a distance of four metres.
14.11 Approve that a marked bus stop be installed on the south eastern side of Maces Road commencing at a point 120 metres north east of its intersection with Wickham Street and extending in a north easterly direction for a distance of 14 metres.
14.12 Approve that the stopping of vehicles be prohibited at any time on the south eastern side of Maces Road commencing at a point 134 metres north east of its intersection with Wickham Street and extending in a north easterly direction for a distance of eight metres.
14.13 Revoke any existing parking restrictions on the north western side of Maces Road commencing at a point 270 metres south west of its intersection with Ruru Road and extending in a south westerly direction for a distance of 26 metres.
14.14 Approve that the stopping of vehicles be prohibited at any time on the north western side of Maces Road commencing at a point 270 metres south west of its intersection with Ruru Road and extending in a south westerly direction for a distance of four metres.
14.15 Approve that a marked bus stop be installed on the north western side of Maces Road commencing at a point 274 metres south west of its intersection with Ruru Road and extending in a south westerly direction for a distance of 14 metres.
14.16 Approve that the stopping of vehicles be prohibited at any time on the north western side of Maces Road commencing at a point 288 metres south west of its intersection with Ruru Road and extending in a south westerly direction for a distance of eight metres.
Ruru Road Stops
14.17 Revoke any existing parking restrictions on the south western side of Ruru Road commencing at a point 78 metres south east of its intersection with Hay Street and extending in a south easterly direction for a distance of 26 metres.
14.18 Approve that the stopping of vehicles be prohibited at any time on the south western side of Ruru Road commencing at a point 78 metres south east of its intersection with Hay Street and extending in a south easterly direction for a distance of four metres. 46 COUNCIL 11. 12. 2014 Hagley/Ferrymead Community Board 19. 11. 2014
14 Cont’d
14.19 Approve that a marked bus stop be installed on the south western side of Ruru Road commencing at a point 82 metres south east of its intersection with Hay Street and extending in a south easterly direction for a distance of 14 metres.
14.20 Approve that the stopping of vehicles be prohibited at any time on the south western side of Ruru Road commencing at a point 96 metres south east of its intersection with Hay Street and extending in a south easterly direction for a distance of eight metres.
14.21 Revoke any existing parking restrictions on the north eastern side of Ruru Road commencing at a point 324 metres north west of its intersection with Maces Road and extending in a north westerly direction for a distance of 26 metres.
14.22 Approve that the stopping of vehicles be prohibited at any time on the north eastern side of Ruru Road commencing at a point 324 metres north west of its intersection with Maces Road and extending in a north westerly direction for a distance of four metres.
14.23 Approve that a marked bus stop be installed on the north eastern side of Ruru Road commencing at a point 328 metres north west of its intersection with Maces Road and extending in a north westerly direction for a distance of 14 metres.
14.24 Approve that the stopping of vehicles be prohibited at any time on the north eastern side of Ruru Road commencing at a point 342 metres north west of its intersection with Maces Road and extending in a north westerly direction for a distance of eight metres.
Tanner Street Stops
14.25 Revoke any existing parking restrictions on the eastern side of Tanner Street commencing at a point 52 metres north of its intersection with Maunsell Street and extending in a northerly direction for a distance of 26 metres.
14.26 Approve that the stopping of vehicles be prohibited at any time on the eastern side of Tanner Street commencing at a point 52 metres north of its intersection with Maunsell Street and extending in a northerly direction for a distance of four metres.
14.27 Approve that a marked bus stop be installed on the eastern side of Tanner Street commencing at a point 56 metres north of its intersection with Maunsell Street and extending in a northerly direction for a distance of 14 metres.
14.28 Approve that the stopping of vehicles be prohibited at any time on the eastern side of Tanner Street commencing at a point 70 metres north of its intersection with Maunsell Street and extending in a northerly direction for a distance of eight metres.
14.29 Revoke any existing parking restrictions on the western side of Tanner Street commencing at a point 21 metres north of its intersection with Maunsell Street and extending in a northerly direction for a distance of 26 metres.
14.30 Approve that the stopping of vehicles be prohibited at any time on the western side of Tanner Street commencing at a point 21 metres north of its intersection with Maunsell Street and extending in a northerly direction for a distance of eight metres.
14.31 Approve that a marked bus stop be installed the on the western side of Tanner Street commencing at a point 29 metres north of its intersection with Maunsell Street and extending in a northerly direction for a distance of 14 metres.
14.32 Approve that the stopping of vehicles be prohibited at any time on the western side of Tanner Street commencing at a point 43 metres north of its intersection with Maunsell Street and extending in a northerly direction for a distance of four metres. 47 COUNCIL 11. 12. 2014 Hagley/Ferrymead Community Board 19. 11. 2014
14 Cont’d
Hereford Street / Barbadoes Street Stops
14.33 Revoke any existing parking restrictions on the southern side of Hereford Street commencing at a point 28 metres west of its intersection with Barbadoes Street and extending in a westerly direction for a distance of 26 metres.
14.34 Approve that the stopping of vehicles be prohibited at any time on the southern side of Hereford Street commencing at a point 28 metres west of its intersection with Barbadoes Street and extending in a westerly direction for a distance of eight metres.
14.35 Approve that a marked bus stop be installed the on the southern side of Hereford Street commencing at a point 36 metres west of its intersection with Barbadoes Street and extending in a westerly direction for a distance of 14 metres.
14.36 Approve that the stopping of vehicles be prohibited at any time on the southern side of Hereford Street commencing at a point 50 metres west of its intersection with Barbadoes Street and extending in a westerly direction for a distance of four metres.
Hereford Street / Fitzgerald Avenue Stops
14.41 Revoke any existing parking restrictions on the southern side of Hereford Street commencing at its intersection with Fitzgerald Avenue and extending in a westerly direction for a distance of 33 metres.
14.42 Approve that the stopping of vehicles be prohibited at any time on the southern side of Hereford Street commencing at its intersection with Fitzgerald Avenue and extending in a westerly direction for a distance of 15 metres.
14.43 Approve that a marked bus stop be installed on the southern side of Hereford Street commencing at a point 15 metres west of its intersection with Fitzgerald Avenue and extending in a westerly direction for a distance of 14 metres.
14.44 Approve that the stopping of vehicles be prohibited at any time on the southern side of Hereford Street commencing at a point 29 metres west of its intersection with Fitzgerald Avenue and extending in a westerly direction for a distance of four metres.
15. RESOLUTION TO EXCLUDE THE PUBLIC
The Board resolved that the public be excluded from the following part of the meeting, namely item 16.
The public were excluded from the meeting at 6.42pm.
The open section of the meeting resumed at 7.03pm.
The Board Chairperson declared the meeting closed at 7.04pm.
CONFIRMED THIS 3RD DAY OF DECEMBER 2014
SARA TEMPLETON CHAIRPERSON 48 49 COUNCIL 11. 12. 2014 Hagley/Ferrymead Community Board 19. 11. 2014
ATTACHMENT 1 TO CLAUSE 1
50 51 COUNCIL 11. 12. 2014 Hagley/Ferrymead Community Board 19. 11. 2014
ATTACHMENT 2 TO CLAUSE 1
52 Clause 11 53 COUNCIL 11. 12. 2014
RICCARTON/WIGRAM COMMUNITY BOARD 4. 11. 2014
Report of a meeting of the Riccarton/Wigram Community Board held on Tuesday 4 November 2014 at 4.03pm in the Community Room, Upper Riccarton Library, 71 Main South Road.
PRESENT: Mike Mora ( Chairperson), Helen Broughton, Natalie Bryden, Peter Laloli and Debbie Mora
APOLOGIES: Apologies for absence were received and accepted from Vicki Buck and Jimmy Chen.
The Board reports that:
PART B - REPORTS FOR INFORMATION
1. DECLARATION OF INTEREST
Nil.
2. DEPUTATIONS BY APPOINTMENT
Nil.
3. PETITIONS
Nil.
4. NOTICES OF MOTION
Nil.
5. CORRESPONDENCE
Correspondence was tabled from Mr G M Bennett regarding flooding issues in North Halswell.
The Board decided:
5.1 That the correspondence from Mr G M Bennett be received.
5.2 That Mr Bennett’s correspondence be circulated to the Mayor, Councillors, and relevant Council staff so as to be read and aligned with their relevant workings of reports, consents and decision making processes in regard to Meadowlands and Henderson’s Basin.
5.3 That the correspondence form part of the staff presentation to the Joint Community Board (Spreydon/Heathcote and Riccarton/Wigram Community Boards) public workshop to be held regarding the North Halswell area.
54 COUNCIL 11. 12. 2014 Riccarton/Wigram Community Board 4. 11. 2014
6. BRIEFINGS
Nil.
7. COMMUNITY BOARD ADVISER’S UPDATE
The Board received information on upcoming Board related activities including a meeting on Monday 1 December 2014 regarding the Representation Review Workshop with local Residents’ Associations.
The Board was advised of the staff connection undertaken with the three Halswell Christmas Carol groups for whom funding support had come from the Board in 2014/15.
For information, the Board was provided with a copy of the Chief Executive’s Community Board Report for October 2014.
Clause 7 continued (Part C) of this report records the Board’s decision to approve retrospectively, at a later meeting, the Board’s cross submissions made on the Proposed Replacement District Plan. The Board also resolved to hold an Extraordinary Meeting on 25 November 2014 regarding the Riccarton Road Passenger Transport project.
8. ELECTED MEMBERS’ INFORMATION EXCHANGE
Mention was made of the following:
Westmorland Residents’ Association Annual General Meeting –inspirational speaker Sedgwick Reserve – start work notice regarding parks maintenance Gilberthorpes Estate Residents’ Association – recent onsite meeting to discuss concerns in relation to the resource consent application for 50 Roberts Road Trees issues – general
9. BOARD MEMBERS’ QUESTIONS UNDER STANDING ORDERS
Nil.
PART C - REPORT ON DELEGATED DECISIONS TAKEN BY THE BOARD
10. CONFIRMATION OF MINUTES – 14 OCTOBER 2014
The Board resolved that the minutes of its ordinary meeting of 14 October 2014, be confirmed subject to the wording amendment (as shown in bold) regarding the Wigram Road/Magdala Place Link project as follows:
1.3.1 Conveys its concerns regarding the safety barrier changes and the dual cycleway and further that the Infrastructure, Transport and Environment Committee recommend that the Council approve the re-positioning of the solid bridge barrier from the inside edge of the raised shared path, to the outside edge of the bridge
7. COMMUNITY BOARD ADVISER’S UPDATE CONTINUED
Further to Clause 7 (Part B) of this report, the Board resolved:
7.1 That the Board’s cross submissions on the Proposed Replacement District Plan be approved retrospectively by the Board at a later meeting. 55 COUNCIL 11. 12. 2014 Riccarton/Wigram Community Board 4. 11. 2014
7. Cont’d
7.2 That an Extraordinary Meeting of the Riccarton/Wigram Community Board be held on Tuesday 25 November 2015 at 5pm in the Board Room, Fendalton Service Centre, Corner Jeffreys and Clyde Roads, to consider the Riccarton Road Passenger Transport project.
The meeting concluded at 4.35pm.
CONFIRMED THIS 18TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2014
MIKE MORA CHAIRPERSON 56 Clause 12 57 COUNCIL 11. 12. 2014
RICCARTON/WIGRAM COMMUNITY BOARD 18. 11. 2014
Report of a meeting of the Riccarton/Wigram Community Board held on Tuesday 18 November 2014 at 4.31pm in the Community Room, Upper Riccarton Library, 71 Main South Road.
PRESENT: Mike Mora (Chairperson), Helen Broughton, Jimmy Chen, Peter Laloli and Debbie Mora
APOLOGIES: Apologies for absences were received and accepted from Vicki Buck and Natalie Bryden
An apology for lateness and early departure was received and accepted from Jimmy Chen who arrived at 4.41pm, departed at 6.31pm and was absent for clauses 2, 9, 10, 11 and part of clauses 3.1 and 8.
The meeting adjourned at 5.49pm and reconvened at 5.52pm.
The Board reports that:
PART A - MATTERS REQUIRING A COUNCIL DECISION
1. WATERLOO ROAD - HORNBY SCHOOLS - VARIABLE SPEED LIMIT
Contact Contact Details Executive Leadership Team General Manager, N Member responsible: Culture, Leisure and Parks Officer responsible: Unit Manager, Transport and City N Streets Author: Michael Thomson, Senior Traffic Y DDI 941 8950 Engineer
1. PURPOSE AND ORIGIN OF REPORT
1.1 The purpose of this report is to present the Riccarton/Wigram Community Board’s recommendation to the Council that it endorse the installation of a new variable speed limit (40 kilometres per hour school speed zone) on Waterloo Road at Hornby Primary School and Hornby High School (refer Attachment 1), and approve the new variable speed limit and include it in the Christchurch City Council Register of Speed Limits.
1.2 This is a staff initiated report as these schools have reached top priority on the Council approved school zone priority process for a 40 kilometres per hour school zone from the Council approved 2014/15 budget.
2. BACKGROUND
2.1 The Council has a commitment to improve road safety. Reducing excessive vehicle speeds, where appropriate, outside schools during peak arrival and departure periods improves safety for children. The Council has a programme of installing 40 kilometres per hour variable speed limits (known as ‘School Speed Zones’) outside schools according to a prioritisation process. This process, including the methodology behind it, was endorsed on 25 August 2011 by the Council as the most appropriate method of improving road safety outside certain schools. 58 COUNCIL 11. 12. 2014 Riccarton/Wigram Community Board 18. 11. 2014
1. Cont’d
2.2 The two adjoining Hornby schools currently have the highest priority for the installation of a variable speed limit. Note: The former Branston Intermediate School has been incorporated into the two schools site, forming the “Hornby School Hub”. To date, 41 schools in Christchurch have benefited from the installation of a school speed zone.
2.3 The effect of the relocation of Branston Intermediate students to the site has been the increase of students needing to cross Waterloo Road. This road experiences a high use by heavy vehicles, particularly truck and trailer units.
2.4 This project aligns with the Christchurch Transport Strategic Plan 2012-2042.
3. COMMENT
3.1 The ‘school speed zone’ can operate on school days for a period of no more than 35 minutes in the morning before the start of school, and for a period of no more than 20 minutes in the afternoon, beginning no earlier than five minutes before the end of school. The ‘school speed zone’ can also operate for a period of 10 minutes at any other time when children cross the road, or enter/leave vehicles at the roadside.
3.2 The Council can resolve to set new variable speed limits in accordance with the Christchurch City Council Speed Limits Bylaw and the Land Transport Rule: Setting of Speed Limits 2003. Accordingly, infrastructure for these variable speed limits cannot be commissioned until they have been formally resolved by the Council.
3.3 The proposed variable speed limit complies with the conditions specified and published by the Director of the New Zealand Transport Agency in the New Zealand Gazette (21/4/2011, No. 55, p. 1284) approving a variable speed limit of 40 kilometres per hour in school zones, and setting out conditions for those speed limits. A copy of that notice is attached (refer Attachment 2). A Council resolution is required to implement the speed limit restrictions and any traffic management changes required.
3.4 The proposed variable speed limit also complies with the Land Transport Rules- Setting of Speed Limits: 2003, Traffic Control Devices: 2004, and the Christchurch City Council Speed Limits Bylaw 2010.
3.5 Before the Council can set a variable speed limit pursuant to Clause 5(1) of the Christchurch City Speed Limits Bylaw 2010, the public consultation requirements set out in Section 7.1 of the Land Transport Rule Setting of Speed Limits 2003 Rule 54001 must be complied with. Section 7.1(2) provides that the persons who must be consulted before the Council sets a speed limit are:
(a) Road controlling authorities that are responsible for roads that join, or are near, the road on which the speed limit is to be set or changed; (b) A territorial authority that is affected by the existing or proposed speed limit; (c) Any local community that the road controlling authority considers to be affected by the proposed speed limit; (d) The Commissioner of Police; (e) The Chief Executive Officer of the New Zealand Automobile Association Incorporated; (f) The Chief Executive Officer of the Road Transport Forum New Zealand; 59 COUNCIL 11. 12. 2014 Riccarton/Wigram Community Board 18. 11. 2014
1. Cont’d
(g) Other organisations or road user groups that the road controlling authority considers to be affected by the proposed speed limit; and (h) The Director of Land Transport New Zealand now the New Zealand Transport Agency (NZTA).
3.6 Section 7.1(3) of the Rule provides: (a) A road controlling authority must consult by writing to the persons in 7.1(2) advising them of the proposed speed limit and giving them a reasonable time, which must be specified in the letter, to make submissions on the proposal. In terms of Section 7.1(2)(a) and 7.1(2)(b) there are no road controlling authorities or territorial authorities that are required to be consulted in respect of any of the proposed variable speed limits.
3.7 Representatives of the Commissioner of Police, the Director of NZTA, the Chief Executive Officer of the New Zealand Automobile Association Incorporated, and the Chief Executive Officer of the Road Transport Forum of New Zealand have received written advice of the proposed new variable speed limit in accordance with Section 7.1(2) (d), (e), (f) and (h). No other organisation or road user group is considered to be affected by the proposed speed limits. No neighbouring road controlling authority is affected.
3.8 The Hornby Primary School’s Board of Trustees endorse the proposed School Speed Zone. The Principal of Hornby High School also supports this proposal.
3.9 A memorandum was sent to the Riccarton/Wigram Community Board on 30 September 2014 advising them that the Council was proposing to consult on a 40 kilometres per hour variable speed limit outside the Hornby Schools.
3.10 The following week notices about the proposed Hornby Schools speed zone were delivered to residents and nearby businesses, and posted to absentee owners whose properties were affected by proposed signage. Information was also circulated within the school community.
3.11 The publicity leaflet, with consultation plan, was distributed to the community and stakeholders for consultation on 10 October 2014. The feedback period closed on 27 October 2014. Approximately 160 pamphlets were distributed to businesses, residents, and property owners. One submission was received from an underground service company saying that there was no conflict with any of their services existing or proposed.
3.12 The submitter has received an acknowledgement of their submission and later a second letter was sent giving the outcome of consultation, a summary of the feedback and advice that a report would be presented to this meeting of the Riccarton/Wigram Community Board requesting their approval to install the School Speed Zone. Details of the Board meeting were also provided advising they could attend or address the Board prior to a decision being made.
4. FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS
4.1 The estimated cost for this school zone is $30,000 and will be funded from an approved fund for School Speed Zones.
60 COUNCIL 11. 12. 2014 Riccarton/Wigram Community Board 18. 11. 2014
1. Cont’d
5. STAFF RECOMMENDATION
That the Riccarton/Wigram Community Board recommend that the Council approve:
5.1 The installation of a 40 kilometres per hour variable speed limit on Waterloo Road (school zone), as it meets the requirements of Section 7.1 of the Land Transport Setting of Speed Limits Rule 2003, and the New Zealand Gazette notice (21/04/2011, Number 55, page 1284) including the times of operation.
5.2 Subject to the Council approving recommendation 5.1 of this report, that pursuant to Clause 5(1) of the Christchurch City Speed Limits Bylaw 2010, a variable speed limit (40 kilometres per hour School Speed zone) apply on Waterloo Road, commencing at a point 87 metres West of the Carmen Road Intersection and extending in a Westerly direction for a distance of 370 metres.
5.3 Subject to the Council approving recommendations 5.1 and 5.2 of this report, that the variable speed limit specified in recommendations 5.1 and 5.2 shall come into force on completion of infrastructure installation and public notification.
6. BOARD RECOMMENDATION
That the staff recommendation be adopted.
61 COUNCIL 11. 12. 2014 Riccarton/Wigram Community Board 18. 11. 2014
ATTACHMENT 1 TO CLAUSE 1
62 COUNCIL 11. 12. 2014 Riccarton/Wigram Community Board 18. 11. 2014
ATTACHMENT 2 TO CLAUSE 1
63 COUNCIL 11. 12. 2014 Riccarton/Wigram Community Board 18. 11. 2014
PART B - REPORTS FOR INFORMATION
2. DECLARATIONS OF INTEREST
Nil.
3. DEPUTATIONS BY APPOINTMENT
3.1 HALSWELL COMMUNITY PROJECT
Chrys Horn and Kate Cleverly, representing the Halswell Community Project, addressed the Board on the current activities and projects being undertaken by the group. The Board was thanked for its recent funding allocation towards supporting the group’s work.
After questions from members, the Chairperson thanked the deputation for their presentation.
3.2 HALSWELL SCHOOL BOARD OF TRUSTEES
Justin Davies, Justin Busbridge and Bryan Pidwerbesky of the Halswell School Board of Trustees, addressed the Board and offered support for the proposed bus stop and parking changes to occur in School Road arising from the current rebuilding and reconfiguration of the school site.
After questions from members, the Chairperson thanked the school representatives for their presentation.
Clause 17 (Part C) of this report records the Board’s decision on this matter.
3.3 SPORT CANTERBURY AND AFFINITY TRUST
Chris Crichton, Sport Canterbury Community Sport Adviser and Matt Meek of the Affinity Trust, presented recreation initiatives and outcomes being delivered in the Riccarton community.
They spoke specifically about the success of the recent Howzat Primary School Competition and detailed the setting up and sponsorship of a Touch Module being run by the Marist Albion Rugby Football Club.
After questions from members, the Chairperson thanked Chris Crichton and Matt Meek for their presentation.
It was agreed that the Board’s appreciation for the sponsorship provided, be conveyed to Harrington’s Breweries and Howzat.
3.4 METRO REVIEW - PROPOSED BUS STOPS
A family representative of the property owner at 15 Light Body Lane in Wigram Skies, addressed the Board and expressed opposition to the proposed bus stop in The Runway adjoining the property.
The Chairperson thanked the family member for addressing the Board.
Clause 18 (Part C) of this report records the Board’s decision on this matter.
4. PETITIONS
Nil. 64 COUNCIL 11. 12. 2014 Riccarton/Wigram Community Board 18. 11. 2014
5. NOTICE OF MOTION
Nil.
6. CORRESPONDENCE
Nil.
7. BRIEFINGS
7.1 LIBRARIES 2025 FACILITIES PLAN REVIEW
Sally Thompson and Dyane Hosler on behalf of the Libraries and Information Unit, briefed the Board in relation to the Council’s decision to refer the review report on this matter be to the Community Boards for consideration.
Mention was made of the new Hornby Library and Service Centre project and it was noted that a briefing on this was to be made to the Board on 2 December 2014.
After questions from members, the Chairperson thanked the staff for their briefing.
The Board decided to receive the Voluntary Library Report and to offer its endorsement of the Libraries 2025 Facilities Plan Review.
8. COMMUNITY BOARD ADVISER’S UPDATE
The Board received:
8.1 Information on upcoming Board related activities including a joint briefing with the Infrastructure, Transport and Environment Committee on 19 November 2014, a Workshop with Local Residents’ Association on Monday 1 December 2014 regarding the Representation Review and the Long Term Plan Pre-Engagement at the Halswell Market on Sunday 23 November 2014.
8.2 A status update regarding its 2014/15 funding.
8.3 A memorandum from staff dated 31 October 2014 regarding Transport Planning in Halswell.
The Board decided to forward a copy of the memorandum to the Halswell Residents’ Association for information.
Clause 8 continued (Part C) records decisions made regarding cross submissions to the Proposed Christchurch Replacement District Plan and related matters.
9. ELECTED MEMBERS’ INFORMATION EXCHANGE
Mention was made of the following matters:
Roberts Road - local meeting on quarrying Wilmers Road and Awatea Road - new subdivisions Owaka Pit Hornby Housing Project Riccarton Voluntary Library and Hornby Community Care Trust – appointment of Board member representatives to be considered in due course.
65 COUNCIL 11. 12. 2014 Riccarton/Wigram Community Board 18. 11. 2014
10. BOARD MEMBERS’ QUESTIONS UNDER STANDING ORDERS
Nil.
PART C - REPORT ON DELEGATED DECISIONS TAKEN BY THE BOARD
11. CONFIRMATION OF MINUTES – 4 NOVEMBER 2014
The Board resolved that the minutes of its ordinary meeting of 4 November 2014, be confirmed.
12. PROPOSED ROAD AND RIGHT-OF-WAY NAME – EDWIN EBBETT PLACE AND ERLING ZEISLER LANE
The Board considered a report seeking approval to a new road and a new right-of-way name in Wigram.
The Board resolved to approve the names Edwin Ebbett Place and Erling Ziesler Lane.
13. RICCARTON/WIGRAM COMMUNITY BOARD 2014/15 DISCRETIONARY RESPONSE FUND – APPLICATION – HORNBY DAY CARE TRUST
The Board considered a report seeking approval for an application for funding from its 2014/15 Discretionary Response Fund.
The Board resolved to grant $1,000 from its 2014/15 Discretionary Response Fund to the Hornby Day Care Trust towards live entertainment for senior clients.
14. RICCARTON/WIGRAM COMMUNITY BOARD 2014/15 DISCRETIONARY RESPONSE FUND – APPLICATION – AVONHEAD COMMUNITY TRUST
The Board considered a report seeking approval for an application for funding from its 2014/15 Discretionary Response Fund.
The Board resolved to grant $475 from its 2014/15 Discretionary Response Fund to the Avonhead Community Trust towards entertainment and refreshments for its Community Event held during Neighbourhood Week on 31 October 2014.
15. HANRAHAN STREET – NO STOPPING RESTRICTIONS
The Board considered a report seeking approval to install no stopping restrictions at either end of Hanrahan Street.
The Board resolved to:
15.1 Approve that any parking restrictions located on the south side of Hanrahan Street commencing at its intersection with Waimairi Road and extending in an easterly direction for a distance of 23 metres, be revoked.
15.2 Approve that any parking restrictions located on the north side of Hanrahan Street commencing at its intersection with Waimairi Road and extending in an easterly direction for a distance of 18 metres, be revoked.
15.3 Approve that any parking restrictions located on the south side of Hanrahan Street commencing at its intersection with Ilam Road and extending in a westerly direction for a distance of 23 metres, be revoked. 66 COUNCIL 11. 12. 2014 Riccarton/Wigram Community Board 18. 11. 2014
15. Cont’d
15.4 Approve that any parking restrictions located on the north side of Hanrahan Street commencing at its intersection with Ilam Road and extending in a westerly direction for a distance of 10 metres, be revoked.
15.5 Approve that the stopping of vehicles be prohibited at any time on the south side of Hanrahan Street commencing at its intersection with Waimairi Road and extending in an easterly direction for a distance of 23 metres.
15.6 Approve that the stopping of vehicles be prohibited at any time on the north side of Hanrahan Street commencing at its intersection with Waimairi Road and extending in an easterly direction for a distance of 18 metres.
15.7 Approve that the stopping of vehicles be prohibited at any time on the south side of Hanrahan Street commencing at its intersection with Ilam Road and extending in a westerly direction for a distance of 23 metres.
15.8 Approve that the stopping of vehicles be prohibited at any time on the north side of Hanrahan Street commencing at its intersection with Ilam Road and extending in a westerly direction for a distance of 10 metres.
15.9 Approve that the stopping of vehicles be prohibited at any time on the north side of Hanrahan Street commencing at a point 62 metres west of its intersection with Ilam Road and extending in a westerly direction for a distance of 20 metres.
15.10 Approve that the stopping of vehicles be prohibited at any time on the south side of Hanrahan Street commencing at a point 131 metres west of its intersection with Ilam Road and extending in a westerly direction for a distance of 14 metres.
16. AMYES ROAD – PROPOSED BUS STOP RELOCATION
The Board considered a report seeking approval to relocate the Bus Stop from number 4 Amyes Road to number 22 Amyes Road.
The Board resolved to:
16.1 Approve that all existing parking restrictions currently located on the south west side of Amyes Road commencing at its intersection with Shands Road and extending in a south easterly direction for a distance of 220 metres, be revoked.
16.2 Approve that the stopping of vehicles be prohibited at any time on the south west side of Amyes Road commencing at its intersection with Shands Road and extending in a south easterly direction for a distance of 63 metres.
16.3 Approve that the stopping of vehicles be prohibited at any time on the south west side of Amyes Road commencing at a point 143 metres north west of its intersection with Branston Street and extending in a north westerly direction for a distance of 16 metres.
16.4 Approve that a Bus Stop be installed on the south west side of Amyes Road commencing at a point 159 metres north west of its intersection with Branston Street and extending in a north westerly direction for a distance of 14 metres.
16.5 Approve that the stopping of vehicles be prohibited at any time on the south west side of Amyes Road commencing at a point 173 metres north west of its intersection with Branston Street and extending in a north westerly direction for a distance of four metres.
67 COUNCIL 11. 12. 2014 Riccarton/Wigram Community Board 18. 11. 2014
17. HALSWELL SCHOOL REBUILD –SCHOOL ROAD - PROPOSED PARKING CHANGES
Further to the deputation from the Halswell School (clause 3.2 Part B refers) , the Board considered a report seeking approval to install P3 parking restrictions, no stopping restrictions, the relocation of the bus stop on School Road outside Halswell School and the installation of no stopping restrictions on Kennedys Bush Road and Provincial Road in the vicinity of the school.
The Board resolved to:
17.1 Approve that all existing parking restrictions currently located on the north side of School Road, be revoked.
17.2 Approve that all existing parking restrictions currently located on the south side of School Road commencing at its intersection with Kennedys Bush Road and extending in a westerly direction for a distance of 21 metres, be revoked.
17.3 Approve that all existing parking restrictions currently located on the west side of Kennedys Bush Road commencing at its intersection with School Road and extending in a northerly direction for a distance of 35 metres, be revoked.
17.4 Approve that all existing parking restrictions currently located on the west side of Kennedys Bush Road commencing at its intersection with School Road and extending in a southerly direction for a distance of 74 metres, be revoked.
17.5 Approve that the stopping of vehicles be prohibited at any time on the north side of School Road commencing at its intersection with Larsens Road and extending in an easterly direction for a distance of nine metres.
17.6 Approve that a Bus Stop be installed on the north side of School Road commencing at a point nine metres east of its intersection with Larsens Road and extending in an easterly direction for a distance of 29 metres.
17.7 Approve that the stopping of vehicles be prohibited at any time on the north side of School Road commencing at a point 38 metres east of its intersection with Larsens Road and extending in an easterly direction for a distance of eight metres.
17.8 Approve that the parking of vehicles be restricted to a maximum period of three minutes (8.15 to 9.15 am and 2.30 to 3.30 pm school days) on the north side of School Road commencing at a point 46 metres east of its intersection with Larsens Road and extending in an easterly direction for a distance of 59 metres.
17.9 Approve that the stopping of vehicles be prohibited at any time on the north side of School Road commencing at a point 105 metres east of its intersection with Larsens Road and extending in an easterly direction for a distance of 14 metres.
17.10 Approve that the parking of vehicles be restricted to a maximum period of three minutes (8.15 to 9.15 am and 2.30 to 3.30 pm school days) on the north side of School Road commencing at a point 119 metres east of its intersection with Larsens Road and extending in an easterly direction for a distance of 61 metres.
17.11 Approve that the stopping of vehicles be prohibited at any time on the north side of School Road commencing at a point 180 metres east of its intersection with Larsens Road and extending in an easterly direction for a distance of 30 metres to its intersection with Kennedys Bush Road.
17.12 Approve that the stopping of vehicles be prohibited at any time on the south side of School Road commencing at its intersection with Kennedys Bush Road and extending in a westerly direction for a distance of 21 metres. 68 COUNCIL 11. 12. 2014 Riccarton/Wigram Community Board 18. 11. 2014
17. Cont’d
17.13 Approve that the stopping of vehicles be prohibited at any time on the west side of Kennedys Bush Road commencing at its intersection with School Road and extending in a northerly direction for a distance of 35 metres.
17.14 Approve that the stopping of vehicles be prohibited at any time on the east side of Kennedys Bush Road commencing at its intersection with Provincial Road and extending in a northerly direction for a distance of 34 metres.
17.15 Approve that the stopping of vehicles be prohibited at any time on the east side of Kennedys Bush Road commencing at its intersection with Provincial Road and extending in a southerly direction for a distance of 30 metres.
17.16 Approve that the stopping of vehicles be prohibited at any time on the west side of Kennedys Bush Road commencing at its intersection with School Road and extending in a southerly direction for a distance of 74 metres.
17.17 Approve that the stopping of vehicles be prohibited at any time on the north side of Provincial Road commencing at its intersection with Kennedys Bush Road and extending in an easterly direction for a distance of 28 metres.
17.18 Approve that the stopping of vehicles be prohibited at any time on the south side of Provincial Road commencing at its intersection with Kennedys Bush Road and extending in an easterly direction for a distance of 28 metres.
17.19 Approve that a Give Way Control be placed against School Road at its intersection with Kennedys Bush Road.
17.20 Approve that a Give Way Control be placed against Kennedys Bush Road on the south bound approach to its intersection with Provincial Road and School Road.
17.21 Approve that a Give Way Control be placed against Provincial Road at its intersection with Kennedys Bush Road.
17.22 Approve that a Give Way Control be placed against Kennedys Bush Road on the north bound approach to its intersection with School Road and Provincial Road.
18. PROPOSED BUS STOPS RESULTING FROM THE METRO REVIEW
The Board considered a report seeking approval to install fifteen new bus stops in the Riccarton/Wigram ward associated with Environment Canterbury’s Metro Review of bus services.
The Board took into account the information presented in a deputation (refer clause 3.4 of these minutes) and also, correspondence was tabled from the legal representative of the property owner at 17 Light Body Lane, opposing the placement of a bus stop and/or shelter in The Runway adjoining the property.
While indicating general support for the overall proposed bus stops, Board members felt that in light of the direct representations made, that staff be asked to work on finding another location for the intended bus stop on the south eastern side of The Runway near Deal Street.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
It is recommended that the Riccarton/Wigram Community Board resolve to: 69 COUNCIL 11. 12. 2014 Riccarton/Wigram Community Board 18. 11. 2014
18. Cont’d
Caulfield Avenue Stop
18.1 Revoke all existing parking restrictions on the south western side of Caulfield Avenue commencing at a point 166 metres north west of its intersection with Murphys Road and extending in a north westerly direction for a distance of 41 metres.
18.2 Approve that a marked bus stop be installed on the south western side of Caulfield Avenue commencing at a point 166 metres north west of its intersection with Murphys Road and extending in a north westerly direction for a distance of 41 metres.
Hamill Road Stops
18.3 Revoke all existing parking restrictions on the north side of Hamill Road commencing at a point 97 east of its intersection with John Annan Street and extending in an easterly direction for a distance of 22 metres.
18.4 Approve that a marked bus stop be installed on the north side of Hamill Road commencing at a point 97 east of its intersection with John Annan Street and extending in an easterly direction for a distance of 22 metres.
18.5 Revoke all existing parking restrictions on the south side of Hamill Road commencing at a point 57 east of its intersection with Graycliffe Street and extending in an easterly direction for a distance of 20 metres.
18.6 Approve that a marked bus stop be installed on the south side of Hamill Road commencing at a point 57 east of its intersection with Graycliffe Street and extending in an easterly direction for a distance of 20 metres.
Corsair Drive Stops (Pair 1)
18.7 Revoke all existing parking restrictions on the north eastern side of Corsair Drive commencing at a point 55 metres north west of its intersection with Harvard Avenue and extending in a north westerly direction for a distance of 26 metres.
18.8 Approve that the stopping of vehicles be prohibited at any time on the north eastern side of Corsair Drive commencing at a point 55 metres north west of its intersection with Harvard Avenue and extending in a north westerly direction for a distance of four metres.
18.9 Approve that a marked bus stop be installed on the north eastern side of Corsair Drive commencing at a point 59 metres north west of its intersection with Harvard Avenue and extending in a north westerly direction for a distance of 14 metres.
18.10 Approve that the stopping of vehicles be prohibited at any time on the north eastern side of Corsair Drive commencing at a point 73 metres north west of its intersection with Harvard Avenue and extending in a north westerly direction for a distance of eight metres.
Corsair Drive Stops (Pair 2)
18.11 Revoke all existing parking restrictions on the north eastern side of Corsair Drive commencing at a point 330 metres south east of its intersection with Harvard Avenue and extending in a south easterly direction for a distance of 21 metres.
18.12 Approve that a marked bus stop be installed on the north eastern side of Corsair Drive commencing at a point 330 metres south east of its intersection with Harvard Avenue and extending in a south easterly direction for a distance of 21 metres.
18.13 Revoke all existing parking restrictions on the south western side of Corsair Drive commencing at a point 24 metres south east of its intersection with Gallaghan Close and extending in a south easterly direction for a distance of 14 metres. 70 COUNCIL 11. 12. 2014 Riccarton/Wigram Community Board 18. 11. 2014
18. Cont’d
18.14 Approve that a marked bus stop be installed on the south western side of Corsair Drive commencing at a point 24 metres south east of its intersection with Gallaghan Close and extending in a south easterly direction for a distance of 14 metres.
The Runway (Pair 1)
18.15 Revoke all existing parking restrictions on the south eastern side of The Runway commencing at a point 44 metres south west of its intersection with Deal Street and extending in a south westerly direction for a distance of 16 metres.
18.16 Approve that a marked bus stop be installed on the south eastern side of The Runway commencing at a point 44 metres south west of its intersection with Deal Street and extending in a south westerly direction for a distance of 16 metres.
18.17 Revoke all existing parking restrictions on the north western side of The Runway commencing at a point 18 metres north east of its intersection with Keene Street and extending in a north easterly direction for a distance of 22 metres.
18.18 Approve that a marked bus stop be installed on the north western side of The Runway commencing at a point 18 metres north east of its intersection with Keene Street and extending in a north easterly direction for a distance of 22 metres.
The Runway (Pair 2)
18.19 Revoke all existing parking restrictions on the south eastern side of The Runway commencing at a point 24 metres south west of its intersection with Auster Avenue and extending in a south westerly direction for a distance of 24 metres.
18.20 Approve that a marked bus stop be installed on the south eastern side of The Runway commencing at a point 24 metres south west of its intersection with Auster Avenue and extending in a south westerly direction for a distance of 24 metres.
18.21 Revoke all existing parking restrictions on the north western side of The Runway commencing at a point 73 metres north east of its intersection with Dalwood Drive and extending in a north easterly direction for a distance of 21 metres.
18.22 Approve that a marked bus stop be installed on the north western side of The Runway commencing at a point 73 metres north east of its intersection with Dalwood Drive and extending in a north easterly direction for a distance of 21 metres.
Wharenui Road (Pair 1)
18.23 Revoke all existing parking restrictions on the western side of Wharenui Road commencing at its intersection with Riccarton Road and extending in a southerly direction for a distance of 60 metres.
18.24 Approve that the stopping of vehicles be prohibited at any time on the western side of Wharenui Road commencing at its intersection with Riccarton Road and extending in a southerly direction for a distance of 38 metres.
18.25 Approve that a marked bus stop be installed on the western side of Wharenui Road commencing at a point 38 metres south of its intersection with Riccarton Road and extending in a southerly direction for a distance of 14 metres.
18.26 Approve that the stopping of vehicles be prohibited at any time on the western side of Wharenui Road commencing at a point 52 metres south of its intersection with Riccarton Road and extending in a southerly direction for a distance of eight metres. 71 COUNCIL 11. 12. 2014 Riccarton/Wigram Community Board 18. 11. 2014
18. Cont’d
18.27 Revoke all existing parking restrictions on the eastern side of Wharenui Road commencing at a point 66 metres south of its intersection with Riccarton Road and extending in a southerly direction for a distance of 26 metres.
18.28 Approve that the stopping of vehicles be prohibited at any time on the eastern side of Wharenui Road commencing at a point 66 metres south of its intersection with Riccarton Road and extending in a southerly direction for a distance of eight metres.
18.29 Approve that a marked bus stop be installed on the eastern side of Wharenui Road commencing at a point 74 metres south of its intersection with Riccarton Road and extending in a southerly direction for a distance of 14 metres.
18.30 Approve that the stopping of vehicles be prohibited at any time on the eastern side of Wharenui Road commencing at a point 88 metres south of its intersection with Riccarton Road and extending in a southerly direction for a distance of four metres.
Wharenui Road (Pair 2)
18.31 Revoke all existing parking restrictions on the western side of Wharenui Road commencing at its intersection with Janet Street and extending in a northerly direction for a distance of 31 metres.
18.32 Approve that the stopping of vehicles be prohibited at any time on the western side of Wharenui Road commencing at its intersection with Janet Street and extending in a northerly direction for a distance of 13 metres.
18.33 Approve that a marked bus stop be installed on the western side of Wharenui Road commencing at a point 13 metres north of its intersection with Janet Street and extending in a northerly direction for a distance of 14 metres.
18.34 Approve that the stopping of vehicles be prohibited at any time on the western side of Wharenui Road commencing at a point 27 metres north its intersection with Janet Street and extending in a northerly direction for a distance of four metres.
18.35 Revoke all existing parking restrictions on the eastern side of Wharenui Road commencing at its intersection with Puna Street and extending in a northerly direction for a distance of 38 metres.
18.36 Approve that the stopping of vehicles be prohibited at any time on the eastern side of Wharenui Road commencing at its intersection with Puna Street and extending in a northerly direction for a distance of 16 metres.
18.37 Approve that a marked bus stop be installed on the eastern side of Wharenui Road commencing at a point 16 metres north of its intersection with Puna Street and extending in a northerly direction for a distance of 14 metres.
18.38 Approve that the stopping of vehicles be prohibited at any time on the eastern side of Wharenui Road commencing at a point 30 metres north of its intersection with Puna Street and extending in a northerly direction for a distance of eight metres.
BOARD DECISION
The Board resolved that the staff recommendation be adopted but with the exception of 18.16 above which is to operate as a temporary bus stop, while staff work with local residents to find an acceptable alternative location and report back to the Board. 72 COUNCIL 11. 12. 2014 Riccarton/Wigram Community Board 18. 11. 2014
8. COMMUNITY BOARD ADVISER’S UPDATE CONTINUED
8.1 SUBMISSIONS COMMITTEE – MEETING MINUTES OF 29 OCTOBER 2014
Further to clause 8 (Part B) of this report, the Board resolved:
8.1.1 That the minutes of the Board’s Submissions Committee meeting of 19 October 2014, be received.
8.1.2 That the Board’s cross submissions to the Proposed Replacement District Plan be approved retrospectively, and further that the Board notes its ‘serious’ concerns about the Meadowlands development (refer Danne Mora Holdings Limited submission 1134) and acknowledges that these concerns may be able to be covered in mediation.
8.1.3 That Mike Mora, Helen Broughton and Debbie Mora be appointed as its member representatives to appear as required before the Independent Hearings Panel on the Proposed Christchurch Replacement District Plan.
The meeting concluded at 7.17pm
CONFIRMED THIS 2ND DAY OF DECEMBER 2014
MIKE MORA CHAIRPERSON Clause 13 73
COUNCIL 11. 12. 2014
RICCARTON/WIGRAM COMMUNITY BOARD 25. 11. 2014
Report of an Extraordinary Meeting of the Riccarton/Wigram Community Board held on Tuesday 25 November 2014 at 5.05pm in the Board Room, Fendalton Service Centre, Corner Jeffreys and Clyde Roads.
PRESENT: Mike Mora (Chairperson), Helen Broughton, Jimmy Chen, Peter Laloli and Debbie Mora
APOLOGIES: Apologies for absence were received and accepted from Natalie Bryden and Vicki Buck.
The Board reports that:
PART B – REPORTS FOR INFORMATION
1. RICCARTON PUBLIC TRANSPORT HUB PROPOSED BUS STOP STREET WORKS
The Board considered a report seeking its views on the proposals for new bus stops and associated street works arising from the Council’s decision to acquire a lease of 123 and 125 Riccarton Road as a bus passenger waiting lounge.
The Board’s recommendations on these specific aspects was reported to the Infrastructure, Transport and Environment Committee meeting on 4 December 2014.
The Board decided to seek to make a deputation to the Infrastructure, Transport and Environment Committee and/or the Council regarding the future site options for the Riccarton Public Transport Hub Waiting Lounge.
2. DECLARATIONS OF INTEREST
Nil.
3. DEPUTATIONS BY APPOINTMENT
The Board received submissions from the following deputations who expressed overall opposition to the proposals, and generally indicated a strong preference for the Westfield Mall location.
Arthur McKee, on behalf of local business owners Geoff Friend, on behalf of Riccarton Bush/Kilmarnock Residents’ Association Garth Wilson, on behalf of Central Riccarton Residents’ Association David Curry
After questions from members, the Board Chairperson thanked each of the deputations for presenting their views to the Board.
4. CORRESPONDENCE
The Board received tabled email correspondence from Dr Malcolm McKellar and Lyndon Telfer in relation to the Riccarton Public Transport Hub proposal.
The meeting concluded at 7.02pm.
CONFIRMED THIS 2ND DAY OF DECEMBER 2014
MIKE MORA CHAIRPERSON 74 Clause 14 75
COUNCIL 11. 12. 2014
SHIRLEY/PAPANUI COMMUNITY BOARD 5 NOVEMBER 2014
Report of the meeting of the Shirley/Papanui Community Board held on Wednesday 5 November at 4pm in the Board Room Papanui Service Centre, corner Langdons Road and Restell Street, Papanui
PRESENT: Mike Davidson (Chairperson), Jo Byrne, Pauline Cotter, Ali Jones, Aaron Keown, Emma Norrish and Barbara Watson.
APOLOGIES: Ali Jones arrived at 4.06pm and was absent for clause 3, 12 and part of clause 4.
Emma Norrish arrived at 6.03pm and was absent for clauses 1 to 8, 11 to 14 and part of clause 9.
The Board reports that:
The meeting adjourned at 5.44pm and resumed at 5.52pm.
PART A – MATTERS REQUIRING A COUNCIL DECISION
1. SPENCERVILLE RESERVE – CANTERBURY PLAYCENTRE ASSOCIATION APPLICATION FOR LEASE FOR BROOKLANDS PLAYCENTRE
Contact Contact Details Executive Leadership Team General Manager, Culture Leisure and N Member responsible: Parks Officer responsible: Unit Manager, Assets and Networks N Author: Joanne Walton, Policy Advisor Parks Y DDI 941 6491 and Facilities
1. PURPOSE AND ORIGIN OF REPORT
1.1 The purpose of this report is to present to the Council the recommendation of the Shirley Papanui Community Board to grant a lease to Canterbury Playcentre Association Incorporated over part of Spencerville Reserve for the purpose of the Brooklands Playcentre early childhood education facility. The purpose is also to seek the recommendation of the Board to the Council that the current lease to the Canterbury Playcentre Association Inc. over land at 1002 Lower Styx Road be surrendered.
1.2 The report originates from Brooklands Playcentre representatives approaching staff for assistance in securing a new site for the relocation of their existing facility at 1002 Lower Styx Road following the red zoning of the surrounding residential land.
2. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
2.1 The Canterbury Playcentre Association Incorporated is seeking to relocate the Brooklands Playcentre early childhood education facility from its present site to Spencerville Reserve following the red zoning of the surrounding residential area. The intention is to co-locate with the proposed new Spencerville Residents Association building to create a “community hub”. COUNCIL 11. 12. 2014 76
Shirley/Papanui Community Board 5. 11. 2014
1 Cont’d
2.2 The approval of the Board is sought for a lease to the Canterbury Playcentre Association Incorporated over approximately 875 square metres (subject to survey) over a part of Res 4518 DP 13262 on Spencerville Reserve (Attachment 1) for a term of 33 years. This lot is classified as a Local Purpose (Community Buildings) Reserve under the Reserves Act 1977. The relocated Brooklands Playcentre facility will comprise a main building of approximately 140 square metres in size, a storage shed and outdoor play equipment (all to be relocated from the Lower Styx Road site), with associated landscaping and fencing (Attachment 2).
2.3 Statutory public advertising under the Reserve Act 1977 is not required prior to putting the lease in place because this area of Spencerville Reserve is classified as Local Purpose (Community Buildings) Reserve under the Act. However a consultation letter is being circulated to reserve neighbours to ensure that they are aware of the proposal and their views are taken into account in the decision making process. At the time of writing and submitting this report, the views of the reserve neighbours on this proposal are still being sought. The outcome of this process will be advised to the Board through a memorandum prior to the 5th November 2014 meeting date, and also tabled at that meeting.
2.4 The recommendation of the Board to Council that the Association’s current lease at Part Reserve 4119 comprising 1460 square metres being part Certificate of Title 336/344 (located at 1002 Lower Styx Road) be surrendered is also sought to enable the Brooklands Playcentre to relocate to Spencerville Reserve.
2.5 Staff are recommending that the current lease be surrendered, and that the new lease be approved subject to a satisfactory outcome of public consultation.
3. BACKGROUND
3.1 The Canterbury Playcentre Association Incorporated currently leases a Council- owned parcel of land (Res 4119 Canterbury District) at 1002 Lower Styx Road which is occupied by the Brooklands Playcentre facilities. The lease was renewed for a term of 21 years on 1 January 2013 with a final expiry of 31 December 2034 with no further rights of renewal. Being Council-owned, this land is not red-zoned, but it is now surrounded by red-zoned residential properties. The Brooklands community is moving away as these properties are cleared, resulting in falling rolls for the Playcentre. Infrastructure services are also expected to be reduced or removed at some point in the future.
3.2 A feasibility study was commissioned by the Canterbury Playcentre Association Inc. in August 2012 to investigate whether a new relocated Brooklands Playcentre facility would have a viable future and to give full consideration to the best location to meet the needs of its existing and future families. The study found that enough young families remained in the wider Styx area, along with future growth in the residential developments to the south, to make a relocated Playcentre feasible, and recommended potential sites for investigation including Spencerville Reserve.
3.3 In 2004, the change of classification to Local Purpose (Community Buildings) Reserves under the Reserves Act 1977 of part of Spencerville Reserve was approved to facilitate the granting of a lease to the Spencerville Residents Association for the site on which the Spencerville Hall was located. The lease was approved but for unknown reasons the documentation was not prepared and signed. The Spencerville Residents Association wish to build a new community hall facility to replace the Spencerville Hall which has since been demolished due to earthquake damage.
COUNCIL 11. 12. 2014 77
Shirley/Papanui Community Board 5. 11. 2014
1 Cont’d
3.4 Council staff have worked with the Brooklands Playcentre and the Spencerville Residents Association to reach agreement on the co-location of each organisations facilities on Spencerville Reserve with the aim of creating a “community hub” (refer Attachments 1 and 2). It was intended that the lease applications from both organisations be jointly assessed and reported at the same time to maximise efficiency and minimise costs.
3.5 It became evident that the Playcentre application was at a more advanced stage than that of the Spencerville Residents Association, who subsequently decided to investigate a new building design from that originally considered. The delay imposed upon the Playcentre application as a result of this presented concerns as to their continued viability and ability to continue to serve the community.
3.6 It was agreed by both applicants that in order not to delay the proposed Playcentre occupation any further, the public consultation, reporting and approval process for the Playcentre lease would commence earlier to enable a decision on this to be made as soon as possible.
4. COMMENT
4.1 Spencerville Reserve comprises three separate lots totalling 1.1911 hectares in area:
(a) Res 5011 classified as Local Purpose (Community Buildings) Reserve (New Zealand Gazette 2004/4422). (b) Res 4518 classified as Local Purpose (Community Buildings) Reserve (New Zealand Gazette 2004/4422). (c) Lot 37 DP 78706 held in Certificate of Title 45B/84 and classified as Recreation Reserve.
4.2 The proposed lease to the Canterbury Playcentre Association Inc. will be over approximately 875 square metres (subject to survey) over Res 4518 DP 13262 which is classified as a Local Purpose (Community Buildings) Reserve. This will provide an area of sufficient size to meet Ministry of Education licensing requirements for indoor and outdoor play space, and that is able to be fenced for safety and security purposes. The Playcentre facility will comprise a main building of approximately 140 square metres in size, a storage shed and outdoor play equipment (all to be relocated from the Lower Styx Road site), with associated landscaping and fencing. Acoustic fencing, most likely timber board and batten in keeping with the reserve setting, along the rear boundary and extending as far as the tennis court fencing, will likely be required as a condition of resource consent to mitigate any adverse effects of noise on neighbouring properties.
4.3 Section 61 (2B) of the Reserves Act 1977 permits the administering body to grant a lease for a term not exceeding 33 years, with or without a right of renewal, perpetual or otherwise, for the same or any shorter term, but with no right of acquiring the fee simple, on conditions as the administering body determines.
4.4. The Council has granted to Community Boards the delegated authority to grant leases or licences on reserves pursuant to section 61 of the Reserves Act 1977. The Community Board does not have the delegated authority to approve the surrender of a lease, with such decisions to be made by the Council.
COUNCIL 11. 12. 2014 78
Shirley/Papanui Community Board 5. 11. 2014
1 Cont’d
4.5 The part of Spencerville Reserve on which the proposed lease will be situated (Res 4518) is classified as Local Purpose (Community Buildings) Reserve under the Reserves Act 1977. The change of classification undertaken in 2004 was a statutory public consultative process under the Reserves Act 1977 with subsequent final approval given by the Minister of Conservation. Therefore, under section 61 of the Reserves Act 1977, a statutory public advertising, submissions and hearings process is not required when leasing a Local Purpose (Community Buildings) Reserve for a playcentre or community building, nor is final approval from the Minister of Conservation (now delegated to Council) required.
4.6 Although statutory public advertising is not required, staff wish to ensure that the surrounding community are aware of the proposed leases and that the decision takes into account their views. A consultation letter will therefore be circulated to the surrounding community. The letter will also show the proposed lease area outline for the Spencerville Residents Association so that the community are aware of the bigger picture and that approval for this building will also be sought at a later date. This will enable the Playcentre to continue on with their relocation process, and the Spencerville Residents Association to further investigate their accommodation options without further delays to the Playcentre process or being disadvantaged in any way by this process.
4.7 In order to minimise further delays in seeking approval of the proposed lease, at the time of writing and submitting this report, the views of the reserve neighbours on this proposal are still being sought. The outcome of this process will be advised to the Board through a memorandum prior to the 5th November 2014 meeting date, and also tabled at that meeting.
4.8 Spencerville Reserve is zoned Open Space two in the current Christchurch City Plan and a resource consent will be required for the Playcentre development and must be obtained prior to commencing any work on site. A joint resource consent application (RMA92026533) has been lodged and a course of action agreed on by Council planning staff that will enable the Playcentre to progress their relocation without further delays and without disadvantage to the Spencerville Residents Association.
5. FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS
5.1 There are no financial implications for Council other than the staff time incurred in assessing the lease application and preparing this report, which are covered within existing operational budgets.
5.2 The costs of preparing the lease documentation is to be met by the Association. These costs are approximately $250 plus GST.
5.3 A ground rent will be paid by the Association and will be assessed using the formula devised for sports clubs and organisations occupying reserves and local parks. For example, if the total built footprint of the buildings are 150 square metres, and the open green space area is 725 square metres, the annual rental would be approximately $225.50 plus GST per year.
5.4 All other costs relating to the lease, and the construction, operation, and maintenance of the facilities within the lease, will be the responsibility of the Canterbury Playcentre Association Incorporated.
COUNCIL 11. 12. 2014 79
Shirley/Papanui Community Board 5. 11. 2014
1 Cont’d
6. STAFF RECOMMENDATION
That the Council resolve that the lease dated 12 August 1992 at Part Reserve 4119 comprising 1460 square metres being part of Certificate of Title 336/344 be surrendered in order to allow the Canterbury Playcentre Association Inc. to relocate to Spencerville Reserve.
7. BOARD RECOMMENDATION
That the staff recommendation be adopted.
Note: Refer to clause 13, Part C for the Board’s decision made under delegated authority regarding this matter.
PART B – REPORTS FOR INFORMATION
2. PROPOSED SPEED LIMIT CHANGES, GENERAL SPEED LIMIT REVIEW, SHIRLEY/PAPANUI WARD
This item was presented to the 27 November 2014 Council meeting by way of a Chairperson’s Report.
Refer to Part C, clause 2 for the Board’s decision on this item.
3. DECLARATION OF INTEREST
Barbara Watson declared an interest in item 14 (Northgate Community Trust) and retired from the discussion and voting thereon.
4. DEPUTATIONS BY APPOINTMENT
4.1 JAHKAYA TUKAKI-DELLOW – YOUTH DEVELOPMENT REPORT BACK
Jahkaya Tukaki-Dellow was unable to attend the meeting.
4.2 MALVERN PARK EXERCISE TRAIL
This item was postponed to the 19 November 2014 meeting.
4.3 CAVENDISH/HIGHSTED/GARDINERS ROADS AREA – SPEED ISSUES
Mr Andrew Donnithorne, a property developer in the area was in attendance and spoke to the Board regarding the proposed reduction of speed limits in the Cavendish/ Highsted/Gardiners Roads area (clause 1 refers).
Mr Donnithorne updated the Board on possible timelines for the occupancy of homes in the new developments in the area and was supportive of the proposed reduction of speed limits on Cavendish and Gardiners Roads but reiterated the need for a reduction of speed limits on Highsted Road.
As noted in clause 2 above this item was considered by the Council at its meeting on 27 November 2014. Refer to clause 2 Part C for the Board’s further decision on this matter.
COUNCIL 11. 12. 2014 80
Shirley/Papanui Community Board 5. 11. 2014
5. PRESENTATION OF PETITIONS
Nil.
6. NOTICES OF MOTION
Nil.
7. BRIEFINGS
7.1 PACKE STREET PARK TOILET
Trevor Cattermole, Strengthening Communities Adviser was in attendance and presented an Information Memorandum to the Board outlining the costs and other implications of such a facility in response to the Board’s resolution of 15 October in this regard.
The Board were supportive of enabling communities to take responsibility for communal public space however some concerns were raised including maintenance issues once the toilets were connected to the sewer reticulation, lack of other funding/sponsoring and the lack of current protocol for the Council’s role in funding and/or support of these types of projects. It was also noted that not all of the costs for this project had been identified.
The Board noted that other community groups may wish to instigate these types of facilities and it is possible that similar applications may be received. The Board will support and enable these types of projects where possible.
The Board decided to request that the Strengthening Communities staff respond to the Packe Street Garden Group to discuss funding/sponsorship options and the funding of the ongoing maintenance/cleaning of the toilet block.
The Board also requested that staff explore ways of working collaboratively with the Packe Street Garden Group regarding the physical installation of a sewer line for the toilet for volunteer use.
8. CORRESPONDENCE
8.1 HILLS ROAD CULVERT ON ST ALBANS CREEK ACTIONS UPDATE
Correspondence from Sylvia Maclaren – Land Drainage Operations Manager regarding the resolutions the Board made at its 1 October 2014 meeting in response to a deputation from residents of St Albans was tabled.
The Board received the correspondence and decided to request that the Hills Road, Champion Street and Slater Street culvert be included on the same maintenance schedule as the Flockton Basin.
The Board decided to request that staff also consider repairing the third culvert (Champion Street) as is being done with the Hills Road and Slater Street culverts to reduce the chance of further flooding.
8.2 SHIRLEY COMMUNITY CENTRE – SHINE EVENT FEEDBACK
The Board received correspondence from the Shirley Community Centre giving feedback on the recent “SHINE” community event (Celebrating our Cultural Diversity) held locally.
COUNCIL 11. 12. 2014 81
Shirley/Papanui Community Board 5. 11. 2014
9. COMMUNITY BOARD ADVISER’S UPDATE
The Board received information from the Community Board Adviser on Board-related activities, including upcoming meetings and events.
9.1 SCHOOL PRINCIPALS’ MEETING
Feedback on preparation for the upcoming School Principals’ meeting was provided. The Board was informed of the possible guest speaker and the Board decided that, where possible, future meetings would feature guest speakers as suggested by the Principals.
9.2 WORKING PARTY – COMMUNITY FACILITIES FOR THE ST ALBANS COMMUNITY
The Board decided to hold the first meeting of the above working party on Wednesday 26 November 2014 at 6pm in the Papanui Boardroom.
9.3 SHIRLEY/PAPANUI COMMUNITY BOARD AIMS AND OBJECTIVES
The Board were advised that Jenny Hughey, Team Leader Community Boards, would facilitate a workshop on Wednesday 26 November 2014 at 4pm to assist in finalising the Board’s objectives for the current term.
10. ELECTED MEMBERS’ INFORMATION EXCHANGE
10.1 ST ALBANS RESIDENTS’ ASSOCIATION
Discussion took place on the small auxiliary building proposed to be temporarily relocated to the current St Albans transitional community facility site and the resource consent required for this activity.
10.2 COUNCIL WIDE RENEWAL PLANS
Members discussed the proposed resurfacing, lighting and other infrastructure upgrades in the ward and the current prioritisations for this work given that some streets require urgent work post–earthquake.
The Board decided to request that staff provide a list of all the planned road resurfacing, street light upgrades and footpath maintenance in the ward and to ask that staff work with the Board to consider reprioritising these action plans, if necessary.
10.3 STAND TALL GIRAFFES
The Board expressed its support for the Stand Tall promotion and requested staff to investigate the option for more giraffes to be obtained for the ward.
10.4 EDIBLE GARDENS
The Board received feedback from Councillor Cotter on the initiative regarding the ‘edible forest’ concept and agreed that this be shared with appropriate groups within the ward to promote this project.
The Board decided to request staff to provide information on the concept to residents’ groups to ascertain the interest of the wider community in regards to this initiative.
11. QUESTIONS UNDER STANDING ORDERS
Nil.
COUNCIL 11. 12. 2014 82
Shirley/Papanui Community Board 5. 11. 2014
PART C – REPORT ON DELEGATED DECISIONS TAKEN BY THE BOARD
2. PROPOSED SPEED LIMIT CHANGES, GENERAL SPEED LIMIT REVIEW, SHIRLEY/PAPANUI WARD (CONT’D)
The Board resolved that the progress of the housing subdivision on Highsted Road will be informally monitored by Board members with the intention of reviewing the situation in June 2015 and, should it be considered necessary, the Board will then request a report on any traffic issues created by increased traffic movements to and from the subdivision and the new housing development.
12. CONFIRMATION OF MEETING MINUTES – 15 OCTOBER 2014
The Board resolved that the minutes of the Board’s ordinary meeting of Wednesday 15 October 2014 be confirmed.
13. SPENCERVILLE RESERVE – CANTERBURY PLAYCENTRE ASSOCIATION APPLICATION FOR LEASE FOR BROOKLANDS PLAYCENTRE (CONTINUED)
The Board considered a report (Clause 1 Part A refers) requesting approval to grant a lease to Canterbury Playcentre Association Incorporated (Inc) over part of Spencerville Reserve for the purpose of the Brooklands Playcentre early childhood education facility.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
That the Board under delegated authority from the Council resolve to:
13.1 Grant a lease over approximately 875 square metres of Res 4518, a classified Local Purpose (Community Buildings) Reserve that is part of Spencerville Reserve, as shown outlined in yellow on the attached plan labelled Spencerville Reserve – Proposed new lease areas for Brooklands Playcentre and Spencerville Residents’ Association – MP105601 (TRIM No. 2014/1162964) for a term of up to 33 years, for the purposes of a Playcentre early childhood education facility, pursuant to section 61(2A)(a) of the Reserves Act 1977, subject to the following conditions:
13.1.1 That the Canterbury Playcentre Association Inc. is to obtain all necessary resource and building consents before any development commences on the site.
13.1.2 That all costs associated with the issuing of the lease, development and subsequent maintenance of all facilities and structures are to be the responsibility of the Canterbury Playcentre Association Inc.
13.1.3 That the final designs for the acoustic fencing, and open-style perimeter fencing, are to be approved by the Unit Manager Parks, or his/her delegate, before installing on the site.
13.1.4 That before the Association and their contractors commence work on the site, a bond is to be paid to the Christchurch City Council via the Parks Unit Area Supervisor (Northern) at Fendalton Service Centre, and a temporary access licence signed. The bond less any expenses incurred by the Council will be refunded to the payee upon completion of the work.
COUNCIL 11. 12. 2014 83
Shirley/Papanui Community Board 5. 11. 2014
13 Cont’d
13.2 Authorise the Property Consultancy Manager or his/her delegate, to negotiate, administer and conclude the terms and conditions of the lease agreement.
BOARD DECISION
That the staff recommendation be adopted.
Note: Board Members raised concerns regarding the leasing structure and the rental charges for activities on Council reserves and decided to request that a seminar be arranged with appropriate staff to present information on these matters to ensure an improved understanding of this process.
14. APPLICATION TO THE SHIRLEY/PAPANUI COMMUNITY BOARD’S 2014/15 DISCRETIONARY RESPONSE FUND – NORTHGATE COMMUNITY SERVICES
The Board considered the Northgate Community Services Trust application for the Upgrade Stoves project for the amount of $1,119 for funding from its 2014/15 Discretionary Response Fund.
The Shirley/Papanui Community Board resolved to grant $1,119 from its 2014/15 Discretionary Response Fund to Northgate Community Services Trust for the Upgrade of Stoves project.
15. RESOLUTION TO EXCLUDE THE PUBLIC
The Board resolved that the foregoing motion be adopted.
16. RESOLUTION TO RE-ADMIT THE PUBLIC
The Board resolved that the meeting move out of public excluded and into open meeting.
The public were re-admitted to the meeting at 6.22pm.
The meeting concluded at 6.59pm.
CONFIRMED THIS 19TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2014
MIKE DAVIDSON CHAIRPERSON
84 11. 12. 2014 85
Shirley/Papanui Community Board 5. 11. 2014
ATTACHMENT 1 TO CLAUSE 1
COUNCIL 11. 12. 2014 86
Shirley/Papanui Community Board 5. 11. 2014
ATTACHMENT 2 TO CLAUSE 1
Clause 15 87 COUNCIL 11. 12. 2014
SHIRLEY/PAPANUI COMMUNITY BOARD 19 NOVEMBER 2014
Report of the meeting of the Shirley/Papanui Community Board held on Wednesday 19 November at 4pm in the Board Room Papanui Service Centre, corner Langdons Road and Restell Street, Papanui
PRESENT: Mike Davidson (Chairperson), Jo Byrne, Pauline Cotter, Ali Jones, Aaron Keown, Emma Norrish and Barbara Watson.
APOLOGIES: Ali Jones arrived at 4.07pm and was absent for clauses 1, 10 and part of clause 2.
The Board reports that:
The meeting adjourned at 5.12pm and resumed at 5.20pm.
PART B – REPORTS FOR INFORMATION
1. DECLARATION OF INTEREST
Nil.
2. DEPUTATIONS BY APPOINTMENT
2.1 SHIRLEY COMMUNITY TRUST
Ms Berwyn Mason, Trust Co-ordinator attended to speak to the Board regarding the results of the Trust’s recent survey of community needs.
The Board thanked Ms Mason for her presentation.
2.2 TE PUNA ORAKA
Ms Anna Langley, Facilitator attended to present the findings of the Te Puna Oraka survey of community needs.
The Board thanked Ms Langley for her presentation.
2.3 MALVERN PARK EXERCISE TRAIL
Mr Pete Brady, a St Albans resident, attended to speak to the Board on a community proposal for an exercise trail for Malvern Park.
The Board endorsed the project in principle and decided to request that staff prepare a feasibility study, including options for staging the installation, noting that the community group will assist with consultation and they will fund the capital cost of the project should it proceed.
3. PRESENTATION OF PETITIONS
Nil.
COUNCIL 11. 12. 2014 88
Shirley/Papanui Community Board 19. 11. 2014
4. NOTICES OF MOTION
Nil.
5. BRIEFINGS
5.1 INNES ROAD PARKING
Bill Homewood, Traffic Engineer attended to speak to the Information Memorandum produced in response to a request from the Board at its meeting of 4 September 2014.
The Board decided to request that a parking tick be installed on the east side of the entrance to 430 Innes Road.
5.2 RAYBURN AVENUE AND PERRY STREET
Bill Homewood, Traffic Engineer attended to speak to the Information Memorandum produced in response to a request from the Board at its meeting of 15 October 2014.
The Board noted the information.
5.3 ROSEFIELD LANE/VAGUES ROAD PARKING
Bill Homewood, Traffic Engineer attended to speak to the Information Memorandum produced in response to a request from the Board at its meeting of 6 August 2014.
The Board decided to request that parking ticks be installed on each side of the entrance to Rosefield Lane.
5.4 STYX MILL, HUSSEY ROAD AND GARDINERS ROADS
The Board noted the Information Memorandum from the Asset Engineer produced in response to the Board’s request of 3 July 2013 regarding the possible installation of kerb and channel for the above area.
6. CORRESPONDENCE
Nil.
7. COMMUNITY BOARD ADVISER’S UPDATE
The Board received information from the Community Board Adviser on Board-related activities, including upcoming meetings and events.
7.1 LAND INFORMATION MEMORANDA (LIM) INFORMATION
At its meeting on 18 June 2014 the Board decided to write to the Chief Executive, Christchurch City Council to request that all proposed Council infrastructure projects and/or designations be noted on the LIM for that property.
The Board noted and accepted the response received from the Chief Executive which stated the difficulties and increased time and cost component inherent in adding extra information to the standard LIM.
COUNCIL 11. 12. 2014 89
Shirley/Papanui Community Board 19. 11. 2014
7 Cont’d
7.2 LONG TERM PLAN
The Board decided to make a submission to the Long Term Plan requesting the completion of the Styx Reserve predator fence as a priority and that any other items for the Plan be emailed to the Community Board Adviser by Tuesday 24 November 2014 with the Chairperson approving the final submission due to the deadline falling prior to the next Board meeting.
8. ELECTED MEMBERS’ INFORMATION EXCHANGE
8.1 CRANFORD STREET FOUR LANING – DESIGNATION OF LAND
The Board decided to make a submission on the proposed designation of land associated with the Cranford Street four laning project that is part of the larger Northern Arterial extension, Cranford Street upgrade and Cranford Basin wetland enhancement project and for this submission to be approved at the Board meeting of 17 December 2014. Any comments are to be sent to the Community Board Adviser by 8 December 2014.
8.2 EDIBLE FOOD FOREST
Ali Jones submitted a media statement for the Board’s consideration. The Board agreed that this be circulated to media following a final review by the Chairperson.
8.3 JOHNS ROAD INDUSTRIAL SITES – DUST POLLUTION
The Board received a complaint from residents on the east side of Johns Road about the dust pollution from the industrial sites on the north side in high winds. These sites are required to be watered down on a regular basis as agreed under the companies’ resource consents.
The Board decided to request that staff investigate the problem of the dust pollution and inform the Board of the outcome.
8.4 PHOTO BOARDS FOR COMMUNITY BOARDS
The Board noted that the display boards containing photographs of elected members located in various locations in service centres or near community board rooms are to be replaced by boards with names only. The Board considered it important that elected members’ photographs be displayed in their local communities.
The Board decided to request that the photo boards of elected members be retained in their local communities.
9. QUESTIONS UNDER STANDING ORDERS
Nil.
PART C – REPORT ON DELEGATED DECISIONS TAKEN BY THE BOARD
10. CONFIRMATION OF MEETING MINUTES – 5 NOVEMBER 2014
The Board resolved that the minutes of the Board’s meeting of Wednesday 5 November 2014 (both open and public excluded) be confirmed.
COUNCIL 11. 12. 2014 90
Shirley/Papanui Community Board 19. 11. 2014
11. MAIN NORTH ROAD/CRANFORD STREET LANE ALTERATIONS AND NO STOPPING
The Board considered a report seeking its approval for the installation of No Stopping restrictions on Main North Road, between its intersection with Cranford Street and its intersection with Vagues Road, to allow for the extension of the right turn lane.
STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS
It is recommended that the Shirley/Papanui Community Board:
11.1 Revoke all parking restrictions on the west side of Main North Road between its intersection with Vagues Road and its intersection with Cranford Street.
11.2 Approve that the stopping of vehicles be prohibited at any time on the west side of Main North Road between its intersection with Vagues Road and its intersection with Cranford Street.
BOARD DECISION
The Board resolved that this report lay on the table and that staff be requested to investigate the introduction of a right turn filter at the Main North Road south approach to the Cranford Street intersection and provide the information to the Board.
The meeting concluded at 6.26pm.
CONFIRMED THIS 3RD DAY OF DECEMBER 2014
MIKE DAVIDSON CHAIRPERSON
91 Clause 16
COUNCIL 11. 12. 2014
SPREYDON/HEATHCOTE COMMUNITY BOARD 4 NOVEMBER 2014
Report of a meeting of the Spreydon/Heathcote Community Board held on Tuesday 4 November 2014 at 5.30pm in the Board Room, Beckenham Service Centre, 66 Colombo Street, Beckenham.
PRESENT: Phil Clearwater, Melanie Coker, Paul McMahon, Helene Mautner Karolin Potter, Tim Scandrett, and Rik Tindall.
APOLOGIES: Nil.
The Board reports that:
PART B - REPORTS FOR INFORMATION
1. DECLARATIONS OF INTEREST
Nil.
2. DEPUTATIONS BY APPOINTMENT
2.1 WALTHAM YOUTH TRUST – ANNETTE MCGOWAN
The scheduled deputation did not go ahead.
3. PRESENTATION OF PETITIONS
Nil.
4. NOTICES OF MOTION
Nil.
5. BRIEFINGS
5.1 LIBRARIES 2025 FACILITIES PLAN REVIEW
Ms Sally Thompson, Places and Spaces Manager and Ms Dyane Hosler, Community Libraries Manager, briefed the Board on the Libraries 2025 Facilities Plan Review.
The Board decided to:
5.1.1 Endorse the Libraries 2025 Facilities Plan Review, and to receive the Voluntary Libraries Report.
5.1.2 Seek an assurance about disability accessibility in all library facilities, and that in particular the height of the South Library checkout facilities will be adjusted to comply.
5.1.3 Request to have a Board member work with the design team regarding the rebuild of the St Martin’s Voluntary Library. 92 COUNCIL 11. 12. 2014 Spreydon/Heathcote Community Board 4. 11. 2014
5. Cont’d
5.1.4 Note that there has been a reduction in opening hours in the Hoon Hay Voluntary Library.
5.1.5 Request staff to arrange a meeting to be held as soon as possible with the volunteers of Opawa Adults Library Committee.
5.1.6 Request staff to advise on proposals for volunteers of the community libraries that are closing to be recognised (note plaque in South Library acknowledging service by Beckenham librarians).
5.2 SAFEGROWTH
Ms Sue Ramsay, Team Leader Crime Prevention, addressed the Board on the SafeGrowth Progamme, which is a model for empowering communities through training and support and to identify and solve their own crime issues.
5.3 STRONGER CHRISTCHURCH INFRASRUCTURE REBUILD TEAM (SCIRT) – UPDATE ON WORK IN SOMERFIELD
Ms Vicki Cocks and Mr Reuben Faathos from SCIRT updated the Board on upcoming wastewater work in the Somerfield catchment.
The work will entail some wastewater pipes being re lined through trenchless technology, while others will need to be repaired by digging and laying. Traffic management is being co-ordinated for the dig and lay work, as some streets will need to be blocked off to traffic with Traffic Management put in place. SCIRT will be liaising with the community affected, and its website will also be advising the status of the project.
6. CORRESPONDENCE
Nil.
7. COMMUNITY BOARD ADVISER’S UPDATE
The Board received information on the following:
7.1 ERNLE CLARK RESERVE - MAINTENANCE
The Transport and City Streets Unit advised that tree maintenance work is to be undertaken in the Ernle Clark Reserve. The work will involve pruning and removing some trees.
The Board voiced concern that the first advice it had of this proposed work was in receiving the circulated Start Work Notice.
The Board decided:
7.1.1 To note its concern that it was not advised prior to the issue of the Start Work Notice of tree maintenance work to commence at Ernle Clark Reserve on 4 November 2014.
7.1.2 To request that the Unit Manager responsible review the procedures with regard to ensuring the involvement of Community Boards in relation to tree maintenance and tree removals.
93 COUNCIL 11. 12. 2014 Spreydon/Heathcote Community Board 4. 11. 2014
7. Cont’d
7.2 COMMUNICATING WITH THE COMMUNITY PROJECT
The Board was reminded that it had previously decided not to allocate any funds from the 2014/15 Strengthening Communities Fund to the Communicating with the Community project, and had indicated that this project could be funded out of the Discretionary Response Fund as and when required.
The Board was invited to consider allocating a sum from the Discretionary Response Fund to the Communicating with the Community project to cover the cost of a community network function in December.
The Board decided to request staff to organise a Board network function and invited members of the community, to be held in the Boardroom on 8 December 2014.
Clause 7.2 (Part C) continued of these minutes records a funding decision in relation to this matter.
7.3 An update on the Door Knocking Programme.
7.4 An invitation to Board members to attend the opening of Albion Square, Lyttelton on Saturday 8 November 2014.
7.5 Board Funding 2014/15 – update.
8. BOARD MEMBER’S INFORMATION EXCHANGE
8.1 Mention was made of the following matters:
• An update on identification of possible Opawaho/Heathcote River planting sites • Consultation with Older Adults Network on the Long Term Plan • Thanks were given to the Council’s Recreation Team for having organised community walks as part of the Walking Festival.
8.2 YOUTH ACHIEVEMENT AND DEVELOPMENT FUND
The Board discussed the Youth Achievement and Development Fund criteria and decided to request that:
8.2.1 In reports on Youth Achievement and Development Fund applications, that staff identify the applicant’s home suburb.
8.2.2 Youth Achievement and Development Fund grant recipients provide a short email or letter to the Board on the event attended, and that this form part of the funding criteria.
9. COUNCILLORS UPDATE
Mention was made of the following matters:
• Joint meeting of the Infrastructure, Transport and Environment Committee and the Spreydon/Heathcote, Hagley/Ferrymead Community Boards regarding the Accessible City Programme • Ford Road footbridge • SCIRT programme relating to Vernon Terrace.
94 COUNCIL 11. 12. 2014 Spreydon/Heathcote Community Board 4. 11. 2014
PART C - REPORT ON DELEGATED DECISIONS TAKEN BY THE BOARD
10. CONFIRMATION OF MINUTES – 24 OCTOBER 2014
The Board resolved that the minutes of its ordinary meeting of 24 October 2014, be confirmed subject to the change of meeting closing time to 10.12am.
11. APPLICATION TO THE SPREYDON/HEATHCOTE COMMUNITY BOARD’S YOUTH ACHIEVEMENT AND DEVELOPMENT FUND – CAMPBELL STEWART
The Board considered a report seeking its approval for funding from the Board’s 2014/15 Youth Achievement Development Fund.
The Board resolved to grant $350 from its Youth Achievement and Development Fund 2014/15 to Campbell Stewart to take part in the Great Murray River Jamboree in Albury, Australia, from 29 November to 2 December 2014.
12. APPLICATION TO THE SPREYDON/HEATHCOTE COMMUNITY BOARD’S YOUTH ACHIEVEMENT AND DEVELOPMENT FUND – ELLIOT CONNOLLY
The Board considered a report seeking its approval for funding from the Board’s 2014/15 Youth Achievement Development Fund.
The Board resolved to grant $350 from its Youth Achievement and Development Fund 2014/15 to Elliot John Connolly to compete in the Judo Cup in Wollongong, Australia, from 12 to 15 November 2014.
7. COMMUNITY BOARD ADVISER’S UPDATE CONTINUED
7.2 COMMUNICATING WITH THE COMMUNITY FUND
Further to clause 7 (Part B) of these minutes, the Board resolved to allocate $1,200 from its Discretionary Response Fund 2014/15 for the Communicating with Communities project to fund the Spreydon/Heathcote Community Board 2014 network function.
The meeting concluded at 7.48pm.
CONFIRMED THIS 21ST DAY OF NOVEMBER 2014
PAUL MCMAHON CHAIRPERSON 95 Clause 17
COUNCIL 11.12. 2014
SPREYDON/HEATHCOTE COMMUNITY BOARD 21 NOVEMBER 2014
Report of a meeting of the Spreydon/Heathcote Community Board held on Friday 21 November 2014 at 8am in the Board Room, Beckenham Service Centre, 66 Colombo Street, Beckenham.
PRESENT: Paul McMahon (Chairperson), Melanie Coker, Helene Mautner, Karolin Potter, Tim Scandrett and Rik Tindall
APOLOGIES: Apologies for absence were received and accepted from Phil Clearwater.
An apology for early departure was received and accepted from Tim Scandrett who departed at 8.36am and was absent for clauses 2.1, 3 to 10, 12 and 13.
The Board reports that:
PART B - REPORTS FOR INFORMATION
1. DECLARATION OF INTEREST
Nil.
2. DEPUTATIONS BY APPOINTMENT
2.1 CAROL MCMILLAN – PROPOSED PLAYGROUND SEAGER PARK
Carol McMillan addressed the Board on the playground proposal for Seager Park at Linden Grove,
She outlined concerns she has for the safety of children if a playground is constructed in this park. Primarily her concerns relate to the anti-social behaviour of some of the people who frequent the park and she pointed out that the park also has shrubbery areas that make it a difficult place for people to monitor their children.
Ms McMillan suggested that a better site for the location of a children’s playground would be the park in Pavilion Crescent that is an open area, is overlooked, highly visible, and already well used by local children.
The Chairperson thanked Ms McMillan for her deputation.
Clause 13 (Part C) of these minutes records the Board’s decision on this matter.
2.2 MARTIN WITT - CANCER SOCIETY OF NEW ZEALAND
Martin Witt addressed the Board on the Smokefree campaign including the results of a recent survey on public attitudes to Smokefree community spaces. 96 COUNCIL 11. 12. 2014 Spreydon Heathcote Community Board 21. 11. 2014
2 Cont’d
The Council adopted a Smokefree Outdoor Areas Policy in 2009 and the Society is now looking for the policy to be reviewed and provision to be made for smokefree community spaces.
Mr Witt asked the Board to consider recommending to the Council the adoption of the Smokefree 2025 goal and the review of its Smokefree Policy.
The Board decided that the matter lie on the table until the next meeting, and asked that in the meantime, staff advise on Council’s capacity for policy development in this area and the Board’s ability to connect with local sports organisations to promote non smoking.
The Chairperson thanked Mr Witt for his deputation.
3. ELECTED MEMBERS’ INFORMATION EXCHANGE
3.1 SAFETY RAILS FOR STEEP STEPS BETWEEN PURAU TERRACE AND OVERDALE DRIVE
The Board discussed the need for safety rails on either side of a set of steep steps in the accessway between Purau Terrace and Overdale Drive, as a safety measure for the elderly or disabled.
The Board decided to request that staff investigate installation of safety rails along the two sets of steep steps in the access way between Purau Terrace and Overdale Drive.
3.2 MANUKA COTTAGE, ADDINGTON
The Board discussed the issues of vandalism and the lack of maintenance in the vicinity of Church Square, Addington.
The Board decided to request that staff organise an urgent meeting to be held in conjunction with Manuka Cottage, Addington Residents’ Association, members of St Mary's Church and residents of Church Square to discuss the Church's grounds and the Square with Spreydon/Heathcote Community Board members, Neighbourhood Support and Christchurch City Council traffic engineers.
3.3 BUS SHELTER ON CASHMERE VILLAGE GREEN
The Board discussed the bus shelter on Cashmere Village Green that is no longer used due to a change in the bus routes.
The Board decided to request a memorandum from staff on the future of the bus shelter on Cashmere Village Green.
3.4 ERNLE CLARK RESERVE
The Board discussed the tree maintenance work being undertaken at Ernle Clark Reserve and the concerns expressed by residents about it.
The Board decided to request an urgent meeting with the relevant Unit Manager which would include residents, Board members, Friends of Ernle Clark Reserve and appropriate staff.
4. COUNCILLORS’ UPDATE
Nil. 97 COUNCIL 11. 12. 2014 Spreydon Heathcote Community Board 21. 11. 2014
5. PRESENTATION OF PETITIONS
Nil.
6. NOTICES OF MOTION
Nil.
7. CORRESPONDENCE
Nil.
8. BRIEFINGS
8.1 DAVID LEES, CONTRACTED PROJECT MANAGER, AND STUART GRAHAM, MANAGER RECREATION AND COMMUNITY – WALTHAM LIDO POOL
Mr David Lees and Mr Stuart Graham updated the Board on the progress of Waltham Lido Pool. The target date for re-opening the pool is 14 January 2015.
The Board was advised that good progress is being made, and work will continue through the summer break to ensure the opening on the scheduled date.
9. COMMUNITY BOARD ADVISER’S UPDATE
The Board received information on the following:
• Further submissions have been lodged on the Proposed Replacement District Plan.
• A Workshop on the Representation Review was held with Residents’ Associations on Monday 17 November 2014
• The Board was advised of upcoming Board activities, and advised that the Combined Community Board Seminar on Monday 24 November has been cancelled
• The Funding Update table was issued to Board members
10. QUESTIONS UNDER STANDING ORDERS
The Board sought information and discussed how a resident without any off street parking on the property should go about obtaining from the Council:
10.1 A resident car parking space 10.2 A resident car parking permit
The Board decided to request a written response to on the matter and the attendance of the Road Corridor Operations Manager at the next Board meeting on 2 December 2014.
PART C - REPORT ON DELEGATED DECISIONS TAKEN BY THE BOARD
11. CONFIRMATION OF MINUTES – 4 NOVEMBER 2014
The Board resolved that the minutes of the Board’s ordinary meeting of 4 November 2014 be confirmed, subject to the change of the word “Council” to “Committee” in Item 5.1.5, regarding the Libraries 2025 Facilities Plan Review.
98 COUNCIL 11. 12. 2014 Spreydon Heathcote Community Board 21. 11. 2014
12. PROPOSED BUS STOPS RESULTING FROM METRO REVIEW
The Board considered a report seeking its approval to install four new bus stops in their ward.
1. STAFF RECOMMENDATION
It is recommended that the Spreydon/Heathcote Community Board:
Burnbrae Street Stops
1.1 Revoke any existing parking restrictions on the north eastern side of Burnbrae Street commencing at a point 53 metres south east of its intersection with Riverlaw Terrace and extending in a south easterly direction for a distance of 26 metres.
1.2 Approve that the stopping of vehicles be prohibited at any time on the north eastern side of Burnbrae Street commencing at a point 53 metres south east of its intersection with Riverlaw Terrace and extending in a south easterly direction for a distance of eight metres.
1.3 Approve that a marked bus stop be installed on the north eastern side of Burnbrae Street commencing at a point 61 metres south east of its intersection with Riverlaw Terrace and extending in a south easterly direction for a distance of 14 metres.
1.4 Approve that the stopping of vehicles be prohibited at any time on the north eastern side of Burnbrae Street commencing at a point 75 metres south east of its intersection with Riverlaw Terrace and extending in a south easterly direction for a distance of four metres.
1.5 Revoke any parking restrictions on the south western side of Burnbrae Street commencing at a point 35 metres south east of its intersection with Palatine Terrace and extending in a south easterly direction for a distance of 26 metres.
1.6 Approve that the stopping of vehicles be prohibited at any time on the south western side of Burnbrae Street commencing at a point 35 metres south east of its intersection with Palatine Terrace and extending in a south easterly direction for a distance of four metres.
1.7 Approve that a marked bus stop be installed on the south western side of Burnbrae Street commencing at a point 39 metres south east of its intersection with Palatine Terrace and extending in a south easterly direction for a distance of 14 metres.
1.8 Approve that the stopping of vehicles be prohibited at any time on the south western side of Burnbrae Street commencing at a point 53 metres south east of its intersection with Palatine Terrace and extending in a south easterly direction for a distance of eight metres.
Curries Road Stops
1.9 Revoke any existing parking restrictions on the western side of Curries Road commencing at a point 250 metres north east (following the kerb line) of its intersection with Opawa Road and extending in a northerly direction for a distance of 26 metres.
1.10 Approve that the stopping of vehicles be prohibited at any time on the western side of Curries Road commencing at a point 250 metres north east (following the kerb line) of its intersection with Opawa Road and extending in a northerly direction for a distance of eight metres.
99 COUNCIL 11. 12. 2014 Spreydon Heathcote Community Board 21. 11. 2014
12 Cont’d
1.11 Approve that a marked bus stop be installed on the western side of Curries Road commencing at a point 258 metres north east (following the kerb line) of its intersection with Opawa Road and extending in a northerly direction for a distance of 14 metres.
1.12 Approve that the stopping of vehicles be prohibited at any time on the western side of Curries Road commencing at a point 272 metres north east (following the kerb line) of its intersection with Opawa Road and extending in a northerly direction for a distance of four metres.
1.13 Revoke any existing parking restrictions on the eastern side of Curries Road commencing at its intersection with Foundry Drive and extending in a southerly direction for a distance of 26 metres.
1.14 Approve that the stopping of vehicles be prohibited at any time on the eastern side of Curries Road commencing at its intersection with Foundry Drive and extending in a southerly direction for a distance of eight metres.
1.15 Approve that a marked bus stop be installed on the eastern side of Curries Road commencing at a point 8 metres south of its intersection with Foundry Drive and extending in a southerly direction for a distance of 14 metres.
1.16 Approve that the stopping of vehicles be prohibited at any time on the eastern side of Curries Road commencing at a point 22 metres south of its intersection with Foundry Drive and extending in a southerly direction for a distance of four metres.
2. BOARD CONSIDERATION
The Board discussed the proposed new bus stops including the proposal that bus stops to serve the bus route that goes down Tennyson Street, be on Burnbrae Street and not Tennyson Street.
The Board noted staff advice that the reason for the proposal that bus stops be on Burnbrae Street and not on Tennyson Street is that there is a dedicated cycle lane hard against the edge of the road on Tennyson Street and it would not be safe for buses to stop across or outside of the cycle lane.
The Board was concerned that this proposal would result in the nearest bus stop for Tennyson Street being on Burnbrae Street, and this would provide inadequate service for bus users on this route.
3. BOARD DECISION
Curries Road Stops
The Board resolved to:
3.1 Revoke any existing parking restrictions on the western side of Curries Road commencing at a point 250 metres north east (following the kerb line) of its intersection with Opawa Road and extending in a northerly direction for a distance of 26 metres.
3.2 Approve that the stopping of vehicles be prohibited at any time on the western side of Curries Road commencing at a point 250 metres north east (following the kerb line) of its intersection with Opawa Road and extending in a northerly direction for a distance of eight metres.
100 COUNCIL 11. 12. 2014 Spreydon Heathcote Community Board 21. 11. 2014
12 Cont’d
3.3 Approve that a marked bus stop be installed on the western side of Curries Road commencing at a point 258 metres north east (following the kerb line) of its intersection with Opawa Road and extending in a northerly direction for a distance of 14 metres.
3.4 Approve that the stopping of vehicles be prohibited at any time on the western side of Curries Road commencing at a point 272 metres north east (following the kerb line) of its intersection with Opawa Road and extending in a northerly direction for a distance of four metres.
3.5 Revoke any existing parking restrictions on the eastern side of Curries Road commencing at its intersection with Foundry Drive and extending in a southerly direction for a distance of 26 metres.
3.6 Approve that the stopping of vehicles be prohibited at any time on the eastern side of Curries Road commencing at its intersection with Foundry Drive and extending in a southerly direction for a distance of eight metres.
3.7 Approve that a marked bus stop be installed on the eastern side of Curries Road commencing at a point 8 metres south of its intersection with Foundry Drive and extending in a southerly direction for a distance of 14 metres.
3.8 Approve that the stopping of vehicles be prohibited at any time on the eastern side of Curries Road commencing at a point 22 metres south of its intersection with Foundry Drive and extending in a southerly direction for a distance of four metres.
Burnbrae Street Stops
The Board resolved to:
3.9 Decline the staff recommendation for bus stops on Burnbrae Street as it considers this location provides an inadequate bus service for Beckenham.
3.10 Request staff to investigate and provide advice on the feasibility of the installation of bus stops along Tennyson Street.
3.11 Delegate to the Chairperson and Deputy Chairperson the drafting of a press release on this subject.
13. SEAGER PARK - LANDSCAPE CONCEPT PLAN PROPOSAL
The Board considered a report seeking its approval for the landscape concept plan for a new playground at Seager Park. In its deliberations, the Board also had regard to the deputations presented at the meeting (refer clause 2.1 (Part B) of these minutes) and staff in attendance were invited to speak to the accompanying report and to respond to questions from members.
Staff provided information on the location of the playground, and also the process behind the park being chosen as the approximate location and confirmed that the park in Pavilion Crescent had been investigated, but had been rejected as it is considered that there is inadequate space for the playground on that park.
The Board also discussed the benefits of populating an area with legitimate uses to overcome the potential for anti-social behaviour in parks
The Board resolved that the Seager Park Landscape Concept Plan for a playground, be approved
101 11. 12. 2014 Spreydon Heathcote Community Board 21. 11. 2014 - 7 -
14. APPLICATION TO THE SPREYDON/HEATHCOTE COMMUNITY BOARD’S YOUTH ACHIEVEMENT FUND – NICHOLAS MICHAEL KWANT
The Board considered a report seeking its approval of an application for funding from the Board’s 2014/15 Youth Achievement and Development Fund for Nicholas Kwant.
The Board resolved to grant $250 from its Youth Achievement and Development Scheme 2014/15 to Nicholas Michael Kwant to take part in the Auckland Baseball League’s 2014/15 competition.
15. APPLICATION TO THE SPREYDON/HEATHCOTE COMMUNITY BOARD’S YOUTH ACHIEVEMENT FUND – RYAN MITCHELL SMITH
The Board considered a report seeking its approval of an application for funding from the Board’s 2014/15 Youth Achievement and Development Fund for Ryan Mitchell Smith.
The Board resolved to grant $250 from its Youth Achievement and Development Scheme 2014/15 to Ryan Mitchell Smith to compete in the National Get2Go Challenge Final on Great Barrier Island from 7 to 12 December 2014.
The meeting concluded at 10.45am.
CONFIRMED THIS 2ND DAY OF DECEMBER 2014
PAUL MCMAHON CHAIRPERSON 102 Clause 18 103
COUNCIL 11. 12. 2014
BURWOOD/PEGASUS COMMUNITY BOARD 3 NOVEMBER 2014
Report of a meeting of the Burwood/Pegasus Community Board held on Monday 3 November 2014 at 4.40pm in the Boardroom, Corner Beresford and Union Street, New Brighton, Christchurch.
PRESENT: Andrea Cummings (Chairperson), Tim Baker and Stan Tawa.
The Board reports that:
PART C – REPORT ON DELEGATED DECISIONS TAKEN BY THE BOARD
1. LAPSING OF MEETING
In accordance with Standing Order 3.5, the meeting lapsed by reason of the failure of a quorum.
The business of the lapsed meeting will be considered by the Burwood/Pegasus Community Board at its ordinary meeting on 17 November 2014.
CONFIRMED THIS 17TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2014
ANDREA CUMMINGS CHAIRPERSON 104 105 COUNCIL 11. 12. 2014 Clause 19
BURWOOD/PEGASUS COMMUNITY BOARD 17 NOVEMBER 2014
Report of a meeting of the Burwood/Pegasus Community Board held on Monday 17 November 2014 at 4.30pm in the Boardroom, Corner Beresford and Union Street, New Brighton, Christchurch.
PRESENT: Andrea Cummings (Chairperson), Tim Baker, David East, Glenn Livingstone, Tim Sintes, Linda Stewart and Stan Tawa.
APOLOGIES: An apology for lateness was received and accepted from Linda Stewart who arrived at 4.58pm and was absent for clauses 1, 2, 3, 4 and part of clause 12.
An apology for early departure was received and accepted from David East who departed at 5.18pm and was absent for clauses 5, 7, 9, 13, 14 part of clause 11.
The Board reports that:
PART B - REPORTS FOR INFORMATION
1. DECLARATION OF INTEREST
Tim Sintes declared an interest in relation to the New Brighton Pier fishing report at clause 11 of these minutes, and did not take part in the decision making process for that request.
2. DEPUTATIONS BY APPOINTMENT
2.1 ALL RIGHT? CAMPAIGN
Jo Scott was unable to attend the meeting. Her presentation will be rescheduled.
2.2 IAIN O’ROURKE
Iain O’Rourke of 519 Bower Avenue and Tony Kraan of 528 Bower Avenue, addressed the Board on the proposed installation of temporary bus stops at 526 and 527 Bower Avenue. The report at clause 10 of these minutes refers.
Photographs of historic flooding in this area of Bower Avenue were tabled. Mr Kraan outlined safety concerns with the placement of a temporary bus stop outside his property. The road narrows to the north of his property, resulting in obscured views when exiting his driveway. He reported his immediate neighbour to the south was considering moving his driveway entrance further south because of that issue. Mr O’Rourke queried the patronage levels in this section of the Avenue, noting the absence of shops and side streets.
Refer to clause 12 of these minutes, for the Board’s decision on this matter.
The Chairperson thanked Mr O’Rourke and Mr Kraan for their deputation.
3. PRESENTATION OF PETITIONS
Nil.
106 COUNCIL 11. 12. 2014
Burwood/Pegasus Community Board 17. 11. 2014
4. NOTICES OF MOTION
Nil.
5. CORRESPONDENCE
5.1 PARKLANDS RESIDENTS’ ASSOCIATION
The Board received correspondence from the Parklands Residents’ Association in relation to the asbestos contaminated rubble currently stored at Queen Elizabeth II Park (QEII).
The Board decided to:
5.1.1 Request staff to urgently undertake asbestos concentration testing on the QEII asbestos storage area to ensure the safety of the immediate community.
5.1.2 Note public concern that the covers of the asbestos storage area frequently come off and request that remedial action be undertaken as soon as possible and as required.
5.1.3 Request that staff inform the Board on these matters and also advise when a report will be presented to elected members on the appropriate disposal of asbestos from the QEII site.
6. BRIEFINGS
6.1 UNIT MANAGER PARKS
Andrew Rutledge, Unit Manager Parks, was unable to attend. His briefing will be rescheduled.
7. COMMUNITY BOARD ADVISER’S UPDATE
The Board received information from the Community Board Adviser on Board related activities including upcoming meetings, current consultations and the allocations from the 2013/14 Discretionary Response Fund and Youth Development Fund.
7.1 2025 LIBRARIES FACILITY PLAN
The Board decided to endorse the Executive Summary 2025 Library Facilities Plan update 2014.
7.2 DUNLOPS ROAD – STOPPING ROAD UPDATE
The Board received information from staff that the Preston development by Ngai Tahu Properties Ltd may no longer requires Dunlops Road, both the formed and unformed sections, to be stopped for its development.
7.3 MARSHLAND ROAD/NEW BRIGHTON ROAD/NORTH PARADE/SHIRLEY ROAD INTERSECTION
The Board received information on a request from the Dallington Residents Association, made on 7 July 2014, requesting green right turning arrows lights at the Marshland/ New Brighton Roads intersection eastern and western approaches. The request was also made that all buses travelling east going from Shirley Road into New Brighton Road be compelled to use the Bus Lane at all times.
107 COUNCIL 11. 12. 2014
Burwood/Pegasus Community Board 17. 11. 2014
7 Cont’d
The Board decided to receive and accept the conclusion reached by staff on the Marshland Road/New Brighton Road/North Parade/Shirley Road Intersection matter that:
The addition of right turn phases for the east/west approaches would create significant congestion without undertaking other costly upgrades to offset the effects of the revised phasing.
Additional right turn phases would not have any significant safety benefits based on the crash records over the previous five years.
It is not practical or beneficial to require bus drivers to utilise the eastbound bus lane.
The Board further decided that staff be requested to respond to the Dallington Residents Association correspondence of 7 July 2014 with all the information that had been presented to the Board on the topic.
7.4 RESOLUTION TRACKER FOR SEPTEMBER 2014
The Burwood/Pegasus Resolution Tracker as at September 2014 was tabled for information.
7.5 2014/15 BOARD FUNDING UPDATE
The Burwood/Pegasus Funding Update as at the end of October 2014 was tabled for information.
8. QUESTIONS UNDER STANDING ORDERS
Nil.
9. ELECTED MEMBERS’ INFORMATION EXCHANGE
The Board decided to request staff to advise when the Council Housing in the Santa Cruz complex at 81 Blake Street will be demolished and further, that staff be requested to brief the Board on the status of all Council housing within the Burwood-Pegasus Ward.
The Southshore Residents Association has expressed concern about the poor state of repair of Rocking Horse Road and the result this has of heavy vehicles creating vibrations. Elected members to discuss possible solutions with the Association.
Elected members to lodge a Request for Service regarding an unfenced creek on road reserve by the Prestons Road development. There is also an issue with diminished water flow in the creek.
PART C – REPORT ON DELEGATED DECISIONS TAKEN BY THE BOARD
10. CONFIRMATION OF MEETING MINUTES – 20 OCTOBER AND 3 NOVEMBER 2014
It was resolved that the minutes of the Board’s ordinary meetings of 20 October 2014 and 3 November 2014 be confirmed.
108 COUNCIL 11. 12. 2014
Burwood/Pegasus Community Board 17. 11. 2014
11. NEW BRIGHTON PIER FISHING REPORT
The Board considered a report which provided feedback on previous requests around fishing and crab potting on the New Brighton Pier. The report also proposed options for managing the negative impacts of fishing on the Pier.
The Board resolved to continue with a physical barrier trial at the New Brighton Pier to reduce transgressions into the no-fishing zone and to trial an alternate cleaning/enforcement contract to address tidiness issues.
12. PROPOSED BUS STOPS RESULTING FROM METRO REVIEW
The Board considered a report seeking its approval to install nine new bus stops in the Burwood/Pegasus ward.
The Board resolved to:
Aston Drive Stops
12.1 Revoke any existing parking restrictions on the south western side of Aston Drive commencing at its intersection with Torrey Pines and extending in a south easterly direction for a distance of 35 metres.
12.2 Approve that the stopping of vehicles be prohibited at any time on the south western side of Aston Drive commencing at its intersection with Torrey Pines and extending in a south easterly direction for a distance of 13 metres.
12.3 Approve that a marked bus stop be installed on the south western side of Aston Drive commencing at a point 13 metres south east of its intersection with Torrey Pines and extending in a south easterly direction for a distance of 14 metres.
12.4 Approve that the stopping of vehicles be prohibited at any time on the south western side of Aston Drive commencing at a point 27 metres south east of its intersection with Torrey Pines and extending in a south easterly direction for a distance of 8 metres.
12.5 Approve that an unmarked bus stop be installed on the north eastern side of Aston Drive at a point opposite the prolongation of the centre line of Torrey Pines.
Inwoods Road Stops
12.6 Revoke any existing parking restrictions on the north western side of Inwoods Road commencing at a point 83 metres north east of its intersection with Mairehau Road and extending in a north easterly direction for a distance of 26 metres.
12.7 Approve that the stopping of vehicles be prohibited at any time on the north western side of Inwoods Road commencing at a point 83 metres north east of its intersection with Mairehau Road and extending in a north easterly direction for a distance of 8 metres.
12.8 Approve that a marked bus stop be installed on the north western side of Inwoods Road commencing at a point 91 metres north east of its intersection with Mairehau Road and extending in a north easterly direction for a distance of 14 metres.
12.9 Approve that the stopping of vehicles be prohibited be prohibited at any time on the north western side of Inwoods Road commencing at a point 105 metres north east of its intersection with Mairehau Road and extending in a north easterly direction for a distance of 4 metres. 109 COUNCIL 11. 12. 2014
Burwood/Pegasus Community Board 17. 11. 2014
12 Cont’d
12.10 Revoke any existing parking restrictions on the south eastern side of Inwoods Road commencing at a point 12 metres north east of its intersection with Jade Place and extending in a north easterly direction for a distance of 26 metres.
12.11 Approve that the stopping of vehicles be prohibited be prohibited at any time on the south eastern side of Inwoods Road commencing at a point 12 metres north east of its intersection with Jade Place and extending in a north easterly direction for a distance of 4 metres.
12.12 Approve that a marked bus stop be installed on the south eastern side of Inwoods Road commencing at a point 16 metres north east of its intersection with Jade Place and extending in a north easterly direction for a distance of 14 metres.
12.13 Approve that the stopping of vehicles be prohibited be prohibited at any time on the south eastern side of Inwoods Road commencing at a point 30 metres north east of its intersection with Jade Place and extending in a north easterly direction for a distance of 8 metres.
Queenspark Drive Stop Relocation
12.14 Revoke the existing unmarked bus stop on the south western side of Queenspark Drive commencing at a point 47 metres south east of its intersection with Inwoods Road and extending in a south easterly direction for a distance of 12 metres.
12.15 Revoke any existing parking restrictions on the south western side of Queenspark Drive commencing at its intersection with Cottonwood Street and extending in a south easterly direction for a distance of 37 metres.
12.16 Approve that the stopping of vehicles be prohibited at any time on the south western side of Queenspark Drive commencing at its intersection with Cottonwood Street and extending in a south easterly direction for a distance of 15 metres.
12.17 Approve that a marked bus stop be installed on the south western side of Queenspark Drive commencing at a point 15 metres south east of its intersection with Cottonwood Street and extending in a south easterly direction for a distance of 14 metres.
12.18 Approve that the stopping of vehicles be prohibited be prohibited at any time on the south western side of Queenspark Drive commencing at a point 29 metres south east of its intersection with Cottonwood Street and extending in a south easterly direction for a distance of 8 metres.
The Board resolved to request staff to place temporary bus stops in Bower Avenue between Broadhaven Avenue and Queenspark Drive noting that these stops have an approximate life of three months. The Board’s preference is for these to be located outside 509E and 524 Bower Avenue and replace those identified in the report outside 526/528 and 511/513 Bower Avenue.
13. APPLICATION TO BURWOOD/PEGASUS COMMUNITY BOARD 2014/15 DISCRETIONARY RESPONSE FUND – PARKLANDS TABLE TENNIS CLUB
The Board considered a report seeking its approval for funding from its Discretionary Response Fund for the Parklands Table Tennis Club Expenses project.
The Board resolved to grant $1,450 from its 2014/15 Discretionary Response Fund to the Parklands Table Tennis Club for its Expenses project.
110 COUNCIL 11. 12. 2014
Burwood/Pegasus Community Board 17. 11. 2014
14. BURWOOD PEGASUS 2014/15 YOUTH DEVELOPMENT FUNDING SCHEME – CLAUDIA LOW
The Board considered a report seeking its approval for funding from its Youth Development to Claudia Low.
The Board resolved to grant $400 from its 2014/15 Youth Development Fund to Claudia Low towards the cost of the North Rhine Westphalia Exchange programme.
The Board Chairperson declared the meeting closed at 6.52pm.
CONFIRMED THIS 1ST DAY OF DECEMBER 2014
ANDREA CUMMINGS CHAIRPERSON Clause 20 111 COUNCIL 11. 12. 2014
FENDALTON/WAIMAIRI COMMUNITY BOARD 3 NOVEMBER 2014
Minutes of a meeting of the Fendalton/Waimairi Community Board held on Monday 3 November 2014 at 5pm in the Boardroom, Fendalton Service Centre, Corner Jeffreys and Clyde Roads.
PRESENT: Val Carter (Chairperson), David Cartwright, Sally Buck, Faimeh Burke, Raf Manji and Bridget Williams.
APOLOGIES: An apology for absence was received and accepted from Jamie Gough.
Faimeh Burke arrived at 5.03pm and was absent for clauses 1 to 7 and 9 and 10 Sally Buck arrived at 5.06pm and was absent for clauses 1 to 7, 9 10 and part of clause 8.
The Board reports that:
PART B - REPORTS FOR INFORMATION
1. DECLARATION OF INTEREST
There were no declarations of interest.
2. DEPUTATIONS BY APPOINTMENT
Nil.
3. PRESENTATION OF PETITIONS
Nil.
4. NOTICE OF MOTION
Nil.
5. CORRESPONDENCE
5.1 FENDALTON BOWLING CLUB INVITATION
Correspondence from the Fendalton Bowling Club was tabled and received, inviting Board members to an informal fun game of bowls to celebrate the start of the World Bowls Champion of Champions Singles 2014.
6. BRIEFINGS
Nil.
112 COUNCIL 11. 12. 2014 Fendalton/Waimairi Community Board 3. 11. 2014
7. COMMUNITY BOARD ADVISER’S UPDATE
The Community Board Adviser tabled an information memorandum containing current items of business including:
7.1 Reminders
School Principals meeting at 8am on 4 November 2014 Long Term Plan public consultation sessions at 12noon to 2pm and 3pm to 5pm on 4 November 2014
7.2 Library 2025 Plan
Background information on the draft Library 2025 Plan was circulated and members were informed that this item would be on the following agenda for the Board’s feedback.
7.3 Seminar and Representation Review
Members were informed that a seminar hosted by the Earthquake Commission and Tonkin and Taylor had been scheduled for 4pm on Monday 8 December 2014. However the recent arrangements for a meeting with residents groups in connection with the Representation Review had now been set for 5pm on Monday 8 December 2014. Staff had been in contact with the presenters of the scheduled seminar and proposed a slightly earlier start to enable members to attend both items.
The Board decided that the Seminar scheduled for Monday 8 December 2014 would commence at 3.45pm and the meeting with residents groups would commence at 5pm on Monday 8 December 2014.
8. ELECTED MEMBERS’ INFORMATION EXCHANGE
8.1 Cycleways
The Board endorsed information, previously circulated, regarding cycle lanes in general, as well as the proposed major cycle way project, and were supportive of the arrangements made to support cycling. However, the Board noted that recreational cycling needs to be also supported and improvements made to the general network and not just the major cycleways.
The Board also noted a number of hotspots and decided that its concerns should be passed on to staff, in particular issues arising out of recreational cycling on Dyers Pass Road and that the Summit Road Society be similarly advised of the concerns relating to Summit Road.
8.2 Board Objectives
The progressing of Board Objectives for the current term was discussed and ideas for how best to move this project forward were exchanged.
The Board decided that staff arrange a meeting for this purpose.
8.3 Bishopdale Community Centre and Library Rebuild Project
Staff advised that the Project Manager would update the Board at its next meeting.
PART C - REPORT ON DELEGATED DECISIONS TAKEN BY THE BOARD
9. CONFIRMATION OF MEETING MINUTES – 6 OCTOBER 2014
The Fendalton/Waimairi Community Board resolved that the minutes of its ordinary meeting of Monday 6 October 2014, be confirmed. 113 COUNCIL 11. 12. 2014 Fendalton/Waimairi Community Board 3. 11. 2014
10. ADOPTION OF SCHEDULE OF MEETINGS FOR THE 2013-2016 COUNCIL TERM
The Board considered a report seeking confirmation of its programme for meetings to the end of the 2013 - 2016 Triennial Term.
The Board resolved:
10.1 To adopt a programme of meetings for the balance of the 2013 – 2016 Council Term as follows:
Meetings to be held on in the Boardroom, Fendalton Service Centre at 4pm
2015 2016 Monday 2 February Monday 1 February Monday 16 February Monday 15 February Monday 2 March Monday 29 February Monday 16 March Monday 14 March Monday 30 March Monday 4 April Monday 13 April Monday 18 April Monday 4 May Monday 2 May Monday 18 May Monday 16 May Tuesday 2 June Monday 30 May Monday 15 June Monday 13 June Monday 29 June Monday 4 July Monday 13 July Monday 18 July Monday 3 August Monday 1 August Monday 17 August Monday 15 August Monday 31 August Monday 29 August Monday 14 September Monday 12 September Monday 28 September End of 2013-16 Term Monday 12 October Monday 2 November Monday 16 November Monday 30 November Monday 14 December
10.2 To authorise the Fendalton/Waimairi Community Board Adviser to make changes as necessary to meet extraordinary circumstances.
The meeting concluded at 5.23pm.
CONFIRMED THIS 17TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2014
VAL CARTER CHAIRPERSON 114 115 Clause 21 COUNCIL 11. 12. 2014
FENDALTON/WAIMAIRI COMMUNITY BOARD 17 NOVEMBER 2014
Report of a meeting of the Fendalton/Waimairi Community Board held on Monday 17 November 2014 at 5pm in the Boardroom, Fendalton Service Centre, Corner Jeffreys and Clyde Roads.
PRESENT: Val Carter (Chairperson), David Cartwright, Sally Buck, Faimeh Burke and Bridget Williams.
APOLOGIES: Apologies for absence were received and accepted from Raf Manji and Jamie Gough.
An apology for early departure was received and accepted from David Cartwright who left the meeting at 5.28pm and was absent for clauses 3 to 8 and clauses 10 and 11.
The Board reports that:
PART B - REPORTS FOR INFORMATION
1. DECLARATION OF INTEREST
There were no declarations of interest.
2. DEPUTATIONS BY APPOINTMENT
2.1 FENDALTON SCHOOL SWIMMING POOL REBUILD
Mr David Schwartfeger from the Fendalton School Swimming Pool Rebuild Committee attended and spoke to the Board regarding support for the rebuild of the school’s swimming pool on Ministry of Education land. The school has fundraised half of the rebuild amount and is confident that it will reach the total required. The school requested a letter of support from the Board to the Ministry of Education for the project.
The Board decided to write a letter of support to the Ministry of Education regarding the community benefit of the replacement of Fendalton School swimming pool.
The Board also decided to request that the school liaise with staff regarding the option of an application for funding to the Board’s Discretionary Response Fund if appropriate.
2.2 HAREWOOD SCHOOL – TRAFFIC SAFETY ISSUES
Ms Julie Greenwood, Principal of Harewood School attended and spoke to the Board about the school’s concerns regarding traffic safety issues in the vicinity of Harewood School. Ms Greenwood cited the heavy traffic flow which is expected to increase due to the New Zealand Transport Authority four laning of Johns Road. The proposed siting of permanent bus stops outside the school has added to the school’s concerns for pupils’ safety with reduced visibility and the removal of eight safe car parks to accommodate the proposed bus stops.
2.3 HAREWOOD PLAYCENTRE – TRAFFIC SAFETY ISSUES
Ms Gaye Shearer from the Harewood Playcentre attended and spoke to the Board about the Playcentre’s concerns regarding traffic and safe access for Playcentre attendees and parents in light of the proposed siting of permanent bus stops outside their premises. Ms Shearer also expressed concern regarding the lack of consultation over the bus stop location and the 70 kilometre per hour speed limit currently in place. 116 COUNCIL 11. 12. 2014 Fendalton/Waimairi Community Board 17. 11. 2014
3. PRESENTATION OF PETITIONS
Nil.
4. NOTICE OF MOTION
Nil.
5. CORRESPONDENCE
5.1 HAREWOOD SCHOOL TRAFFIC SAFETY ISSUES
The Board received the correspondence from Harewood School describing the school’s concerns regarding traffic safety issues in the vicinity of Harewood School.
6. BRIEFINGS
6.1 LINCOLN BLAIR – BISHOPDALE COMMUNITY CENTRE AND LIBRARY REBUILD – PROJECT UPDATE
Lincoln Blair, Contract Project Manager attended to update the Board on the Bishopdale Community Centre and Library rebuild project. The project is in the process of being signed off and a new brief written to establish the parameters for the rebuild project with the proposed communications strategy under development.
Draft Terms of Reference have been developed for the proposed Working Group comprised of Board members, staff and community representatives.
The Board decided to provide feedback on the draft Terms of Reference to the Community Board Adviser by the end of November, to enable the Terms of Reference to be formally agreed at the 15 December 2014 Board meeting.
6.2 SALLY THOMPSON – 2025 LIBRARY PLAN
Sally Thompson, Places and Spaces Manager attended and spoke to the Board regarding the proposed 2025 Library Plan.
The Board decided to support the 2025 Library Plan and formally recommend to the Council that the Plan be adopted.
6.3 BILL HOMEWOOD - HAMILTON AVENUE PARKING
Bill Homewood, Traffic Engineer attended and spoke to his Information Memorandum relating to the Hamilton Avenue/Otara Street Residents’ Association parking concerns in response to the Board’s request of 19 November 2013.
The Board decided that staff be requested to evaluate and discuss with the local residents association (HORA) the option of P120 restrictions between Coldstream Court and Karo Place and to provide feedback to the Board, noting that the impact of the University semesters will need to be assessed as part of this evaluation.
6.4 BILL HOMEWOOD - PEDESTRIAN CROSSING OPTIONS AT INTERSECTION OF WAIRAKEI ROAD AND BREENS ROAD
Bill Homewood, Traffic Engineer attended and spoke to his Information Memorandum relating to a possible pedestrian crossing at the intersection of Wairakei and Breens Roads in response to the Board’s request of 17 September 2013. 117 COUNCIL 11. 12. 2014 Fendalton/Waimairi Community Board 17. 11. 2014
6 Cont’d
The Board were advised that this crossing is ninth on the list of priorities for safety and is currently scheduled, along with two further pedestrian crossings for Wairakei Road, for commencement in 2015 conditional to Board approval and Council funding.
6.5 PLYNLIMON PARK CRIME PREVENTION THROUGH ENVIRONMENTAL DESIGN (CPTED) REPORT
Sue Ramsay, Team Leader Crime Prevention attended and spoke to the CPTED report generated in response to the Board’s resolution at its meeting of 16 June 2014.
The Board decided to request that staff consider the issues raised in the original deputation and meet with those residents who made the deputation and the local school and undertake a further CPTED evaluation based on this information.
7. COMMUNITY BOARD ADVISER’S UPDATE
The Community Board Adviser tabled an information memorandum containing current items of business including:
7.1 BOARD OBJECTIVES
The Board decided to defer consideration of the Board’s objectives until the New Year.
7.2 CHRISTCHURCH REPLACEMENT DISTRICT PLAN
The Board noted the progress of the District Plan processes.
8. ELECTED MEMBERS’ INFORMATION EXCHANGE
Nil.
PART C - REPORT ON DELEGATED DECISIONS TAKEN BY THE BOARD
9. CONFIRMATION OF MEETING MINUTES – 3 NOVEMBER 2014
The Fendalton/Waimairi Community Board resolved that the minutes of its ordinary meeting of Monday 3 November 2014, be confirmed subject to the deletion of the words “and clause 10” relating to the apology from Faimeh Burke.
10. PROPOSED BUS STOPS RESULTING FROM METRO REVIEW
The Board considered a report seeking approval to install three new bus stops in their ward.
The Fendalton/Waimairi Community Board resolved to:
Apsley Drive Bus Stop
10.1 Revoke any existing parking restrictions on the north western side of Apsley Drive commencing at a point 23 metres north east of its intersection with Ansonby Street and extending in a north easterly direction for a distance of 26 metres.
10.2 Approve that the stopping of vehicles be prohibited at any time on the north western side of Apsley Drive commencing at a point 23 metres north east of its intersection with Ansonby Street and extending in a north easterly direction for a distance of 8 metres. 118 COUNCIL 11. 12. 2014 Fendalton/Waimairi Community Board 17. 11. 2014
10 Cont’d
10.3 Approve that a marked bus stop be installed on the north western side of Apsley Drive commencing at a point 31 metres north east of its intersection with Ansonby Street and extending in a north easterly direction for a distance of 14 metres.
10.4 Approve that the stopping of vehicles be prohibited at any time on the north western side of Apsley Drive commencing at a point 45 metres north east of its intersection with Ansonby Street and extending in a north easterly direction for a distance of 4 metres.
Harewood Road Bus Stops
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
10.5 Revoke any existing parking restrictions on the south western side of Harewood Road commencing at a point 208 metres north west of its intersection with Stanleys Road and extending in a north westerly direction for a distance of 75 metres.
10.6 Approve that the stopping of vehicles be prohibited at any time on the south western side of Harewood Road commencing at a point 208 metres north west of its intersection with Stanleys Road and extending in a north westerly direction for a distance of 57 metres.
10.7 Approve that a marked bus stop be installed on the south western side of Harewood Road at a point 265 metres north west of its intersection with Stanleys Road and extending in a north westerly direction for a distance of 14 metres.
10.8 Approve that the stopping of vehicles be prohibited at any time on the south western side of Harewood Road commencing at a point 279 metres north west of its intersection with Stanleys Road and extending in a north westerly direction for a distance of 4 metres.
10.9 Revoke any existing parking restrictions on the north eastern side of Harewood Road commencing at its intersection with Waimakariri Road and extending in a south easterly direction for a distance of 70 metres.
10.10 Approve that the stopping of vehicles be prohibited at any time on the north eastern side of Harewood Road commencing at its intersection with Waimakariri Road and extending in a south easterly direction for a distance of 52 metres.
10.11 Approve that a marked bus stop be installed on the north eastern side of Harewood Road commencing at a point 52 metres south east of its intersection with Waimakariri Road and extending in a south easterly direction for a distance of 14 metres.
10.12 Approve that the stopping of vehicles be prohibited at any time on the north eastern side of Harewood Road commencing at a point 66 metres south east of its intersection with Waimakariri Road and extending in a south easterly direction for a distance of 4 metres.
BOARD DECISION
After considering the matters raised by the deputations from Harewood School and Harewood Playcentre regarding the safety of pupils the Board resolved not to approve the staff recommendations regarding the proposed siting of permanent bus stops in Harewood Road.
The Board resolved the following:
10.5 That staff consider alternative locations for any temporary bus stops, potentially outside 750 Harewood Road and opposite, noting that this would require further limited consultation.
10.6 That staff also provide a report on all aspects raised by both deputations, liaising with New Zealand Transport Authority and Environment Canterbury as appropriate to address the concerns including possible reductions in speed limits or other measures, for example, electronic warning signs to ensure a safe environment for all school and playcentre pupils and that an interim formal update be provided to the Board before the end of the calendar year. 119 COUNCIL 11. 12. 2014 Fendalton/Waimairi Community Board 17. 11. 2014
10.7 That staff provide information on operational priorities to improve footpaths and other safety measures in the vicinity of the school and playcentre.
The Board expressed concerns regarding legislation which restricts school speed zones being operated more than twice in any one day and that this is adversely impacting on the safety of pre- school children. The Board resolved to write a letter raising these concerns directly with the New Zealand Transport Authority
11. APPLICATION TO THE BOARD’S 2014/15 YOUTH DEVELOPMENT FUND – BURNSIDE HIGH SCHOOL – SPIRIT OF ADVENTURE TROPHY VOYAGE
The Board considered a report seeking approval for an application for funding from its 2014/15 Youth Development Fund from Burnside High School.
The meeting concluded at 6.45pm.
CONFIRMED THIS 1ST DAY OF DECEMBER 2014
VAL CARTER CHAIRPERSON 120 Clause 22 121 COUNCIL 11. 12. 2014
REPORT BY THE CHAIRPERSON OF THE FENDALTON/WAIMAIRI COMMUNITY BOARD
PART A - MATTERS REQUIRING A COUNCIL DECISION
1. WAIRAKEI ROAD/WOOLDRIDGE ROAD INTERSECTION UPGRADE
Contact Contact Details Executive Leadership Team Chief Operating Officer, Operations N Member responsible: Group Officer responsible: Unit Manager, Assets and Networks N Author: Mark Gregory, Transport Network Y DDI 941 8618 Planner
1. PURPOSE AND ORIGIN OF REPORT
1.1 The Board considered a report seeking its recommendation to the Council that the signalising of the Wairakei Road/Wooldridge Road intersection (which is currently scheduled for delivery during financial year 2015 – 2016) be deferred.
2. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
2.1 The Wairakei Road / Wooldridge Road roundabout presently experiences congestion during the peak periods. However, modelling of the network and the intersections indicates that this situation is likely to improve significantly, following the Roads Of National Significance (RONS) improvements on the Western Corridor with the partial closure of Wairakei Road at Johns Road, and reconstruction of the Central City. Therefore, we recommend that the project will have benefits in the much longer term and therefore, funding should be deferred.
2.2 Although the project can be deferred we have identified a future requirement for signalisation in 2026. In the meantime full scheme plans are being developed to have ready for construction in the future.
3. BACKGROUND
3.1 The Wairakei Road / Wooldridge Road roundabout has been nominated for signalisation through the Capital Programme, in response to localised congestion issues and anticipated development pressures.
3.2 The City Plan contains a clause (Volume 3: Chapter 14 s5.3.8) which states that any development on the Tait campus that exceeds 10,000 square metres shall be a ‘non complying activity’ until the upgrading of the Wairakei/Wooldridge Roads (including traffic signals) has been carried out.
3.3 There are aspirations to improve pedestrian crossing facilities in the area and signalisation has been identified as a means to implement such improvements. There are no recorded crashes involving pedestrians. The intersection has a very low crash record and is not identified on any road safety prioritisation measure, including KiwiRAP (Road Assessment Programme, administered by NZTA)
3.4 Construction of RONS SH1 Johns Road – Russley Road upgrade is anticipated for completion in 2018/19. Part of the works will include restricted access from some Council maintained roads, including Wairakei Road. These changes are included in the Council’s Christchurch Assignment Stimulation Technique (CAST) traffic model and are expected to result in significant changes to traffic patters, including reduction in traffic flows at the Wairakei Road/Wooldridge Road. 122 COUNCIL 11. 12. 2014
1 Cont’d
3.5 Furthermore, it is presently assumed that a ‘rapid’ growth scenario in the Central City will cause the remediation of traffic growth that has occurred in the western suburbs following the 2010 and 2011 earthquakes.
3.6 The matters discussed in 3.4 and 3.5 have been reflected in modelling work that has part informed the conclusion that there will possibly be negative benefits from upgrading the intersection now. An intersection model, using CAST flows has been developed for circa 2021 and concludes that the roundabout will operate at a high level of service, based on present development estimations and the inclusion of RONS.
3.7 Modelling has also been undertaken for 2026, and has included the North West Review Area (NWRA) traffic flows. Under these conditions, the roundabout performs at a poor Level of Service and further investigation indicates that signalisation around this time would yield significant benefits in econometric terms. A scheme for such an intersection upgrade has been produced to Part 5 stage (preferred option) and will be available for implementation at a later date, as deemed necessary.
4. COMMENT
4.1 Based on the information available, the intersection does not require upgrading at the present time. Given the effects of RONS and land use growth assumptions, the Council can afford to defer signalisation without any known detriment to network operations.
4.2 An alternative ‘interim scheme’, making changes to the existing roundabout has been assessed and modelled using intersection simulation software. The findings were that there would be negative benefits to congestion relief and pedestrian safety and therefore this option has not been progressed further.
4.3 The matters raised in this report have been discussed and ratified within the Transport Operations and Capital (TOC) Officer’s Committee. The report that went before this Committee is available upon request.
5. FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS
5.1 A sum of $764,376 has been allocated to the project in Financial Year 2014 / 15.
5.2 Following expenditure on design, remaining capital funds will be given up and reapplied for in future Long Term Plans (LTPs) when the improvements are needed.
6. STAFF RECOMMENDATION
That the Council:
6.1 Defer the project for at least six years but approve that some funds are to be used for scheme design this year.
6.2 Note that during this deferral period there will be opportunity to monitor the impacts of the Road Of National Significance and also to re-examine land use / transport models which will have updated land use growth assumptions.
6.3 Note that it is likely that if the North West Review Area developments go ahead (estimated to be middle of next decade) then there will be definite benefits then to signalising the intersection.
123 COUNCIL 11. 12. 2014
1 Cont’d
BOARD CONSIDERATION
Staff advised that due to the proposed Tait development and the Roads of National Significance improvements being carried out by New Zealand Transport Authority, it was deemed prudent to wait for up to six years before reassessing the requirements of this project.
The Board raised concerns that, if in less than six years, it became apparent that this project should go ahead, that the funding would not be available if this project (and its funding) was removed from the Long Term Plan for a minimum of six years.
The Board was also of the view that any scheme design, including public consultation, should only be carried out once and that if the staff recommendation in 6.1 were adopted, there was a risk of duplication of effort and increased project costs.
BOARD RECOMMENDATION
That the staff recommendation be adopted subject to the project being deferred for up to six years and that the total funding remains in the Long Term Plan.
The Board also recommends to the Council that no scheme design (and associated public consultation) be undertaken until the project has a confirmed start date to enable maximum use of the budget and eliminate or reduce duplication.
2. ST ANDREWS COLLEGE – VARIABLE SPEED LIMIT
Contact Contact Details Executive Leadership Team General Manager, N Member responsible: Culture, Leisure and Parks Officer responsible: Unit Manager, Transport and City N Streets Author: Michael Thomson, Senior Traffic Y DDI 941 8950 Engineer
1. PURPOSE AND ORIGIN OF REPORT
1.1 The Board considered a report seeking its endorsement for the installation of a new variable speed limit (40 kilometres per hour school speed zone) on Normans Road at St Andrews College. The Board recommends to the Council that it approve the new variable speed limit and include it in the Christchurch City Council Register of Speed Limits.
1.2 This is a staff initiated report as this school has reached top priority on the Council approved school zone priority process for a 40 km/h school zone from the Council approved 2014/15 budget.
2. BACKGROUND
2.1 The Council has a commitment to improve road safety. Reducing excessive vehicle speeds, where appropriate, outside schools during peak arrival and departure periods improves safety for children. The Council has a programme of installing 40 kilometres per hour variable speed limits (known as ‘School Speed Zones’) outside schools according to a prioritisation process. This process, including the methodology behind it, was endorsed on 25 August 2011 by the Council as the most appropriate method of improving road safety outside certain schools.
2.2 St Andrews College, on the Normans Road frontage currently has the highest priority for the installation of a variable speed limit. Note: To date, 41 schools in Christchurch have benefited from the installation of a school speed zone.
2.3 This project aligns with the Christchurch Transport Strategic Plan 2012-2042 124 COUNCIL 11. 12. 2014
2 Cont’d
3. COMMENT
3.1 The ‘school speed zone’ can operate on school days for a period of no more than 35 minutes in the morning before the start of school, and for a period of no more than 20 minutes in the afternoon, beginning no earlier than five minutes before the end of school. The ‘school speed zone’ can also operate for a period of 10 minutes at any other time when children cross the road, or enter/leave vehicles at the roadside.
3.2 The Council can resolve to set new variable speed limits in accordance with the Christchurch City Council Speed Limits Bylaw and the Land Transport Rule: Setting of Speed Limits 2003. Accordingly, infrastructure for these variable speed limits cannot be commissioned until they have been formally resolved by the Council.
3.3 The proposed variable speed limit complies with the conditions specified and published by the Director of the New Zealand Transport Agency in the New Zealand Gazette (21 April 2011, No. 55, p. 1284) approving a variable speed limit of 40 kilometre per hour in school zones, and setting out conditions for those speed limits. A copy of that notice is attached (refer Attachment 2). A Council resolution is required to implement the speed limit restrictions and any traffic management changes required.
3.4 The proposed variable speed limit also complies with the Land Transport Rules- Setting of Speed Limits :2003, Traffic Control Devices :2004, and the Christchurch City Council Speed Limits Bylaw 2010.
3.5 Before the Council can set a variable speed limit pursuant to Clause 5(1) of the Christchurch City Speed Limits Bylaw 2010, the public consultation requirements set out in Section 7.1 of the Land Transport Rule Setting of Speed Limits 2003 Rule 54001 must be complied with. Section 7.1(2) provides that the persons who must be consulted before the Council sets a speed limit are:
(a) Road controlling authorities that are responsible for roads that join, or are near, the road on which the speed limit is to be set or changed; (b) A territorial authority that is affected by the existing or proposed speed limit; (c) Any local community that the road controlling authority considers to be affected by the proposed speed limit; (d) The Commissioner of Police; (e) The Chief Executive Officer of the New Zealand Automobile Association Incorporated; (f) The Chief Executive Officer of the Road Transport Forum New Zealand; (g) Other organisations or road user groups that the road controlling authority considers to be affected by the proposed speed limit; and (h) The Director of Land Transport New Zealand now the New Zealand Transport Agency (NZTA).
3.6 Section 7.1(3) of the Rule provides: (a) A road controlling authority must consult by writing to the persons in 7.1(2) advising them of the proposed speed limit and giving them a reasonable time, which must be specified in the letter, to make submissions on the proposal. In terms of Section 7.1(2)(a) and 7.1(2)(b) there are no road controlling authorities or territorial authorities that are required to be consulted in respect of any of the proposed variable speed limits.
3.7 Representatives of the Commissioner of Police, the Director of NZTA, the Chief Executive Officer of the New Zealand Automobile Association Incorporated, and the Chief Executive Officer of the Road Transport Forum of New Zealand have received written advice of the proposed new variable speed limit in accordance with Section 7.1(2) (d), (e), (f) and (h). No other organisation or road user group is considered to be affected by the proposed speed limits. No neighbouring road controlling authority is affected.
3.8 The School’s Board of Trustees supports the proposal for a School Speed Zone. 125 COUNCIL 11. 12. 2014
2 Cont’d
3.9 A memorandum was sent to Community Board members on 30 September 2014 advising them that the Council was proposing to consult on a 40 kilometre per hour variable speed limit outside St Andrews College.
3.10 The publicity leaflet, with consultation plan, was distributed to the community and stakeholders for consultation on the 10 October 2014. The feedback period closed on 27 October 2014. Approximately 200 pamphlets were distributed to businesses, residents, and property owners. Two submissions were received. One submission generally supported the proposal and one made no comment.
3.11 One submitter advised they had no objection to the proposed speed zone but wondered if it could be lengthened right to the St Andrews Square turn off. They also made other comments relating to the on-street parking of vehicles dropping off or picking up school pupils that were not relevant to this project.
3.12 Both submitters have received an acknowledgement that their submission has been received and later a second letter was sent giving the outcome of consultation, a summary of the feedback and advised that a report would be presented to this meeting of the Fendalton / Waimairi Community Board requesting their approval to install the School Speed Zone. Details of the Board meeting were also provided so that any interested submitters could attend or address the Board prior to a decision being made.
4. FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS
4.1 The estimated cost for this school zone is $40,000 and will be funded from an approved fund for School Speed Zones.
5. STAFF RECOMMENDATION
That the Council approve:
5.1 The installation of a 40 kilometre per hour variable speed limit on Normans Road (school zone), as it meets the requirements of Section 7.1 of the Land Transport Setting of Speed Limits Rule 2003, and the New Zealand Gazette notice (21 April 2011, Number 55, page 1284) including the times of operation.
5.2 Subject to the Council approving recommendation 5.1 of this report, that pursuant to Clause 5(1) of the Christchurch City Speed Limits Bylaw 2010, a variable speed limit (40 kilometres per hour School Speed zone) apply on: Normans Road, commencing at a point 70 metres southwest of the Papanui Road Intersection and extending in a south- westerly direction for a distance of 414 metres.
5.3 Subject to the Council approving recommendations 5.1 and 5.2 of this report, that the variable speed limit specified in recommendations 5.1 and 5.2 shall come into force on completion of infrastructure installation and public notification.
6. BOARD RECOMMENDATION
That the staff recommendation be adopted.
126 127 COUNCIL 11. 12. 2014
ATTACHMENT TO CLAUSE 2 Attachment 1
128 129 COUNCIL 11. 12. 2014
ATTACHMENT TO CLAUSE 2 Attachment 2
130 131 Clause 23 COUNCIL 11. 12. 2014
REGULATION AND CONSENTS COMMITTEE 20. 11. 2014
A meeting of the Regulation and Consents Committee was held in Committee Room 1 on 20 November 2014 at 8.30am
PRESENT: Councillor David East (Chairperson) Councillors Tim Scandrett (Deputy Chairperson), Ali Jones, Paul Lonsdale and Glenn Livingstone
APOLOGIES: An apology for lateness was received and accepted from Ali Jones who arrived at 9.01am and was absent for clauses 1, 2, 3 and part of clause 4.
The Committee reports that:
PART B – REPORTS FOR INFORMATION
1. DEPUTATIONS BY APPOINTMENT
Nil.
2. DECLARATIONS OF INTEREST
Nil.
3. UPDATE OF THE BUILDING CONTROL AND CITY REBUILD GROUP
The Committee considered the update report of the Building Control and City Rebuild Group.
COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION
The Committee decided to note the content of this report.
4. MONTHLY REPORT ON RESOURCE CONSENTS – SEPTEMBER 2014
The Committee considered the September 2014 report on resource consents.
COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION
The Committee decided to receive the Monthly Report on Resource Consents for September 2014.
5. MONTHLY REPORT ON RESOURCE CONSENTS – OCTOBER 2014
The Committee considered the October 2014 report on resource consents.
COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION
The Committee decided to receive the Monthly Report on Resource Consents for October 2014.
132 COUNCIL 11. 12. 2014
Regulation and Consents Committee 20. 11. 2014
-2-
6. TERMS OF REFERENCE – REGULATION AND CONSENTS COMMITTEE
The Committee considered the Terms of Reference.
COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION
The Committee resolved to:
6.1 Adopt the Terms of Reference of the Regulation and Consents Committee.
6.2 Report to Council these Terms of References for its information.
Note: The Committee agreed that regular updates and reports from all areas contained in their Terms of Reference will be included as agenda items in 2015.
The meeting concluded at 9.42am.
CONSIDERED THIS 11TH DAY OF DECEMBER 2014
MAYOR
133 COUNCIL 11. 12. 2014 Clause 24
STRATEGY AND FINANCE COMMITTEE 20. 11. 2014
A meeting of the Strategy and Finance Committee was held in the No. 1 Committee Room on 20 November 2014 at 1pm.
PRESENT: The Mayor (Chairperson) Councillors Raf Manji (Deputy Chairperson), Vicki Buck, Jimmy Chen, Phil Clearwater, Jamie Gough, Yani Johanson and Andrew Turner.
IN ATTENDANCE: Dr Karleen Edwards, Chief Executive Officer.
APOLOGIES: An apology for early departure was received and accepted from The Mayor who retired from the meeting at 2.17pm and was absent for clauses 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25.
An apology for early departure was received and accepted from Councillor Gough who retired from the meeting at 2.24pm and was absent for clauses 4, 7, 8, 9, 10, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25.
An apology for early departure was received and accepted from Deputy Mayor Vicki Buck who retired from the meeting at 2.26pm and was absent for clauses 7, 8, 9, 10, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25 and part of Clause 6.
The Committee reports that:
PART A - MATTERS REQUIRING A COUNCIL DECISION
1. DEVELOPMENT CONTRIBUTIONS – LIBRARY AND LEISURE CHARGES
Contact Contact Details Executive Leadership Team Chief Planning Officer, Strategy and Diane Campbell 941 8281 Member responsible: Planning Officer responsible: Resource Consents Manager Author: Resource Consents Manager Y John Higgins, 941 8224
1. PURPOSE AND ORIGIN OF REPORT
1.1 The purpose of this report is to seek confirmation on whether to require developers to pay the libraries and leisure components of development contribution charges from 1 July 2014 through to 7 August 2014.
2. BACKGROUND
2.1 Development contributions are payable in accordance with the Development Contributions Policy 2013-22 (DCP) for developments that generate additional demand on Council infrastructure. Development contributions are assessed at the time a consent application or service connection is lodged with the Council.
2.2 Through the 2014/15 Annual Plan process in 2013, the Council amended the 2013 DCP to include development contribution charges for libraries and leisure facilities. This change took effect from 1 July 2014. 134 COUNCIL 11. 12. 2014
1 Cont’d
2.3 Parliament has recently amended the Local Government Act 2002 (LGA) relating to development contributions. The changes took legal effect from 8 August 2014. These changes mean that the Council cannot now include libraries and leisure charges in development contribution charges from the date the amendments took effect. The law change takes precedence over the DCP.
2.4 There is an amount of approximately $426,000 additional charges resulting from the libraries and leisure components for the period of 1 July 2014 through to 7 August 2014.
2.5 The uncertainty associated with the timing of the LGA amendments resulted in assessments from 1 July 2014 to 17 July 2014 not including libraries and leisure charges (originally the LGA amendments to prevent these charges were to take effect from 1 July 2014). This amounts to approximately $348,000 that the Council would require from developers.
2.6 From 18 July 2014 to 7 August 2014 the additional charges have been correctly included in assessments totalling approximately $78,000 which, when combined with that not charged in paragraph 2.5, adds up to the $426,000.
3. COMMENT
3.1 It is entirely lawful for the libraries and leisure charges to be included in development contribution assessments between 1 July 2014 and 7 August 2014.
3.2 However, it is a relatively short period where libraries and leisure charges have been included in development contribution assessments – five weeks in total. This raises issues of fairness associated with requiring what amounts to about $3,500 additional per unit to only those developers who had their assessments processed in these five weeks.
3.3 Furthermore, due to uncertainty over the LGA changes, assessments have been completed between 1 July and 17 July 2014 without charges for libraries and leisure. These assessments would need to be revised and the recipients of the original assessments requested to pay an additional amount to that already advised.
3.4 There is also the potential for developers to withdraw their application for consent or service connection and resubmit a new one for the same project in order to avoid the charge. This would create additional work for both the developer and Council on already stretched resources.
3.5 For these reasons it is considered that on balance libraries and leisure charges should be removed from the five weeks of assessments. While the Council is entitled to charge these components, the timeframe in which they could be charged is very short and creates inconsistency with those developments either side.
4. FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS
4.1 The Council would not recover $426,000 of development contribution charges for growth infrastructure. For context, the annual development contribution take is approximately $20.2 million.
5. COMMITTEE AND STAFF RECOMMENDATION
It is recommended to the Council that:
5.1 Development contribution assessments from 1 July 2014 to 17 July 2014 are not revised to include the libraries and leisure charges.
5.2 Development contribution assessments from 18 July 2014 to 7 August 2014 are revised to exclude the libraries and leisure charges
135 COUNCIL 11. 12. 2014
2. POLICY ON STRUCTURES ON ROAD AMENDMENT – STRUCTURES ENCROACHING ON AIRSPACE OF PUBLIC ROAD LAND
Contact Contact Details Executive Leadership Team Culture, Leisure & Parks General N Member responsible: Manager Officer responsible: Unit Manager, Asset and Network N Planning Author: Philip Basher, Transport Policy Y DDI 941 8605 Engineer
1. PURPOSE AND ORIGIN OF REPORT
1.1 To review the application process to allow overbuilding above the airspace of public road land for the purpose of increasing a building’s floor area.
1.2 To revise the Council’s policy position by incorporating into the Policy on Structures on Roads 2010 (Attachment 1) new text about the occupation of the airspace of public road land where the encroachment is limited and does not otherwise interfere with the lawful use of the road. This report has been prepared to ensure that a general policy is in place to simplify the current process where each proposal requires a Council decision (with the advice of the relevant Community Board).
1.3 The reasons for this review and the proposed amendments to the Council’s Policy on Structures on Roads (Attachment 1) was highlighted in the recent report to the Environmental Committee meeting on 26 August in the respect of a request to occupy airspace at 169 Madras Street
1.4 At its 3 October 2013 meeting the Council resolved to defer to the incoming Council the request to amend the Structures on Roads Policy in respect of increasing floor space through the occupation of airspace above legal road as follows:
“23. REPORT OF A MEETING OF THE ENVIRONMENT AND INFRASTRUCTURE COMMITTEE: MEETING OF 5 SEPTEMBER 2013
(2.) OCCUPATION OF AIRSPACE – HEREFORD HOLDINGS LIMITED
2. The recommendation to:
(c) Grant a general delegation to the Chief Executive or nominated manager to negotiate terms and conditions (including Licence fee) for the duration of the re-build of the central city for any other application that is covered under Clause 2.3 Use of the airspace over roads for the increasing the floor area of a building of the Policy on Structures on Roads 2010 subject to:
(i) Engineering plans being approved by the Asset and Network Planning Unit Manager;
(ii) Approval from the Urban Design Panel; and
(iii) A formal Deed of Licence for the Occupation of Airspace being entered into.
be referred to the incoming Council. “
136 COUNCIL 11. 12. 2014
2 Cont’d
2. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
2.1 It is crucial for the Council to review and update its Policy position for applications to occupy the airspace over public road either to allow architectural features or to increase floor area. This is increasingly necessary in regard to the applications the Council is now receiving for new builds, particularly in the Central City. This report excludes other structures encroaching the airspace above roads such as verandahs and air bridges.
2.2 Firstly it is felt that the Council’s policy on use of road airspace for architectural features, such as balconies, oriel windows, egress facilities, and building service plants, requires review. Recently there have been exceptional cases (Oxford Terrace) which have sought balconies built over road airspace that increase floor space of outdoors dining and/or drinking. Examples of this type would not be classified as an architectural feature instead they would be categorised as an increase in floor area. The delegated authority for architectural features is devolved onto the Chief Executive or a nominated manager (Attachment 1, see section 2.2).
2.3 Secondly the Council’s policy on the occupation of road airspace specifically to increase the floor space (Attachment 1, see section 2.3) will not generally grant rights to airspace except under exceptional circumstances. The delegated authority remains with the Council under the advice of the relevant Community Board. This report is seeking to review the delegated authority and recommend this prerogative passed to the Chief Executive or a nominated manager in most cases.
2.4 This report has been prompted by the increased volume of redevelopment proposals, particularly in the central City. So far there have been at least two cases for which the Council’s approval has been sought:
2.4.1 Hereford Holdings Ltd Cashell Mall/Oxford Terrace - 3 October 2013. 2.4.2. 169 Madras Street - 26 August 2014.
2.5 There are at least two further proposals which are likely to seek overbuilding above the road consent; at corner of Hereford Street / Oxford Terrace and the Box on the corner of St Asaph Street and Madras Street.
3. BACKGROUND
3.1 For structures in the subsoil below the surface of the public road or airspace above the road surface local authorities have an expressed power to grant leases under Section 341 of the Local Government Act 1974:(1) Subject to section 357 (2) the Council may:
(a) grant a lease to any person of the airspace or any part of the airspace of any road; or (b) grant a lease to any person of the subsoil or any part of the subsoil beneath the surface of any road; Provided that no such lease shall be granted for any person that would be contravening any provision of the Resource Management Act 1991.
3.2 Section 357 (2) reads that the Council shall not authorise or suffer any encroachment on a road that would or might interfere with or in any way obstruct the right of Crown, or any person so authorised by any Act to construct, place, maintain, alter, remove, or otherwise deal with any electric wires, telephone wires, telegraph wires, pneumatic tubes, or gas pipes on, over, or under the road, except with prior written consent of the Minister of the Crown, the person, or principal administrative officer of the body who or which is responsible for any such services or utilities.
3.3 Another issue is the term of a lease granted under Section 218 (1) of the Resource Management Act 1991 would provide that any lease of land (which is presumed to include road) for more than 35 years (including renewals) will constitute a subdivision requiring subdivision consent. Specific survey advice would be necessary as a deemed subdivision requires a survey plan in each instance. The Council would not consent to lease any road land in excess of 35 years, hence avoiding subdividing this valuable resource.
137 COUNCIL 11. 12. 2014
2 Cont’d
3.4 Under the Local Government Act 1974 (section 357) there must be no interference with utilities installed in the legal road. Any such lease should contain an indemnity by the lessee in favour of the Council against the risk of damage.
3.5 The Council’s Policy on Structures on Roads 2010 amended in July 2014 (Attachment 1) within the Activities Permitted under the Christchurch City Council Public Places Bylaw 2008, refers to the use of the airspace over roads both for architectural features and to increase floor space. The policy document outlines the principles underlying it that impact on this matter as:
3.5.1 The effects on existing roads and the impact on any future road works are minimal. 3.5.2 The structure over the road or encroaching on the road should not cause inconvenience or any safety issues to other road users. 3.5.3 The road space is surplus to roading requirement generally. 3.5.4 The public’s rights of access to the road is not unreasonably affected. 3.5.5 The potential impact of proposals on heritage sites and other significant historical and cultural sites.
3.5.6 The potential impact of any proposals on views and sight lines along roads, including but not limited to views towards significant buildings and structures, and towards significant natural features such as the Port Hills.
4. COMMENT
4.1 Clause 8 of the Public Places Bylaw 2008 provides for operational polices such as this to be made by Council resolution. This would also cover amendments or additions to the policy. The proposed addition to the policy does not need to be separately consulted on. The Council simply needs to comply with the decision making requirements of the Local Government Act 2002 in relation to this decision, which includes identifying options, costs and benefits of the options and considering the views and preferences of persons who may be affected by the decision.
4.2 It is felt that the change for architectural features (Attachment 1) is to provide a physical limit for the extension of non-commercial floorspace from the building’s main façade; i.e. shall be no more than one metre. There are two options in respect of architectural features occupying road airspace:
4.2.1 Option 1 – keep the policy unchanged without any definition of the maximum amount of airspace an architectural feature should be able to occupy. The delegations would remain unchanged.
4.2.2 Option 2 – amend the policy to include a physical limit of one metre for architectural features overbuilt on road land. This will apply to all categories of architectural features, e.g. balconies, oriel windows, building service plants and egress facilities. However, there may have to be exceptions under special circumstances, such as safety, engineering constraints, etc., for building service plants and egress facilities. The delegations would remain unchanged for most cases, however, any request that exceeds this limit would need to be considered by the Council on the advice of the relevant Community Board. The volume of these is likely to be very low. This is the preferred option as it will give the Council the power to limit the encroachment of road airspace.
4.3 Without the guidance of the amendment to the Council’s Policy on Structures on Roads 2010, each application for occupying road airspace to increase floorspace has to be considered on a case by case basis by the Council acting on the advice of the relevant Community Board (Attachment 1). This workload will increase as the rebuild gathers pace, particularly in the central City.
138 COUNCIL 11. 12. 2014
2 Cont’d
4.4 There are four options in respect of the occupation of airspace over road land to increase floorspace:
4.4.1 Option 1 – keep the delegated authority unchanged so that each development and rebuild proposal requesting the right to occupy airspace above the legal road is decided by the Council with the advice of the relevant Community Board. This will mean that each application to occupy road airspace would need to be considered by the Council.
4.4.2 Option 2 – revise the delegated authority to approve applications to occupy airspace over the road that extend no more than 2.5 metres should be delegated to the Chief Executive or a nominated manager. This would limit the volume of applications for road airspace that would be decided by the Council with the advice of the relevant Community Board.
4.4.3 Option 3 – revise the delegated authority to applications that occupy airspace above the road to no more than 2.5 metres providing there is a 500 mm comfort zone between the overbuilding and the kerb line. Any request that does not meet these limitations would need to be considered by the Council on the advice of the relevant Community Board, and the volume is likely to be very low. As it is unlikely a request to occupy road airspace in excess of 2.5 metres as due to the additional construction and engineering costs there would be very few (if any) cases needing the Council’s decision.
4.4.4 Option 4 – amend the delegated authority to approve all applications to occupy airspace over the road should be delegated to the Chief Executive or a nominated manager.
4.5 Applications to occupy the airspace above the legal road in the future, the decision making authority should be delegated from the Council to the Chief Executive or a nominated manager within the proposed parameters of Option 3. Allowing for the average footpath being three metres wide if the delegation is limited to extensions no more than 2.5 metres this would allow a comfort zone of 500 millimetres to the kerb line. Generally speaking verandahs usually do not extend more than 2.5 metres from a building’s façade and Option 3 maintains this principle. This would also minimise the risk of damage to the structure and larger vehicles such as buses and trucks.
4.6 A licence to occupy the airspace is required over the legal road for up to 35 years. The building owner will have to indemnify the council against the risk of damage and will be responsible for all licence, rental, lease, valuation and legal costs. The licences roll over on a monthly basis and remain with the building owner. Change of ownership of the building / land would require a new licence.
4.7 The Council’s Road Stopping Policy 2009 (Attachment 2) states that “if the land is to be leased a rent as determined by a registered valuer appointed by the Council.” It is clear that this could apply to airspace over road land, although if the area occupied is minimal then the rent could be limited to cover the Council ongoing costs. However, when the overbuilding materially creates additional leasable floorspace a sliding scale of rent discounted from the prime rental rate is suggested.
4.8 It is also necessary to review the Council’s options for charges and fees for the developer in respect of the use of road airspace when viewed as desirable. A proposed charge of $600 (GST inclusive) is proposed for the Preparation / Transfer of deed of licence document.
4.9 There are other costs which relate to the application and process of the request to occupy by licence the airspace over the road. These costs will accrue to the developer.
5. FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS
5.1 It is clear that there are financial implications for the Council in respect of development proposals requesting the right to occupy road airspace. However, it is almost impossible to estimate the annual impact of these costs, which are likely to decrease once the redevelopment of the City is underway.
139 COUNCIL 11. 12. 2014
2 Cont’d
5.2 Nevertheless, it is necessary to ensure, if the Council’s Policy on Structures on Roads is amended, that there should be sufficient fees, charges and a process to determine the rental values for inclusion in the Long Term Plan, related plans and to cover the Council’s initial and ongoing costs. The Staff recommendation is given below.
6. COMMITTEE AND STAFF RECOMMENDATION
It is recommended that the Council:
6.1 Approve the amendment to the Policy on Structures on Roads 2010 (Attachment 3) activities that are permitted under the Christchurch City Council Public Places Bylaw 2008. To clarify the parameters for architectural features occupying road airspace and speed up the process to deal with applications to occupy airspace over legal road land to increase floor area when these are limited to an extension of no more that 2.5 metres over the property boundary with a buffer zone of 0.5 metres to the kerb line.
6.2 Approve the referred underlined amendments to the Council’s Policy on Structures on Roads 2010 in respect of applications to occupy airspace above legal roads:
6.2.1 Use of the airspace over roads for architectural features on buildings including balconies, oriel windows, egress facilities and building service plants (Building consent required) (Attachment 3, Clause 2.2).
Policy details: Airspace over roads is generally available for adjacent properties for the above mentioned features. For new buildings the features must not be less than (a) 2.6 meters above existing footpath level; (b) 6.0 meters above existing road level; and (c) the horizontal projection shall generally not exceed 1.0 meters.
6.2.2 Use of the airspace over roads for increasing the floor area of a building (Resource consent, Building consent, and Deed of Licence required) (Attachment 3, Clause 2.3). Policy Details 2 and 3 2 a) Where the design and location of the structure will not cause excessive shading at road level, or block light and views from adjoining buildings.
(b) If there are already over-buildings close by, building further structures will not have an adverse cumulative effect.
(c) Potential building movement caused from base isolation foundations during a significant seismic event leading to damage to road infrastructure above the ground, such as light columns, traffic signal poles, wires, street trees, bus stops, etc. , from permitted overbuilding above the road.
3 (a)The use to which the structure can be put; and/or (b)Design requirements which must be to the Council’s satisfaction through the Urban Design Team’s approval process.
6.2.3 Delegations (Attachment 3, Section 6)
Decision making authority for the policy is to be exercised as follows:
Clauses 2.1, 2.2 (when the structure does not extend more than 2 metres) and 2.3 (when the overbuilding extends no further than 2.5 metres): The Chief Executive, or a nominated manager.
Clauses 2.2 and 2.3 (for both in all other cases) and 2.4: The Council, advised by the relevant Community Board.
140 COUNCIL 11. 12. 2014
2 Cont’d
6.3 Adopt the following fees and charges in respect of licences for encroachments of road airspace:
6.3.1 Application fee of $596 (GST inclusive) shall accompany an application for a licence of the road airspace, to cover the administration and staff costs by the Council to evaluate the application.
6.3.2 Preparation/Transfer of deed of licence document - $600 (GST inclusive).
6.3.3 The rent should be then set at a market rate to reflect the value accrued to the land owner in the provision of additional leasable floor space.
6.3.4 The rent for the occupied airspace if it can be let by the owner commercially could be set at the following rates. This can be based on the prime rental rate discounted to 30 percent for the ground floor, 15 percent for the first floor, 10 percent for the second floor, 7.5 percent for the third floor, five percent for the fourth floor and 2.5 percent for the fifth floor and above.
6.3.5 Other costs which may include, surveying, consents, public advertising, agents’ fees, legal fees, valuation costs and additional staff time not outlined above will be paid by the applicant.
6.3.6 The costs of construction and maintenance, and remaking any damage will be paid by the applicant.
3. PLANNED 2014/15 WORK PROGRAMME FOR THE CITY AND COMMUNITY LONG TERM PLANNING AND DISTRICT PLAN ACTIVITIES
Contact Contact Details Executive Leadership Team Chief Planning Officer Y Michael Theelen, 941 8281 Member responsible: Officer responsible: Strategic Policy Unit Manager Y Alan Bywater, 941 6430 Author: Strategic Policy Unit Manager Y Alan Bywater, 941 6430
1. PURPOSE AND ORIGIN OF REPORT
1.1 The purpose of this report is to present a summary of the proposed work programme for the Council under its activities City and Community Long Term Policy and Planning (CCLTPP) and District Plan for 2014/15. In each case there are levels of service that require a work programme to be approved by the Council.
1.2 Approval of the programme will set the priorities for the Council’s policy and planning roles for the remainder of the 2014/15 year. However, as has been evident in the past any agreed programme will be subject to change during the year, as the Council’s priorities alter.
2. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
2.1 The CCLTPP and District Planning Activity Management Plans both have levels of service that require the agreement of a programme of work with the Council ahead of the start of each new financial year.
2.2 A draft programme of work has been developed for the CCLTPP activity for 2014/15 for the Council to consider. This has been developed using a number of drivers: . Complying with statutory requirements . Complying with the requirements of Recovery Plans and Programmes . Complying with decisions previously made by the Council . Completing projects that are already underway and significant resource have been committed to. . Staff’s understanding of priorities for Council based on three workshops held through August and September.
141 COUNCIL 11. 12. 2014
3 Cont’d
2.3 The District Plan Review will dominate the work programme in the District Planning Activity for 2014/15 with just two current Plan Changes to be worked on outside the review.
3. BACKGROUND
3.1 The CCLTPP activity management plan contains the following levels of service:
1.0.1.1 Recommended work programme submitted by 30 June for the following financial year.
1.0.1.2 At least 85% delivery of Long Term Policy and Planning activity work programme achieved.
3.2 A report proposing a work programme was considered by the Council at its meeting on 5 June 2014. The Council decided to leave the report lying on the table subject to discussing the programme at a workshop.
3.3 Workshops were held on 11 August, 1 September and 8 September 2014 at which the CCLTPP work programme was discussed with the Council.
3.4 As the year to which the work programme corresponds started on July 2014, staff have been working towards delivering many parts of it, whilst the process to formally agree the programme has continued.
3.5 The CCLTPP Work Programme has been divided into 12 clusters of similar types of projects with the allocation of funding into each dependent being driven by the work priorities for the year. The clusters are:
Recovery Plans and Programmes Responding to Legislation Natural Hazards Urban Design and Transitional Projects LTP Preparation Monitoring and Research UDS Partnership Three Waters and Natural Environment Submissions Suburban Planning Long-Term Recovery Planning Other.
142 COUNCIL 11. 12. 2014
3 Cont’d
3.5 From the workshops staff understood the following direction from Council:
Direction from Workshop Amendments Made to Work Programme No new masterplans, focus more on No amendments made to the work programme delivering the existing ones. to date. Resourcing is already provided in the programme for implementation of the suburban centre masterplans. Street based sex work is likely to be Project added to the ‘Other’ category. required through the year. Development agency advice. Resourcing has been provisioned for this work Whilst the timing, function and any as a new project in the ‘Other’ category. possible role from this Activity are unclear at the moment, some provision should be made. Recovery Strategy and CERA Projects left in the Long-Term Recovery transition. Councillors indicated the Planning cluster. Resources reduced to desire to further consider and recognise that resolving the direction will take discuss these projects along the 100 some time and impact the amount of resource Resilient Cities, Community Resilient that is required in the current financial year. City Strategy. Until a clear direction has been established resource has been provided for in these areas. Review the Events Strategy. No changes to the programme to date. Considered but no consensus to bring into the current year’s programme at the expense of other work. Visitor Strategy. Considered but no New project created in the Other category. consensus to bring into the current year’s programme at the expense of other work. Subsequent to the briefing the Council has had conversations with CIAL around the Visitor Strategy. CIAL will initiate this work. As a result of this it now seems likely that some resourcing will be required to further progress the work to be initiated by CIAL.
3.6 Attachment 1 provides a list of the significant projects proposed to be undertaken within each of these clusters in the remainder of the 2014/15 year.
3.7 The District Planning activity management plan contains the following levels of service:
1.3.5.1 District Plan review is commenced in 2014/15 financial year
1.3.5.2 Draft District Plan is notified within 3 years of commencement
1.3.3.1 Present a prioritised work programme, matched to staff capacity and availability, for Council approval annually by 30 June for the following financial year
3.8 As councillors will be very aware the process to review the District Plan is underway and making good progress. This review work will be the primary and most significant part of the programme of work in the District Planning activity in 2014/15.
143 COUNCIL 11. 12. 2014
3 Cont’d
3.9 The only residual work in this activity will be two District Plan Changes that have not been rolled up into the District Plan Review, namely: Plan Change 52 (Ruapuna) and Plan Change 84 Special Purpose Airport Zone (Appeals). However, it should be noted that the truncated process under discussion by the Minister for Canterbury Earthquake Recovery and the Minister for the Environment for the District Plan Review continues to allow for private plan changes. If a private plan change is received it must still be assessed and a decision made under Schedule 1, clause 25 of the Resource Management Act 1991 within the timeframes of that Act.
4. FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS
4.1 The proposed programme of work in the CCLTPP is constrained by the available budgets provided in the Annual Plan. The full budget for this activity for 2014/15 in the Annual Plan is $10,473,000. This report canvases how best to focus the work programme to achieve the most with the available funding.
4.2 The proposed programme endeavours to spread this budget against the individual/and or clusters of projects outlined. As the Council is well aware following the workshops the true cost of any project can vary significantly, as the scope, issues and political direction become unwrapped during the process. Overs and unders are managed to support the delivery of the planned programme, and to accommodate any “one offs” that emerge during the year.
4.3 The Council was recently advised of the additional costs ($5.6 million over the life of the project) associated with the District Plan Review Hearings. Reducing the scope of the projects being undertaken as part of the CCLTPP programme is one way of providing a potential offset against the District Plan costs. If the Council is of a mind to reduce the programme attached here, this could provide savings to support the District Plan.
5. COMMITTEE AND STAFF RECOMMENDATION
It is recommended that the Council:
5.1 Adopt the work programme outlined in Attachment 1 for the CCLTPP activity for 2014/15.
5.2 Note the work programme in the District Planning activity in 2014/15 will be the District Plan Review and continuation of Plan Change 52 (Ruapuna) and Plan Change 84 Special Purpose Airport Zone (Appeals).
(Note: The Mayor retired from the meeting at 2.17pm. Cr Manji assumed the Chair for the remainder of the meeting.)
4. VBASE LIMITED AMENDED 2015-2017 STATEMENT OF INTENT
Contact Contact Details Executive Leadership Team Chief Financial Officer Member responsible: Officer responsible: Corporate Finance Manager Author: External Reporting and Governance Y Patricia Christie 941 8113 Manager
1. PURPOSE AND ORIGIN OF REPORT
1.1 The purpose of this report is to present the proposed amendment to the Vbase Limited (Vbase) Statement of intent (SOI) for 2015-2017 to Council.
1.2 Schedule 8 of the Local Government Act 2002 states that a Council Controlled Organisation may modify a statement of intent at any time if its board has first;
1.2.1 given written notice to the Council of the proposed modification, and
144 COUNCIL 11. 12. 2014
4 Cont’d
1.2.2 considered any comments made on the proposed modification by the Council within one month after the date on which the notification of the proposed amendment was given, or any shorter period that the Council may require.
2. BACKGROUND
2.1 Vbase submitted its final SOI for 2015-2017 to the Council prior to the 30 June 2014 legislative deadline.
2.2 Subsequent to the submission of the final SOI, Vbase have identified an opportunity to undertake improvements to the Horncastle Arena during late December 2014 and January 2015. The SOI originally submitted to the Council did not make any provision for these improvements to be undertaken and consequently it is necessary to amend the SOI to include this.
2.3 The Vbase Board approved a budget of $2.2 million at its Board meeting on 17 September 2014 for the improvements to the Horncastle Arena and minor capital projects.
2.4 Since the submission of the final SOI there has been further clarification of certain accounting assumptions used in the SOI. As an amended SOI was being submitted to the Council the opportunity was taken to amend the SOI for these issues also.
3. COMMENT
3.1 Attached as Attachment 1 is the amended SOI.
3.2 The changes to the SOI as outlined in Attachment 2 are:
3.2.1 addition of $2.2 million of expenditure in fixed assets in 2015.
3.2.3 adjustment to 2015 net profit for insurance recoveries recognised in 2014.
3.2.3 as a result of the above there have also been changes to interest revenue and tax expense in 2016 and 2017 and the equity balance.
4. FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS
4.1 The proposed changes to the SOI do not result in the Council providing additional funding to Vbase.
5. COMMITTEE AND STAFF RECOMMENDATION
That the Council accept the proposed amendments to the Vbase 2015-2017 Statement of Intent.
145 COUNCIL 11. 12. 2014
5. FINAL STATEMENT OF INTENT FOR THE WORLD BUSKERS FESTIVAL TRUST FOR 2014/15
Contact Contact Details General Manager responsible: Chief Financial Officer Officer responsible: Corporate Finance Manager Author: External Reporting and Governance Y Patricia Christie 941-8113 Manager
1. PURPOSE AND ORIGIN OF REPORT
1.1 This report presents the final Statement of Intent (SOI) for the World Busker’s Festival Trust (the Trust) for the year ended 30 June 2015.
1.2 The origin of this report is the Local Government Act 2002, which requires a Council Controlled Organisation (CCO) to provide its shareholder/stakeholder a draft SOI on or before 1 March. The CCOs must then consider comments received on their draft SOI from their shareholder/stakeholder by 1 May and then issue a final SOI by 30 June.
1.3 The World Buskers Festival Trust did not provide a draft of its SOI by 1 March 2014. The draft was considered by the Finance Committee and Council provided feedback on 25 September 2014.
2. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
2.1 The final SOI submitted by the Trust is attached (Attachment 1) and is unchanged from the draft submitted.
2.2 The Finance Committee and Council provided the following feedback to the Trust.
2.2.1 The Council acknowledges the importance of the World Buskers Festival to the city and the Council would appreciate the opportunity to receive a pre-festival briefing from the Trustees on the 2015 festival including key measures which the Trust and Council will use to measure the success of the festival.
2.2.2 Note the requests which the Council made in its resolution dated 10 April 2014 regarding the level of reporting to Council and to develop more robust governance and management structures and that these should be reflected in the statement of intent.
2.3 While the Trust has left the SOI unchanged, the Trustees have advised the following points:
2.3.1 It reiterates that it wishes to operate on a no surprises basis with the Council.
2.3.2 It is prepared to provide a pre-festival briefing to the Council to discuss the plans for the festival.
2.3.3 The Trust has recently employed Glen Pickering as Festival Director and with his appointment will look to continue and develop appropriate management and reporting structures which will be reflected in future SOIs. The amendment to the Trust deed increasing the maximum number of Trustees from five to twelve has been drafted and is in the process of being executed.
2.3.4 The Trust welcomes the continued involvement of the Council and is happy for a member of Council staff to attend Trust meetings and to meet regularly with the festival staff and Trustees.
3. FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS
3.1 There are no financial implications to this paper.
4. COMMITTEE AND STAFF RECOMMENDATION
It is recommended to the Council that it receives the World Buskers Festival Trust’s final Statement of Intent for 2014/15.
146 COUNCIL 11. 12. 2014
6. 2014 ANNUAL REPORTS FOR COUNCIL CONTROLLED ORGANISATIONS (CCOS): VBASE LIMITED, CIVIC BUILDING LIMITED, TUAM LIMITED, CHRISTCHURCH AGENCY FOR ENERGY TRUST, THE WORLD BUSKERS’ FESTIVAL TRUST, ROD DONALD BANKS PENINSULA TRUST, CANTERBURY DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION HOLDINGS LIMITED, RICCARTON BUSH TRUST, NEW ZEALAND LOCAL GOVERNMENT FUNDING AGENCY LIMITED
Contact Contact Details Executive Leadership Team Chief Financial Officer Member responsible: Officer responsible: Corporate Finance Manager Author: External Reporting and Governance Y Patricia Christie 941 8113 Manager
1 PURPOSE AND ORIGIN OF REPORT
1.1 The purpose of this report is to present the annual reports for Council Controlled Organisations (CCOs) for the year ended 30 June 2014.
2 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
2.1 CCOs are required under Section 67 of the Local Government Act 2002 to submit an annual report to Council within three months after the end of the financial year. All financial statements were signed and provided to the Council by 30 September 2014 (three months after 30 June 2014).
2.2 The 2014 annual reports from the following organisations are attached for information:
2.2.1 Vbase Limited 2.2.2 Civic Building Limited 2.2.3 Tuam Limited 2.2.4 Christchurch Agency for Energy Trust 2.2.5 The World Buskers’ Festival Trust 2.2.6 Rod Donald Banks Peninsula Trust 2.2.7 Canterbury Development Corporation Holdings Limited 2.2.8 Riccarton Bush Trust 2.2.9 New Zealand Local Government Funding Agency Limited.
2.3 An annual report must contain the information that is necessary to enable an informed assessment of the operations of the CCOs to be made, including audited financial statements and an auditor’s report on those financial statements, and the performance targets and other measures by which performance was judged.
2.4 All the above annual reports presented in this report were approved by their boards and provided to the Council prior to 30 September 2014 as required under the Local Government Act 2002.
3 BACKGROUND – SUMMARY OF CCO 2014 ANNUAL REPORTS
3.1 Vbase Limited (Vbase)
3.1.1 Vbase is 100 per cent owned by the Council and was set up to own and manage the Horncastle Arena (formerly CBS Canterbury Arena), Lancaster Park (formerly AMI Stadium), Convention Centre and the Christchurch Town Hall. The earthquakes resulted in only Horncastle Arena being operational. Subsequent to the earthquakes it has secured management service agreements to operate the temporary stadium – AMI Stadium (Addington) erected by the Christchurch Stadium Trust and the event space and on-site café at the Wigram Airforce Museum.
147 COUNCIL 11. 12. 2014
6 Cont’d
3.1.2 In April 2014 Vbase signed a management agreement to operate the ilex Café and function room at the Botanical Gardens.
3.1.3 Vbase made a loss of $48.6 million for the year to 30 June 2014 compared to a loss of $5.4 million in 2013. The increased loss was principally the result of a $24 million reduction in the accounting value of the Horncastle Arena and a $29 million reduction in the insurance receivable balance at 30 June 2014 to recognise the current value of future insurance receipts.
3.1.4 There has been a reduction in net assets of $48.6 million which is principally due to the reduction in value of Horncastle Arena and insurance receivables. A deferred tax asset has been recognised for tax losses that Vbase expects to utilise in future years. It is also noted that Vbase used its insurance receipts to repay $15 million of debt to Council during the year. This is a temporary measure. Additional funding will be required once the rebuild of the Town Hall commences.
3.1.5 Vbase received a modified audit opinion from Audit New Zealand. The reasons for the modified opinion were: There was insufficient audit evidence to prove that the full amount of the insurance receivable will be recovered and no practical way to determine what amount, if any, will not be recoverable. The audit opinion was qualified in 2012 and 2013 as Vbase could not obtain an appropriate valuation for accounting purposes on the Horncastle Arena. This was obtained in 2014 but the decrease in value may mean that there has been a misstatement of the value in prior years. The issues in relation to the insurance receivable and Horncastle Arena value impact both the current and deferred tax position as does the key assumption that Lancaster Park is irreparable and a replacement will be built by Vbase. Without great certainty on these issues Audit New Zealand cannot determine whether or not the current and deferred tax balances are materially correct.
3.1.6 Vbase achieved all but two of its operating performance targets for the year.
3.1.7 Vbase’s operating revenue was significantly higher than its SOI target however operating and other expenses were also significantly higher than planned. Operating expenses for the year included $1.6 million of earthquake-related repairs and expenses, and $0.5 million of assets written off which was not forecast. Vbase had forecast that additional insurance income and revenue from the sale of the Convention Centre land would be received. Neither of these has been recognised, as the necessary level of certainty for the insurance income has not been reached and the former Convention Centre land has not been sold.
3.2 Civic Building Limited (CBL)
3.2.1 CBL is 100 per cent owned by the Council. CBL owns the Council’s 50 percent interest in the joint venture with Ngai Tahu Property Limited which owns and manages the civic building (Hereford Street).
3.2.2 CBL made a loss of $0.86 million for the year to 30 June 2014 compared to a loss of $0.04 million in 2013. The increased loss was primarily due to a reduction in revenue compared to 2013. This was the result of a reduction in material damage insurance and interest revenues, and no increase in the value of its land investment.
3.2.3 The statement of financial position shows that CBL is in a net liability position. This is a result of the accounting treatment of the lease of the civic building and does not indicate that it is unable to meet its obligations as they fall due.
3.2.4 Both CBL and the joint venture have received unqualified audit opinions.
148 COUNCIL 11. 12. 2014
6. Cont’d
3.2.5 CBL’s financial performance did not meet its Statement of Intent (SOI) targets due to interest expenses being higher than planned. The SOI target was set assuming that CBL would make a $1.2 million debt repayment to Council during the year. CBL did not make this repayment as the forecast subvention cash receipts were not received due to lower than forecast taxable profits within the group.
3.2.6 CBL achieved the operational performance targets that were set in its SOI.
3.3 Tuam Limited (Tuam)
3.3.1 Tuam is 100 per cent owned by the Council and, until 2013, owned and managed the former civic building and related Tuam Street properties including the Tuam Street car park.
3.3.2 Tuam sold its land and building investments in Tuam Street to the Central City Development Unit on 3 October 2013. Tuam is still to negotiate a settlement with its insurer. It is the view of the directors based on expert engineering advice that the former civic offices were totally destroyed by the earthquakes.
3.3.3 Tuam made a profit of $13,829,000 for the year to 30 June 2014 compared to $503,000 in 2013. This increase is due to the gain on sale of its land and building investments of $14.2 million.
3.3.4 The 2014 statement of financial position shows that Tuam has net assets of $20 million compared to $6.2 million in 2013, the increase being due to the sale of its land and building investments. Tuam’s assets now consist of cash and receivables, the most significant being the $14.2 million outstanding from the sale of the former civic building. Tuam will receive the funds upon settlement of the insurance claim.
3.3.5 Audit New Zealand issued an unqualified opinion but did include an emphasis of matter regarding the uncertainty in the carrying value of the receivable relating to the former civic building.
3.3.6 Tuam met the operational performance targets that were set in its SOI.
3.4 Christchurch Agency for Energy Trust (CAfE)
3.4.1 CAfE was formed by the Council to: raise awareness in Christchurch and promote energy efficiency initiatives and the use of renewable energy by providing information and advice to a wide range of parties; reduce the local and wider environmental problems caused by the use of fossil fuels in Christchurch; introduce initiatives to address the negative health and social impacts of fuel poverty and energy affordability issues in Christchurch; and gather meaningful and current energy data on energy usage in Christchurch, as an ancillary purpose to the above. 3.4.2 CAfE had total comprehensive income for the year to 30 June 2014 of $327,616 compared to $459,768 in 2013.
3.4.3 The decrease in total comprehensive income is due to a reduction in project funding due to the withdrawal of funding by appointer organisations. CAfE also significantly decreased its expenses with these reducing from $676,332 in 2013 to $284,477 in 2014.
3.4.4 CAfE established the Christchurch Energy Grant Scheme during the year and has approved $600,000 of grants but these are yet to be paid. Energy First grants continued during the year with $120,930 being paid to applicants.
149 COUNCIL 11. 12. 2014
6 Cont’d
3.4.5 The net assets in the statement of financial position have increased $327,616 year on year. The main contributor to the increase was a $217,346 increase in cash and cash equivalents. The significant cash balance includes funds which the Trust has committed to the Christchurch Energy Grant Scheme. The nature of these grants is such that the funds will not be paid out until the plant which the grant relates to is installed. At 30 June 2014 $600,000 had been committed.
3.4.6 CAfE performed favourably against its SOI financial targets with an actual surplus of $327,616 compared to a target deficit of $165,250. Two main items contributed to this variance: it was planned that $400,000 would be paid under the Energy Grant Scheme. While $600,000 was allocated, no payments were made during the year; and CAfE’s other expenses were $181,667 lower than planned which were offset by $88,801 lower revenue than planned. The lower expenses were the result of a new administration structure and lower activities during the year. 3.4.7 CAfE achieved one of its two SOI key performance targets. Its target for the Christchurch Energy Grants Scheme was exceeded. However, it did not meet the targets set for the Energy First applications.
3.4.8 CAfE received an unqualified audit opinion on its financial statements from Audit New Zealand.
3.5 The World Buskers’ Festival Trust (WBFT)
3.5.1 WBFT was established by Council to: devise, manage and hold an annual buskers festival in Christchurch with a view to providing a national and international profile and identity for New Zealand street theatre; provide opportunities for local buskers to reach a wider audience; and provide a street theatre festival that is accessible to the public including the provision of free events and a commitment to maintain low ticket prices for performances where charges are made.
3.5.2 WBFT had a net deficit of $34,305 compared to total comprehensive income in 2013 of $19,848. Total revenue increased $46,851 for the year due to strong door donations, and food and beverage sales, compared to a $100,915 increase in expenses across all expense classes . 3.5.3 The financial position of WBFT has worsened slightly with net assets decreasing from $106,510 to $72,205. This change is due to the net deficit for the year.
3.5.4 The actual overall deficit was $35,305 lower than the SOI target surplus of $1,000. After adjusting for the contra and in kind revenue and expenses, both revenue and expenses were higher than target. Revenue was higher due to favourable weather conditions resulting in higher than expected ticket sales. Expenses were higher than planned due to the continued use of temporary infrastructure in Hagley Park.
3.5.5 WBFT had mixed performance against its SOI key performance targets. The visitor attendance target was met. However, the customer satisfaction target of 90 percent was not measured in 2014 but is expected to be measured at the 2015 festival. WBFT also set festival development targets, the festival has been restructured and the Trust Board has taken a lead with a focus on succession. WBFT did not meet the target of generating a surplus.
3.5.6 WBFT received a qualified audit opinion on its financial statements from Audit New Zealand as it did in all prior years. The qualification arises as Audit New Zealand cannot confirm that all door donation revenue was properly recorded. This relates to $16,437 (2013: $121,440) of door donations’ revenue which was included in the total of door donations/food and beverage sales of $474,849 (2013:$389,981). These donations were collected when “the buckets” were presented at venues.
150 COUNCIL 11. 12. 2014
6. Cont’d 3.6 Rod Donald Banks Peninsula Trust (RDBPT)
3.6.1 RDBPT was formed by the Council with the objective of promoting sustainable management and conservation of Banks Peninsula’s natural environment and associated recreation.
3.6.2 RDBPT made a surplus for the year to 30 June 2014 of $20,882 compared to a deficit of $15,053 in 2013. The main contributors to the surplus were: the recognition of $12,160 of finance income on the loan to publish the book “Plant Life on Banks Peninsula”. This $50,000 loan was given in 2013 and the difference between its face value and fair value resulted in finance costs of $15,533 being recognised. During 2014 loan repayments of $34,272 were received and it now has a fair value of $12,440; a decrease in grant payments from $121,750 in 2013 to $63,169 in 2014; and sales of books and brochures of $5,378 ($3,690 has been recognised as costs of goods sold).
3.6.3 There has been no significant change in the financial position of the Trust. RDBPT has recognised an intangible asset of $22,840 in respect of the costs it incurred in developing its walking maps, brochures and books for sale.
3.6.4 The operating surplus of $20,882 for the year was consistent with the SOI target amount of $18,846 for the year. The closing balance of available funds for projects was $371,273 more than planned, due to less grants being made than expected. RDBPT has indicated that its actual grant spending will be dependent on identifying opportunities that are consistent with the Trust’s objectives. The life to date grants provided by RDBPT total $184,619.
3.6.5 RDBPT performed well against its SOI non-financial performance targets. The nine indicators set by the Trust in its SOI have either been achieved or good progress has been made towards achieving them.
3.6.6 RDBPT received an unqualified audit opinion on its financial statements from Audit New Zealand.
3.7 Canterbury Development Corporation Holdings Limited (CDCH)
3.7.1 CDCH is 100 per cent owned by the Council and is the parent of the Canterbury Development Corporation, the Council’s economic development agency. The information provided is for the CDCH consolidated group. The group includes 100 percent of the wholly owned entities Canterbury Development Corporation, CRIS Ltd and New Zealand Food Innovation (South Island) Ltd.
3.7.2 CDCH had a surplus for the year of $331,410 compared to $1,265,938 for 2013. The decrease is primarily the result of lower project and service delivery costs in 2013 and no further insurance receipts being received in 2014; ($465,000 was received in 2013.)
3.7.3 CDCH had total comprehensive income of $940,354 for 2014 compared to $8,595,648 in 2013. The total comprehensive income takes into account the net assets which have been vested in the group from the Canterbury Economic Development Fund in 2013 ($4,862,111) and 2014 ($598,136) and Canterbury Development Corporation in 2013 ($2,467,599) and the share of associates (2014: $10,808).
3.7.4 The financial position of the CDCH group has improved with net assets increasing to $9,536,017 from $8,595,664 in 2013. This was principally the result of increased net investments by the group and increased cash and short-term deposits. This includes a reserve of $550,000 for spending on the delivery of the Christchurch Economic Development Strategy projects in the coming year.
3.7.5 Grant Thornton, on behalf of the Auditor General, issued an unqualified opinion.
151 COUNCIL 11. 12. 2014
6 Cont’d
3.7.6 The operational performance targets set in the SOI are derived from the annual levels of service that Canterbury Development Corporation has agreed with Council. All were met or in progress at year end.
3.8 Riccarton Bush Trust (RBT)
3.8.1 RBT was formed by an Act of Parliament in 1914. The Trust administers Riccarton House and its 5.41 hectares of grounds together with a 6.373 hectare native bush remnant gifted by the Deans family to the people of Canterbury. Part of Riccarton House is licensed to a commercial caterer and is used as a restaurant and event centre. Riccarton House was closed for earthquake repairs throughout the 2013/14 year, reopening in August 2014.
3.8.2 RBT made a total comprehensive surplus for the year to 30 June 2014 of $4.6 million compared to $7,378 surplus in 2013. The significant increase is the result of: a $5.3 million revaluation gain on the land and Riccarton House; offset by incurring an additional $559,384 of earthquake-related repair costs compared with 2013.
3.8.3 The revaluation of the land and Riccarton House has had a significant impact of the financial position of the Trust. Net assets are $12,213,886 (2013: $7,595,622). This was the first opportunity that the Trust has had to revalue Riccarton House as the earthquake repairs were essentially complete at 30 June 2014. The completion of the Riccarton House earthquake repairs also resulted in a decrease in the Trust’s cash and receivable balances as compared to 2013.
3.8.4 The earthquake repairs to Deans Cottage and the Ranger’s House are yet to be completed.
3.8.4 RBT received an unqualified audit opinion on its financial statements from Audit New Zealand.
3.8.5 RBT’s financial performance was ahead of its net SOI target with both revenues and expenses being lower than planned. The SOI targets were set on the assumption that the House would reopen in December 2013 but the repairs took longer than expected and, as mentioned above, the House was reopened to the public on 21 August 2014.
3.8.6 RBT has also met or is on target to meet most of its operational targets. A number of its targets were impacted by delays in the completion of the earthquake repairs to Riccarton House and were or will be achieved later than was originally planned.
3.9 New Zealand Local Government Funding Agency Limited (LGFA)
3.9.1 LGFA was incorporated in December 2011 under the Local Government Borrowing Act 2011 to provide debt funding to New Zealand local authorities. Its primary objective is to optimise debt funding terms and conditions for participating local authorities. The Council owns 8.3 percent of the shares of LGFA.
3.9.2 LGFA made a profit of $7 million in 2014 compared with a profit of $2.6 million in 2013 which was its first full year of trading and a forecast profit of $6.6 million.
3.9.3 LGFA’s total assets increased from $2,688 million in 2013 to $3,918 million at 30 June 2014 due principally to a further $1.2 billion of lending to local authorities. The net asset position increased $5.5 million.
3.9.4 LGFA received an unqualified audit opinion on its financial statements from KPMG New Zealand.
3.9.5 LGFA’s financial performance targets were met or exceeded for 2014.
152 COUNCIL 11. 12. 2014
3.9.6 LGFA has an extensive suite of performance measures and on the whole these were achieved. It is noted that it did not meet its target for the cost of funds relative to NZGS due to the disproportionate amount of longer-dated LGFA bonds issued over the year.
3.9.7 LGFA states that it has not provided its estimated 30 basis point saving in interest costs to local authorities due to margin movements but the savings for an AA rated local authority are 18-28 bps on December 2017 maturity and 21 bps on a March 2019 maturity.
3.9.8 It is also noted that subsequent to 30 June 2014, LGFA has paid the Council a dividend of $131,738.
4 FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS
4.1 There are no financial implications.
5 COMMITTEE AND STAFF RECOMMENDATION
5.1 It is recommended to the Council that it receive the annual reports for the following Council Controlled Organisations:
5.1.1 Vbase Limited
5.1.2 Civic Building Limited
5.1.3 Tuam Limited
5.1.4 Christchurch Agency for Energy Trust
5.1.5 The World Buskers’ Festival Trust
5.1.6 Rod Donald Banks Peninsula Trust
5.1.7 Canterbury Development Corporation Holdings Limited
5.1.8 Riccarton Bush Trust
5.1.9 Local Government Funding Agency Limited
7. CHRISTCHURCH CITY HOLDINGS LIMITED ANNUAL REPORT FOR THE YEAR ENDED 30 JUNE 2014
Contact Contact Details Executive Leadership Team Chief Financial Officer Member responsible: Officer responsible: Corporate Finance Manager Author: External Reporting and Governance Y Patricia Christie 941 8113 Manager
1. PURPOSE AND ORIGIN OF REPORT
1.1 The purpose of this report is to present to the Council the Annual Report of Christchurch City Holdings Limited (CCHL) for the year ended 30 June 2014 and provide a formal acknowledgement that the annual report and annual review have been received.
1.2 CCHL is a Council Controlled Organisation and is required under Section 67 of the Local Government Act 2002 to submit an annual report to Council within three months after the end of the financial year.
2. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
2.1 CCHL provided Council with its Annual Report and Annual Review by 30 September 2014 (Attachments 1 and 2).
153 COUNCIL 11. 12. 2014
7 Cont’d
2.2 It is noted that CCHL released its Annual Report and Annual Review to the public on 16 October 2014.
2.3 The CCHL group reported consolidated after tax profit for the year of $402.6 million. This was significantly higher than the $58.2 million forecast in its Statement of Intent and the $70.7 million recorded in 2013.
2.3.1 Due to a number of one-off factors, in particular the recognition of insurance revenues by Lyttelton Port Company Limited, direct comparison of the results is difficult. After adjusting for these one-off factors the underlying group profit of $87.8 million was a $14.0 million improvement on 2013 and $8.4 million higher than the Statement of Intent forecast.
2.3.2 The main reasons for the improvement on 2013 is a $14 million improvement in City Care Limited’s underlying pre-tax profit and an $8 million improvement in Orion New Zealand Limited’s result. These were partially offset by reductions in underlying profits of Lyttelton Port Company Limited and an increase in Enable Services Limited’s loss.
2.4 The net assets of the CCHL group increased $495.1 million to $1,945.4 million.
2.4.1 The increase reflects an increase in assets of $599.3 million due to the Lyttelton Port Company Limited insurance settlement, loans made by Enable Services Limited to associated company Enable Networks Limited and by the CCHL parent to the Christchurch Engine Centre, and an increase in property plant and equipment and investment property on revaluation. 2.4.2 Group liabilities increased $104.2 million of which $29 million related to increased group debt. The balance was an increase in deferred tax offset by a reduction in derivative liabilities.
3. COMMITTEE AND STAFF RECOMMENDATION
It is recommended to the Council that it receive the Christchurch City Holdings Limited 2014 Annual Report and Annual Review for the year ended 30 June 2014.
8. CORPORATE FINANCE REPORT FOR PERIOD ENDING 30 SEPTEMBER 2014
Contact Contact Details General Manager Chief Financial Officer responsible: Officer responsible: Corporate Finance Manager Author: External Reporting and Y Patricia Christie 941 8113 Governance Manager Funds & Financial Policy Manager
1. PURPOSE AND ORIGIN OF REPORT
1.1 This report is a routine quarterly report, providing Councillors with updated Treasury and Debtors’ information for the quarter ended 30 September 2014.
2. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
2.1 Treasury
2.1.1 Key treasury risk positions and policy limits are set out in Attachment 1. All measures are within acceptable limits.
2.1.2 Year-to-date, $185 million of new term borrowing has been undertaken, of which $75 million has been on-lent to CCHL (under back-to-back arrangements approved at the 27 June 2013 Council meeting). Net Council debt now stands at $746 million.
154 COUNCIL 11. 12. 2014
8 Cont’d
2.1.3 All new borrowing has been for maturities in excess of five years, to minimise future funding risk (ie. to ensure that we do not have large amounts of debt maturing at a time when we are still looking to increase overall debt levels).
2.1.4 An acceptable base level of interest rate hedging has been established, with no additional hedging being required for policy compliance purposes for at least six years. Significant further hedging will remain relatively difficult to establish until the timing and extent of future debt growth is known with greater certainty (through the Long-Term Planning process).
2.2 Debtors
2.2.1 The debtors’ balance stood at $16.8 million at 30 September 2014, $0.45 million lower than reported at June 2014. General Debtors have decreased by $3.7 million to $5.7 million while Resource Management Consents and Building Consents debtors have increased by $3 million to $7.1 million and $0.14 million to $3.491 million, respectively. The significant debtors within the General Debtors balance of $5.7 million include New Zealand Transport Agency (NZTA), Department of Internal Affairs (DIA), Vbase, Stronger Christchurch Infrastructure Rebuild Team (SCIRT) and Riskpool (all but Riskpool are current and the Riskpool debt was received in October). The other categories are largely unchanged.
2.2.2 Overdue debtors (older than 92 days), have increased $0.15 million to $4.55 million (27.03 percent of total debtors compared to 25.45 percent reported at 30 June 2014). This is covered in more detail in the Overdue Debtors’ report.
2.2.3 Debts of $90,969 have been written-off year to date, compared to $46,683 at the same time last year. The significant increase is due to increases in write offs for libraries, gym memberships and damage to street poles. The increase in residential rents write offs includes one debt for $6,889 for rent arrears and Tenancy Tribunal damages which cannot be recovered from the tenant. Further details are provided in Attachment 2. The main reason for the write-off in residential rents is that debtors cannot be located. The library debt written off comprises a large number of relatively small amounts where debtors cannot be located and/or the individual debt is considered to be uneconomical to collect.
Trade Debtors September 2014 50
45
40
35
30 s n o 25 i <60 Days il M 60<>180 Days 20 >180 Days
15
10
5
- Sep-12 Nov-12 Jan-13 Mar-13 May-13 Jul-13 Sep-13 Nov-13 Jan-14 Mar-14 May-14 Jul-14 Sep-14
155 COUNCIL 11. 12. 2014
8 Cont’d
3. FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS
3.1 There are no financial implications other than those stated above.
4. COMMITTEE AND STAFF RECOMMENDATION
It is recommended that the Council receive this report.
9. EARTHQUAKE CLAIMS UPDATE AS AT 30 September 2014
Contact Contact Details General Manager responsible: Chief Financial Officer Officer responsible: Corporate Finance Manager Author: Earthquake Claims Y Adrian Seagar DDI: 941 6345 Manager
1. PURPOSE AND ORIGIN OF REPORT
1.1 This report is a regular quarterly update to the Committee on insurance matters relating to the earthquakes. It provides details of the status of these matters as at 30 September 2014.
2. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
2.1 Attached are appendices with brief notes of explanation for:
2.1.1 Recoveries summary status as at 30 September 2014 (Appendix 1) – provides information on costs incurred and recoveries accrued and received.
2.1.2 Main Claim Head progress summary as at 30 September 2014 (Appendix 2) – provides a brief summary of the current insurance status for each claim head and the actions planned for the next three months.
2.1.3 Insurance update and progress on anchor projects as at 30 September 2014 (Appendix 3) – provides the project and insurance status and payment on claims’ details for each of the major facilities.
2.1.4 Earthquake claim progress summary as at 30 September 2014 (Appendix 4) – provides financial information for each of the main claim heads, including major facilities.
2.1.5. Building and Infrastructure Improvement Allowance balance as at 30 September 2014 (Appendix 5) – provides details of allocations made from the allowance and the current balance available.
2.2 Significant progress continues to be made in lodging claims, and subsequent to 30 September, discharges have been signed for the minor assets where we are in agreement with the insurer. We expect to receive payment for these during the next quarter.
3. COMMENT
3.1 Claim Status
3.1.1. Claims for all Council’s damaged assets have been lodged, with a total value at 30 September 2014 of $840.7 million. Work continues to progress on providing all supporting information required to finalise these claims.
156 COUNCIL 11. 12. 2014
9 Cont’d 3.1.2 The Crown – CERA paid SCIRT $16 million in August for their estimated share of July work. A further $10.4 million was paid in September for their estimated share of August work.
3.1.3 Insurance claims – details of the status of each main claim head are outlined in Appendix 2. Councillors on the Insurance Sub Committee have been briefed on the reinsurance issues that are being worked through. Appendix 4 outlines financial information for each main claim head.
3.2 Building/Infrastructure Improvement Allowance Borrowing
3.2.1 Details of movements in the allowance since last reported are as follows:
Meeting $ Date Balance available for allocation per June 2014 Report $55,354,337
Less Council allocations: Lichfield Street carpark – demolition and establishment of temporary carpark 17/07/2014 3,500,000 Community Facilities tranche 1 04/09/2014 29,087,059 Heritage Facilities tranche 1 04/09/2014 11,703,596 New Brighton legacy project 04/09/2014 5,000,000 McCormacks Bay, Mt Pleasant Community Centre landscaping 04/09/2014 433,000 Beachville Road seawall 11/09/2014 580,000 Christchurch Stadium Trust 25/09/2014 2,000,000 Balance available to be allocated as at 30 3,050,682 September 2014
3.2.2 There are a number of projects that are being funded from the allowance ahead of insurance settlements. The insurance estimates at the time of Council funding approvals were $3.97 million, excluding the tranche 1 work approved in September. Any insurance proceeds for these projects will be credited to the allowance as funds are received. There is also $0.985 million allocated as pitch underwrites which will be credited to the allowance once recoveries are received, along with any loan repayment from the Christchurch Stadium Trust.
3.2.3 A full list of allocations made from the allowance is attached to this report as Appendix 5.
4. FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS
4.1 There are no direct financial implications from this report.
5. COMMITTEE AND STAFF RECOMMENDATION
5.1 It is recommended that the Council receive the report.
157 COUNCIL 11. 12. 2014
10. PERFORMANCE REPORT FOR THE THREE MONTHS TO 30 SEPTEMBER 2014
Contact Contact Details Executive Leadership Team Chief Financial Officer Member responsible: Officer responsible: Corporate Finance Manager Y Diane Brandish, 941 8454 Corporate Performance Manager Author: Planning and Reporting Manager
1. PURPOSE AND ORIGIN OF REPORT
1.1 This report provides an update on service delivery, financial, and capital works programme performance results for the three months to 30 September 2014. The budgets and targets in this paper are based on those approved by the Council in the 2014-15 Annual Plan.
1.2 The report includes an updated overview on the financial impact of the earthquake response and recovery as at 30 September 2014.
1.3 This report is provided for information purposes only.
1.4 Attached are appendices showing summaries of: Levels of Service graph as at 30 September 2014 (Appendix 1) Levels of Service that failed to meet targets as at 30 September 2014 (Appendix 1a) Financial performance as at 30 September 2014 (Appendix 2) Significant capital projects (>$250,000) as at 30 September 2014 (Appendix 3) Housing Development fund and Christchurch Earthquake Mayoral Relief fund as at 30 September 2014 (Appendix 4).
2. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
2.1 Year to date operational spend is well within budget, although a negative result is forecast primarily due to unbudgeted extra costs relating to the District Plan review. Council staff are working through various options to find savings elsewhere.
2.2 The most significant issue is the forecast under delivery of the rebuild programme, with over $250 million forecast to be carried forward. It is intended to address this as part of setting the 10 year capital programme for the LTP and a report will be brought back to Council with the recommended re-phasing.
2.3 Capital project reporting from the CPMS (Capital Project Management System), especially on progress against project milestones, is not accurate or reliable due to non-compliance. An end to end review of our capital programme is being scoped.
2.4 The Level of Service reporting shows 85.3 percent of Levels of Service are on target which is consistent with trend line results over recent years.
3. LEVELS OF SERVICE
3.1 The most recent data on Levels of Service (30 September), shows 85.3 percent of Level of Service on target (see Appendix 1). This is consistent with trend line results over recent years. Most directorates are above the 85 percent mark, the exception being Building Control. However results in this area are showing improvement.
3.2 Appendix 1a lists those Levels of Service where the Council’s target will not be achieved, is compromised, or was not reported. There are three aspects of this list worth noting:
The first is that many failing levels of service contain comments to the effect that the target cannot be achieved, and that this will be remedied by lowering the target in the next Long Term Plan. That is a decision for the Council that cannot be pre-empted. In the meantime no remedial action has been proposed for the remainder of this financial year.
158 COUNCIL 11. 12. 2014
10 Cont’d
The second item to note is the large number of unreported results, which was higher than usual this quarter. Having no information on performance targets is a risk to both governance and management. The Executive Team has reinforced this requirement.
Capital project reporting from the CPMS (Capital Project Management System), especially on progress against project milestones, is not accurate or reliable due to non-compliance. An end to end review of the capital programme is being scoped.
3.3 All three of these items require close scrutiny as they are critical to managing service delivery.
3.4 Note that performance targets in bold are those published to the community. They are intended to provide transparency to ratepayers about what each service delivers (quantity, quality and compliance with legislation). Non-bold measures are oriented at management of the service ie unit cost, efficiency, etc.
4. FINANCIAL PERFORMANCE SUMMARY
Year to Date Results Forecast Year End Results ($m) Actual Plan Variance Forecast Plan Variance Council Activities Expenditure 108.9 114.3 -5.4 475.5 472.8 2.7 Revenues and Funding -101.0 -97.1 -3.9 -454.2 -455.7 1.5 Borrowing required 15.7 17.2 -1.5 17.1 17.1 -0.0 Ratepayer cash operating shortfall (surplus) -7.8 - -7.8 4.2 -0.0 4.2
Capital Programme Expenditure 23.3 55.9 -32.6 213.8 212.9 0.9 Revenues and Funding -24.8 -22.6 -2.2 -104.5 -103.7 -0.8 Borrowing required -1.5 33.3 -34.8 109.3 109.2 0.1
Earthquake Rebuild Expenditure 115.4 166.4 -51.0 862.1 1114.8 -252.7 Recoveries and Funding -105.7 -167.0 61.3 -548.6 -715.3 166.7 Borrowing required 9.6 -0.7 10.3 313.5 399.5 -86.0
Earthquake Response Expenditure 10.1 23.4 -13.3 88.9 97.3 -8.3 Recoveries and Funding -5.0 -9.8 4.8 -32.1 -36.5 4.4 Borrowing required 5.1 13.6 -8.5 56.8 60.8 -3.9
Total New Borrowing Required 28.9 63.4 -34.5 496.7 586.5 -89.9
4.1 Key commentary on the four reported areas is given below. This is followed by a section for each area giving further details. A view of the Council’s financial results by activity is provided in Appendix 2.
4.2 At the end of the first quarter the Council Activities were reporting a cash operating surplus of $7.8 million. This is mainly due to timing of the payment of grants and the receipt of a higher than planned Transwaste dividend. The forecast $4.2 million shortfall is because of unbudgeted costs for the District Plan Review hearings ($6.4 million), and a reduced New Zealand Transport Agency (NZTA) administration subsidy on rebuild work ($2 million). Clause 5 provides details.
159 COUNCIL 11. 12. 2014
10 Cont’d
4.3 Capital programme expenditure is $34.8 million below budget year to date due to timing of projects, but is forecast to be $0.9 million over budget. This forecast is unlikely to be accurate and is under review. Revenues year to date are higher than budget due to increased development contribution receipts, but forecast revenues have been impacted by recent amendments to the Local Government Act which exclude facilities from development contributions (DC) calculations. Clause 6 provides details.
4.4 Earthquake rebuild expenditure is forecast to be significantly under budget mainly due to project delays and uncertainty around funding. The under spend is also driving the lower recoveries and funding. Borrowing is forecast to be $86 million lower than budget as a result. All the variances are timing and expected to be carried forward. Clause 7 provides details.
4.5 Earthquake response borrowing is forecast to be $4 million lower than budget. This is due to delays to the social housing programme because of resourcing issues and an under spend on community and heritage facilities due to a change in focus from operational repairs to capital rebuild. Clause 8 provides further details.
4.6 Overall forecast borrowing requirements are $90 million less than planned mainly due to delayed earthquake rebuild works. This is a timing difference which will by offset by increased borrowing in future years, but will generate interest savings of $1.5 million in the current year.
5. COUNCIL ACTIVITIES
Year to Date Results Forecast Year End Results $m Actual Plan Var Forecast Plan Var Personnel costs 40.7 42.0 -1.3 169.6 168.3 1.4 Less recharged to capital -7.9 -7.9 -0.0 -30.5 -30.6 0.1 Grants and levies 13.6 15.9 -2.3 45.6 46.6 -1.0 Operating costs 32.3 33.3 -1.0 155.6 151.8 3.7 Maintenance costs 17.9 17.6 0.3 76.2 76.2 0.1 Debt servicing 12.3 13.4 -1.2 58.9 60.5 -1.5 Expenditure 108.9 114.3 -5.4 475.5 472.8 2.7
Operating revenue -34.8 -33.3 -1.5 -132.4 -134.7 2.4 Interest and dividends -8.2 -6.6 -1.6 -78.7 -77.7 -1.0 Rates income -89.3 -88.9 -0.5 -355.5 -355.5 0.0 Revenue -132.4 -128.8 -3.6 -566.5 -567.9 1.4
Net Cost -23.5 -14.5 -9.0 -91.0 -95.1 4.1 Less unavailable funds: Special Funds 1.9 2.2 -0.3 -5.9 -6.1 0.1 Rates to EQ / capex / debt 29.5 29.5 - 118.3 118.3 - Available Funding Sources 31.4 31.7 -0.3 112.3 112.2 0.1
Borrowing required 7.9 17.2 -9.3 21.3 17.1 4.2 Borrowing for EQ deficit and capital grants 15.6 17.2 -1.6 17.1 17.1 - Cash operating shortfall -7.7 - -7.7 4.2 -0.0 4.2
160 COUNCIL 11. 12. 2014
10 Cont’d
5.1 Operating expenditure for Council activities is $5 million lower than budget for the three months to 30 September mainly due to timing of grants payments. The forecast overspend is due to unbudgeted District Plan Review hearing costs of $6.4 million (total $9.2 million over two years). Canterbury Earthquake Recovery Authority (CERA) has indicated that central government may contribute towards these costs and discussions are underway. The forecast over spend is partially offset by lower debt servicing costs due to timing of borrowing ($1.5 million) and lower earthquake rate remissions due to CERA purchases of s124 properties ($1.1 million). Strategy and Planning are reviewing their programme of work for possible deferrals to offset the balance.
5.2 Revenue for Council activities is $4 million higher than budget year to date because of a higher than expected Transwaste dividend ($1.2 million), and timing of inspection and enforcement revenues. Revenues are forecast to be $1.4 million less than budget mainly due to: a lower subsidy from NZTA due to the reduced Stronger Christchurch Infrastructure Rebuild Team (SCIRT) roading programme and the potential repayment of subsidies received in advance for projects which will now not proceed ($2 million) lower interest income ($0.3 million) reduced library lending revenues ($0.2 million)
5.3 The net cost of individual activities is shown in Appendix 2.
6. CAPITAL PROGRAMME
Year to Date Results Forecast Year End Results
$m Actual Plan Var Forecast Plan Var Three Waters 9.3 29.4 -20.1 100.7 105.5 -4.8 Roads and Footpaths 5.3 9.8 -4.4 66.0 67.9 -1.9 Parks 1.3 3.3 -2.0 13.8 13.6 0.1 Strategic Land 0.1 - 0.1 16.4 16.4 -0.0 Other 7.2 13.2 -5.9 56.1 59.6 -3.5 Less Planned Carry Forwards not identified - 0.3 -0.3 -39.2 -50.2 11.0 Expenditure 23.3 55.9 -32.6 213.8 212.9 0.9
Cash DCs -8.6 -3.4 -5.6 -14.6 -13.8 -0.8 NZTA Capital Subsidy -0.8 -3.0 2.2 -17.9 -17.9 -0.0 Capital Grants/Revenue -0.2 - -0.2 -0.0 -0.0 - Water Connection Fees -0.4 -0.2 -0.3 -0.8 -0.8 -0.0 Misc Capital Revenues -0.2 -0.0 0.2 -0.0 -0.0 0.0 Asset Sales -0.2 - -0.2 -6.8 -6.8 -0.0 Capital Revenues -10.5 -6.6 -3.9 -40.0 -39.2 -0.8
Net Cost 12.7 49.3 -36.6 173.8 173.6 0.1
Rates (Renewals / Landfill / Tsfrs) -14.9 -14.9 - -60.1 -60.1 - Special Funds 0.7 -1.1 1.8 -4.4 -4.3 -0.1 Available Funding Sources -14.2 -16.0 1.8 -64.5 -64.4 -0.1
Borrowing Required -1.5 33.3 -34.8 109.3 109.2 0.1
161 COUNCIL 11. 12. 2014
10 Cont’d
6.1 Capital Programme expenditure is $32.6 million below budget year to date mainly due to timing of roading, wastewater, water supply and stormwater projects. The forecast over spend relates to the Ferrymead Bridge ($3.9 million), but is partially offset by a $2.4 million under spend in the capital governance group pool contingency. Other significant forecast under spends include Halswell and Wainui sewers and the major cycleways programme, which have all been signalled to be carried forward. A paper will be brought to the Council on the Ferrymead Bridge.
6.2 Group of Activity level variance commentary is shown in Appendix 2.
6.3 Financial results of significant (>$250,000) capital projects are shown in Appendix 3.
6.4 Development contributions are higher than budget year to date, but are forecast to be only slightly higher than budget due to the loss of development contributions on libraries and leisure facilities following amendment to the Local Government Act effective 7 August 2014 ($1.5 million). 6.5 Other capital revenues and special funds year to date variances are due to timing, with forecast being on budget.
6.6 Borrowing for the Capital Programme is forecast to be on budget.
7. EARTHQUAKE REBUILD
Year to Date Results Forecast Year End Results $m Actual Plan Var Forecast Plan Var Infrastructure - SCIRT 107.6 134.8 -27.2 469.6 522.9 -53.3 Infrastructure - Non SCIRT 2.7 13.4 -10.7 194.0 249.6 -55.6 Transitional / Recovery Projects 1.1 0.7 0.3 39.5 60.5 -21.0 Facilities Rebuild 4.0 17.4 -13.5 154.0 250.7 -96.7 Unallocated Budget - - - 5.0 31.1 -26.1 Expenditure 115.4 166.4 -51.0 862.1 1114.8 -252.7
CERA Recoveries -45.4 -76.1 30.7 -221.8 -339.1 117.3 NZTA Recoveries -19.4 -1.8 -17.6 -172.1 -85.2 -86.9 Insurance Recoveries -8.0 -16.3 8.2 -75.6 -165.2 89.6 Other Recoveries -0.7 -0.1 -0.6 -1.3 -1.3 - Land Sales - - - - -45.2 45.2 Recoveries -73.5 -94.2 20.7 -470.9 -636.1 165.1
Net Cost 41.9 72.2 -30.3 391.2 478.7 -87.6
Rates (Renewals & Metro Levy) -12.0 -12.0 - -47.8 -47.8 - Housing Account -0.2 -0.7 0.4 -9.8 -11.3 1.5 EQ Recovery Fund -20.0 -60.2 40.2 -20.0 -20.1 0.1 Available Funding Sources -32.2 -72.8 40.6 -77.7 -79.3 1.6
Borrowing Required 9.6 -0.7 10.3 313.5 399.5 -86.0 Rates-funded Borrowing - - - 18.7 18.7 - EQ Borrowing 9.6 -0.7 10.3 294.7 380.7 -86.0
7.1 SCIRT rebuild costs of $108 million year to date is made up of: wastewater ($49 million); roading ($17 million); stormwater ($2 million); water supply ($3 million) and $37 million which is not yet allocated.
162 COUNCIL 11. 12. 2014
10 Cont’d
7.2 Rebuild expenditure is forecast to be $253 million under spent in all areas and includes: SCIRT – forecast recently revised ($53 million) Non SCIRT - Wastewater treatment plant on hold awaiting loss adjusters ($24 million) - Water supply wells in planning stage ($15 million) Transitional/Recovery projects - Performing arts precinct in feasibility stage, construction delayed ($12 million) Facilities Rebuild - Insurance funded facilities rebuild delayed due to uncertainty of funding ($67 million) - South West and Central libraries awaiting site confirmation ($20 million) - Parking projects now expected to commence in 2016 ($20 million) - Art Gallery delayed ($12 million) - Athletics track on hold awaiting decision on Nga Puna Wai ($7 million).
7.3 Rebuild recoveries are below budget partly as a result of the above under spend and partly because the land sales are taking longer than planned. The CERA and NZTA variances are also due to the different mix of works that SCIRT are delivering compared to what was originally planned.
7.4 Rebuild borrowing is forecast to be $86 million lower than budget, primarily due to reduced expenditure, but this will be incurred in future years.
7.5 Details of life to date earthquake related costs and recoveries are shown in Appendix 2.
8. EARTHQUAKE RESPONSE
Year to Date Results Forecast Year End Results $m Actual Plan Var Forecast Plan Var Office of the Chief Executive 0.0 - 0.0 -0.0 - -0.0 Finance & Commercial Group 0.5 0.5 0.0 2.1 2.1 -0.0 Corporate Services Group 0.1 - 0.1 -0.0 - -0.0 Council Facilities & Infra Rebuild 3.1 6.3 -3.2 16.1 25.1 -9.0 Operations Group 6.0 10.7 -4.7 38.0 37.5 0.5 Building Control Group -0.0 0.0 -0.0 -0.0 0.0 -0.0 Corporate Transactions 0.3 5.8 -5.5 32.7 32.6 0.1 Expenditure 10.1 23.4 -13.3 88.9 97.3 -8.3
CERA Recoveries -2.5 -4.5 1.9 -16.0 -14.9 -1.1 NZTA Recoveries -0.3 -0.5 0.2 -2.8 -2.8 -0.1 Insurance Recoveries -0.8 -1.9 1.1 -6.0 -7.5 1.5 Other Recoveries -0.6 -0.3 -0.3 -1.0 -1.0 -0.0 Recoveries -4.2 -7.2 3.0 -25.8 -26.2 0.3
Net Cost 5.9 16.2 -10.3 63.1 71.1 -8.0
Housing Account -0.8 -2.6 1.8 -6.3 -10.3 4.1 Available Funding Sources -0.8 -2.6 1.8 -6.3 -10.3 4.1
Borrowing Required 5.1 13.6 -8.5 56.8 60.8 -3.9
163 COUNCIL 11. 12. 2014 Strategy and Finance Committee 20. 11. 2014 - 31 -
10 Cont’d
8.1 Response costs are currently $13 million below budget due to: delayed wastewater, roading and parks projects which are forecast to be on budget timing of payments to CERA for the Port Hills land resolution which are forecast to be on budget by the end of the financial year delayed social housing programme.
8.2 The most significant forecast under spends relate to housing ($4 million), community centres ($1.3 million) and heritage buildings ($2.3 million). Housing under spend is due to delayed projects as a result of Council and City Care resourcing issues. Community centres and heritage buildings forecast reflects the change in delivery focus from operational repairs to capital rebuild following the advance from the Infrastructure Improvement Allowance Borrowing approved by Council in September to fast track repairs and rebuild.
8.3 Response recoveries are currently $3 million less than budget due to the under spend above. However forecast recoveries are close to budget due to unbudgeted recoveries on stormwater costs carried forward from last year and higher recovery rates than budgeted on facilities rebuild projects. The reduced drawdown from the housing account reflects the under spend above.
8.4 Forecast response borrowing required is $3.9 million below budget.
9. COMMITTEE CONSIDERATION
The Committee noted the forecasted under spend relating to housing and requested that staff provide information on what resources are needed to meet the housing targets.
10. COMMITTEE AND STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS
It is recommended that the Council receive the report.
PART B - REPORTS FOR INFORMATION
11. DECLARATIONS OF INTEREST
Councillor Gough declared an interest in clauses 4 and 6 as he is a Director of the Vbase Board.
Councillor Turner declared an interest in clause 6 as he is Trustee on the Rod Donald Trust and a Director of Canterbury Development Corporation.
Councillor Chen declared an interest in clause 6 as he is a Trustee on the Riccarton Bush Trust.
12. DEPUTATIONS BY APPOINTMENT
Nil.
13. LAND USE RECOVERY PLAN – UPDATES ON MEDIUM DENSITY HOUSING EXEMPLAR PROJECTS (ACTION 8) AND HOUSING NEW ZEALAND MASTERPLANS (ACTION 9)
The Committee received and noted the content of a report updating it on the progress of the Land Use Recovery Plan Actions 8 and 9 and on the Land Use Recovery Plan Review.
164 COUNCIL 11. 12. 2014 Strategy and Finance Committee 20. 11. 2014 - 32 -
14. CENTRAL CITY RECOVERY QUARTERLY MEMORANDUM – JULY TO SEPTEMBER 2014-11-25
The Committee received a Memorandum updating it on the implementation of the central city recovery projects for the period July 2014 to September 2014.
The Committee noted that a report regarding rates rebates for Life in Vacant Spaces is currently being prepared.
The Committee asked that a quarterly update report come to the Committee as part of the consenting report and that a copy of the report also be presented to the Development Forum.
15. EXPANSION OF FAIR & EQUITABLE RATES REMISSIONS
This item was not considered by the Committee as it was reported directly to the Council meeting on 13 November 2014.
16. LAND USE RECOVERY PLAN: RICCARTON RACECOURSE (CHAMPIONS MILE) MEDIUM DENSITY HOUSING EXEMPLAR PROJECT
This item was presented to the Council meeting on 27 November 2014.
PART C – DELEGATED DECISIONS
17. APOLOGIES
The Committee resolved to accept an apology from Councillor Gough who retired from the meeting at 2.24pm.
18. TERMS OF REFERENCE
The Committee considered a report seeking its approval, and if required refinement, of the Terms of Reference of the Strategy and Finance Committee adopted at the 2 October 2014 Council meeting and to approve the those working groups reporting to the Strategy and Finance Committee.
The Committee resolved to:
18.1 Adopt the Terms of Reference of the Strategy and Finance Committee with no refinements.
18.2 Approve the Terms of Reference for:
18.2.1 The Mayoral Quality Regulation Review Taskforce, (refer attachment 1.)
18.2.2 The Stronger Christchurch Infrastructure Rebuild Team (SCIRT) and Rebuild Alignment Working Group (refer attachment 2.)
18.2.3 The Citizen Participation and Representation Working Group (refer attachment 3.)
And
18.3 To report the Terms of Reference to the Council for its information.
165 COUNCIL 11. 12. 2014 Strategy and Finance Committee 20. 11. 2014 - 33 -
19. RESOLUTION TO BE PASSED – SUPPLEMENTARY REPORTS
The Committee resolved that the reports be considered at the meeting on 20 November 2014.
20. ADJOURNMENT OF MEETING
The meeting was adjourned at 2.57pm.
The meeting resumed at 3.07pm.
21. RESOLUTION TO EXCLUDE THE PUBLIC
The Committee resolved that the resolution to exclude the public, as set out on page 67 of the agenda, be adopted.
The Committee resolved to readmit the public at 3.41pm.
The meeting concluded at 3.42pm.
CONSIDERED THIS 11TH DAY OF DECEMBER 2014
MAYOR
166 Clause 25 167
MINUTES OF A MEETING OF THE GREATER CHRISTCHURCH URBAN DEVELOPMENT STRATEGY IMPLEMENTATION COMMITTEE (UDSIC)
Held in the Council Chamber Civic Building, Christchurch City Council 53 Hereford Street, Christchurch on Friday 21 November 2014 commencing at 10.30am
PRESENT: Urban Development Strategy (UDS) Bill Wasley (Independent Chair)
Christchurch City Council Councillors Phil Clearwater
Environment Canterbury Commissioners Dame Margaret Bazley and Rex Williams
Selwyn District Council Councillors Malcolm Lyall and Mark Alexander
Waimakariri District Council Mayor David Ayers and Councillor Neville Atkinson
New Zealand Transport Agency (observer) Jim Harland
APOLOGIES: Sir Mark Solomon, Mayors Lianne Dalziel and Kevin Coe, Commissioner Peter Skelton, Roger Sutton, Elizabeth Cunningham and Councillor Jim Gerard.
1. APOLOGIES
Apologies for absence were received from Sir Mark Solomon, Mayors Lianne Dalziel and Kevin Coe, Commissioner Peter Skelton, Roger Sutton, Elizabeth Cunningham and Councillor Jim Gerard.
It was resolved on the motion of Councillor Neville Atkinson, seconded by Councillor Paul Lonsdale that the apologies be accepted.
2. DECLARATION OF INTEREST
Nil
3. DEPUTATIONS BY APPOINTMENT
Nil.
3. CONFIRMATION OF PREVIOUS MINUTES
It was resolved on the motion of Councillor Mark Alexander, seconded by Councillor Phil Clearwater, to confirm the minutes of the previous meeting of 10 October 2014.
* UDS partners in respect of this matter are the Christchurch City Council, Selwyn District Council, Waimakariri District Council, Environment Canterbury, Te Rūnanga o Ngāi Tahu and New Zealand Transport Agency. 168 GREATER CHRISTCHURCH URBAN DEVELOPMENT STRATEGY IMPLEMENTATION COMMITTEE 21. 11. 2014
4. RESOLUTION TO EXCLUDE THE PUBLIC
At 10.37am, it was resolved on the motion of Councillor Neville Atkinson, seconded by Mayor David Ayers that the resolution to exclude the public, as set out on page 8, of the agenda be adopted.
At 11.07am, on the motion of Councillor Mark Alexander, seconded by Councillor Paul Lonsdale, it was resolved to readmit the public to the meeting.
The Chairperson declared the meeting closed at 11.09pm.
* UDS partners in respect of this matter are the Christchurch City Council, Selwyn District Council, Waimakariri District Council, Environment Canterbury, Te Rūnanga o Ngāi Tahu and New Zealand Transport Agency.
Clause 26 169 COUNCIL 11. 12. 2014
AUDIT AND RISK MANAGEMENT COMMITTEE 25. 11. 2014
A meeting of the Audit and Risk Management Committee was held in the No. 1 Committee Room on 25 November 2014 at 2pm.
PRESENT: Ms Sheldon (Chairperson) Councillor Raf Manji (Deputy Chairperson), Mayor Dalziel, Deputy Mayor Vicki Buck, Councillors Jimmy Chen, David East, Jamie Gough, Mssrs Russell and Rondel
IN ATTENDANCE: Dr Karleen Edwards, Chief Executive.
APOLOGIES: An apology for absence was received and accepted from Deputy Mayor Vicki Buck.
The Committee reports that:
PART B - REPORTS FOR INFORMATION
1. DEPUTATIONS BY APPOINTMENT
Nil.
2. UPDATE ON INTERNATIONAL PUBLIC SECTOR ACCOUNTING STANDARDS IMPLEMENTATION
The Committee received a report updating it on the upcoming change to accounting standards and the work done to date by the Council.
The Committee recommends to the Council that a further update will be provided in 2015.
PART C – DELEGATED DECISIONS
3. APOLOGIES
The Committee resolved to accept an apology for absence from Deputy Mayor Vicki Buck.
The Committee noted an apology from Peter Gudsell, Chief Financial Officer.
4. DECLARATION OF INTEREST
Nil.
170 COUNCIL 11. 12. 2014 Audit and Risk Management Committee 25. 11. 2014
5. TERMS OF REFRENCE - DISCUSSION
The Committee noted the Terms of Reference of the Audit and Risk Management Committee as adopted by the Council at its 2 October 2014 meeting.
The Committee decided:
5.1 To refinements to the Terms of Reference as follows:
5.1.1 Page 1: additional wording under the first paragraph: To assist the Council to discharge its conformance responsibilities as outlined below by making recommendations to the Council and/or to management.
5.1.2 Page 2: an additional bullet point under the Risk Management heading to read: To assist the Council to determine its appetite for risk.
And
5.2 To report the refined Terms of Reference for the Audit and Risk Management Committee to the Council for its information. (Refer Attachment 1.)
6. RESOLUTION TO EXCLUDE THE PUBLIC
The Committee resolved to adopt the resolution to exclude the public as set out on page 13 of the agenda and that Julian Tan, Audit New Zealand and Sonja Healy and Murray Harrington, Pricewaterhousecooper, be invited to attend the public excluded section of the meeting for their expertise.
The Committee resolved to readmit the public at 4.19pm.
The meeting concluded at 4.20pm.
CONSIDERED THIS 11 DAY OF DECEMBER 2014
MAYOR
COUNCIL 11. 12. 2014 ATTACHMENT 1 TO CLAUSE 26 171
1. Audit and Risk Management Committee
Chair: Sue Sheldon
Membership: Cr Manji (Deputy Chairperson), The Mayor, Cr Buck, Cr Chen, Cr East, Cr Gough, Messers Russell and Rondel
Quorum: Half of the members if the number of members (including vacancies) is even, or a majority of members if the number of members (including vacancies) is odd
Meeting Cycle: Meetings will be held at least quarterly
Reports to: Council
Terms of Reference: To assist the Council to discharge its conformance responsibilities as outlined below by making recommendations to the Council and/or to management.
. the robustness of the internal control framework
. the integrity and appropriateness of internal and external reporting and accountability arrangements
. the robustness of risk management systems, process and practices
. the independence and adequacy of internal and external audit functions
. compliance with applicable laws, regulations, standards and best practice guidelines, and
. the establishment and maintenance of controls to safeguard the Council’s financial and non-financial assets.
Internal Control Framework
. Ensure that management’s approach to maintaining an effective internal control framework is sound and effective
. Enquire as to the steps management has taken to embed a culture that is committed to probity and ethical behaviour
. Review the processes or systems in place to capture and effectively investigate fraud or material litigation should it be required
. Seek advice periodically from internal and external auditors regarding the completeness and quality of financial and operational information that is provided to the Council
COUNCIL 11. 12. 2014 ATTACHMENT 1 TO CLAUSE 26 172
Risk Management
. To assist the Council to determine its appetite for risk.
. Review whether management has in place a current and comprehensive risk management framework and associated procedures for effective identification and management of the Council’s significant risks
. Consider whether appropriate action is being taken by management to mitigate Council’s significant risks
. Ensure that management is kept appraised of the Council’s goverance body’s views on uncontrolled risk
. Ensure management are keeping the Audit and Risk Management Committee fully appraised of all independent sources of assurance, via the risk management framework.
Internal Audit
. Review and approve the internal audit coverage and annual work plans, ensuring these plans are based on the Council’s risk profile
. Review the adequacy of management’s implementation of internal audit recommendations
. Conduct a members-only session with internal audit to discuss any matters that the auditors wish to bring to the Committee’s attention.
External Reporting and Accountability
. Consider the appropriateness of the Council’s existing accounting policies and principles and any proposed changes
. Enquire of external auditors for any information that affects the quality and clarity of the Council’s financial statements, and assess whether appropriate action has been taken by management
. Satisfy itself that the financial statements are supported by appropriate management signoff on the statements and on the adequacy of the systems of internal control (i.e. letters of representation), and recommend signing of the financial statements by the Chief Executive and Mayor and adoption by Council
. Confirm that processes are in place to ensure that financial information included in the entity’s annual report is consistent with the signed financial statements
. Satisfy itself that the Statement of Service Performance is supported by appropriate management signoff on the statement and on the adequacy of the systems of internal management and control
. Receiver and consider the Summary Financial Statement for consistency with the Annual Report.
COUNCIL 11. 12. 2014 ATTACHMENT 1 TO CLAUSE 26 173
External Audit
. Confirm the terms of the appointment and engagement, including the nature and scope of the audit, timetable and fees, with the external auditor
. Receive the external audit report(s) and review action to be taken by management on significant issues and audit recommendations raised within
. Conduct a members-only session with external audit to discuss any matters that the auditors wish to bring to the Subcommittee’s attention and/or any issues of independence.
Compliance with Legislation, Standards and Best Practice Guidelines
. Review the effectiveness of the system for monitoring the Council’s compliance with laws (including governance legislation, regulations and associated government policies), with Council’s own standards, and Best Practice Guidelines.
174 175 COUNCIL 11. 12. 2014
29. DUDLEY CREEK FLOOD REMEDIATION CONSULTATION
Contact Contact Details Executive Leadership Team Director, Council Facilities and N Member responsible: Infrastructure Officer responsible: Unit Manager, Stormwater and Land Y DDI 941 8071 Drainage Rebuild Author: Tom Parsons, Surface Water N Engineering Consultant
1. PURPOSE AND ORIGIN OF REPORT
1.1 This report seeks the Council’s approval for the Proposed Option (refer Attachment 4) for post-earthquake remediation of Dudley Creek to continue to develop design, consenting and construction.
1.2 The report details the results of the public consultation undertaken on the Proposed Option.
1.3 At its meeting on 23 October 2014, Council resolved (27.2) to “Consult the community and invite public comment on the preferred option and report back to Council following the consultation to advise on the feedback and confirm whether or not the preferred option should proceed.”
Significance and Engagement
1.4 The decision to be made is of high significance in relation to the Christchurch City Council’s Significance and Engagement Policy.
1.5 Implementation of the decision will have a high environmental and social impact on those households where full or partial property purchase is required, and on the households in the Flockton area who will benefit from the Dudley Creek flood remediation proposal. The detailed consideration presented in submissions from the affected households and neighbourhoods, through the public consultation process, reflect the strong local community interest in this decision.
1.6 The uncertainty around the funding mechanisms and options to deliver this proposed option, discussed in section 7 of the report, indicate a high level of significance in terms of possible financial implications for the Council.
1.7 The report’s outline of community engagement and consultation to date substantiates this assessment of high significance. The continued proposed engagement with affected parties outlined in sections 6 and 9 of the report, and staff recommendations, are appropriate for the assessed level of significance.
1.8 In accordance with section 76 of the Local Government Act 2002, this report contains:
1.8.1 Sufficient information about the options and their benefits and costs, bearing in mind the significance of the decision; and,
1.8.2 A process of community engagement to determine and consider the views and preferences of affected and interested parties keeping in mind the significance of the decision.
2. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
2.1 Flood risks have changed for a number of localities within Christchurch following the earthquake events of 2010 and 2011. This is particularly evident in the Dudley Creek Catchment – 70 percent of the properties identified by the Taskforce as having repeated flooding above the floor since the earthquakes are within the Dudley Creek catchment. 176 COUNCIL 11. 12. 2014
29 Cont’d
2.2 Building on previous reports on the 27 March 2014, the Stormwater and Flood Protection Update Report on 14 August 2014, and the 23 October 2014 report, which outline the options, their benefits and costs, this report provides the findings of the consultation with the public on the Proposed Option as endorsed by the Council (23 October 2014 Report). The Proposed Option aims to address the unacceptably high post earthquake flood risk within the catchment. This report recommends to proceed with the works in a modified form.
2.3 The Consultation period was held between 10 – 26 November 2014 and included 4 drop- in sessions and interviews with a number of homeowners badly affected by flooding or by the Proposed Option. One hundred and twenty five (125) submissions were received, mostly from within the catchment (Attachment 1). Approximately 140 visitors attended the drop-in sessions. The feedback on the Proposed Option was mixed but generally in favour of the Proposed Option proceeding. There was frequent reference to retreating from the at risk area, although this has been considered far more costly than engineering alternatives.
2.4 Submission themes included:
2.4.1 Banks Avenue: Responses were generally opposed to the Proposed Option, with many concerned about the absence of detailed information provided. They have high concern about the removal of existing mature trees and the loss of amenity value of the area. Consideration of alternative bypass options has been requested.
2.4.2 Flockton Area: Residents are concerned about the residual flooding that will remain even after a Proposed Option is enacted. From the 23 submissions received relating to this area, there were 6 submissions indicating a preference for the retreat option.
2.4.3 Edgeware Road, Francis Ave and Edward Ave: Some residents have asked for the Proposed Option to be extended/enhanced to reduce flooding along these streets.
2.4.4 Targeted rates: A small number of submitters were concerned about targeted rates. This topic was also mentioned at the drop-in sessions.
2.4.5 Property impacts: Residents adjacent to the stream are concerned about the potential effects on their properties.
2.4.6 Maintenance: An ongoing theme of maintenance has been raised with both the current situation and the Proposed Option.
2.5 A decision to proceed with the preferred flood remediation option for Dudley needs to be made within a citywide context and in accordance with the current planning and policy framework, in particular the Surface Water Management Strategy 2009-2039.
2.6 The Land Drainage Recovery Programme (LDRP) investigations continue to develop options (physical works or adaptive management strategies) aimed at addressing post- quake levels of service throughout the city. For example, investigations in the Heathcote River Catchment and its tributaries (including riverside properties, Woolston, Jacksons Creek, and Bells Creek) are underway or soon to be initiated as a priority.
2.7 The Dudley Creek Long Term flood remediation project is the furthest advanced within the LDRP as it has been prioritised due to the severity and frequency of flooding in the catchment. While some works and land drainage investigations have taken place in other catchments the citywide picture will not be fully developed in time to inform decisions within the Dudley catchment.
2.8 The Tay Street Drain pumping station is currently under construction. The pump station will provide significant benefit in the 10 year Average Recurrence Interval (ARI) rainfall event. These could be considered as early works within the Proposed Option but noting that the costs are not included in the budget estimate. 177 COUNCIL 11. 12. 2014
29 Cont’d
2.9 Between two and six properties will require full purchase with the Optimised Option 2 to enact the Proposed Option. Compulsory purchase of some properties may be required. In addition to these properties there are approximately 16 properties that will require part purchase with the Optimised Option 2. Approximately 70 further properties will be impacted directly by the Proposed Option either by widening, bank reconstruction, access requirements or other channel improvements. Easements or private property access agreements may be required to enable the Proposed Option.
2.10 Initial discussions with the two properties definitely required for compulsory purchase under the Proposed Option have been favourable with one offer agreed in principle and the second underway. Indications on the acceptability of voluntary land acquisition with residents from the Banks Avenue area where the physical works are significant have been mixed, but the majority of which are unfavourable. Some have expressed a view that they cannot support the Proposed Option given the limited level of detailed information available at this time.
2.11 Council has initiated conversations with all landowners where property may need to be acquired with the current proposal. We have directly contacted the majority of owners of properties where works will have an impact. Those discussions highlighted a range in sentiment towards granting access to land to undertake the work; ranging from staunch resistance to general acceptance. Issues regarding water way setbacks and compensation for disturbance were raised. Ongoing discussions will be required with all affected landowners at the next stage of design.
2.12 There are a number of factors which affect the timing of the commissioning of the recommended option. The approach to design, consenting and construction is being considered in finer detail. Based upon a conservative assumption for consenting and consultation the estimated commissioning date for the Proposed Option is mid 2017. Progressing the bypass and downstream works in parallel will yield benefits within the catchment even while the remainder of the Proposed Option is progressed. Significant benefits in frequent rainfall events will be achieved well before mid 2017 with the Taskforce works, particularly the Tay Street Drain pumping station, which is due to be commissioned early 2015.
3. BACKGROUND
3.1 Following the Christchurch earthquakes of 2010 and 2011, land settlement, lateral spreading, liquefaction and siltation in Dudley Creek and tributary streams has resulted in a large reduction in hydraulic capacity and a significant increase in the frequency and severity of flood events within the Dudley catchment.
3.2 The Dudley catchment contains a large number of houses where flood risk has risen significantly since the earthquake events. Given this situation, the Council has prioritised the investigation of damage and options for remedial works, including the potential timeframes for their delivery.
3.3 The investigation and assessment was to understand the cause and the extent hydraulic performance has been affected, to identify and consider options to restore hydraulic performance and to return flood risk to properties within the catchment to pre-earthquake levels.
3.4 The Council has been investigating capacity upgrade options since 2012, and in 2013 two preferred options were identified for feasibility design and assessment. Since the development of the two engineering options the Mayoral Flood Taskforce has triggered works within the catchment, including the Tay Street Drain pump station and some widening and in channel works to remove potential restrictions. The original two options were optimised to allow for the Mayoral Flood Taskforce works.
3.5 The resulting two options were compared against a retreat option and the optimised Option Two was preferred. This was presented in the 23 October 2014 report to Council and involves a gravity bypass along Warden Street. This option was taken to consultation and the findings of the consultation are documented in this report. 178 COUNCIL 11. 12. 2014
29 Cont’d
4. COMMENT
Consultation
4.1 Consultation on the Proposed Option for long-term flood remediation was undertaken from Monday 10 November to Wednesday 26 November 2014. While the consultation officially closed on Wednesday 26 November 2014, late submissions were still accepted up until close of business on Monday 1 December 2014.
4.2 The 7,340 project flyers were delivered to residents and businesses in and around the project areas. These were followed by the hand delivery of 718 consultation booklets to all residents and businesses most affected by the Proposed Option. This information was also available online. This booklet is included in Attachment 2.
4.3 Submitters were provided a letter outlining the outcome of consultation and details of the Council meeting, so interested stakeholders are able to attend, view the meeting via the Council web camera or request a deputation prior to a decision being made by Council. Council also provided an opportunity on 10 December 2014 for deputations on this matter and other reports that they are considering.
4.4 A summary outlining methods used to inform stakeholders about the project, including billboard posters, radio advertising, advertising on buses, use of social media and information about the four community drop-in sessions and one on one meetings with key stakeholders, is included in Attachment 3.
4.5 A public meeting was also held with Banks Avenue Residents on 23 October 2014 immediately following the delivery of the report to Council. Although outside the official consultation period the comments are included in this commentary.
4.6 At the close of Monday 1 December 2014 125 submitters provided comments on the project. 20 submitters strongly agree with the proposal, 39 submitters agree with the proposal, 21 submitters were neutral, 14 submitters disagree with the proposal, 17 submitters strongly disagree with the proposal and 14 submitters have given no indication. As a percentage 48 percent agree or strongly agree, 24 percent disagree or strongly disagree and 28 percent were neutral or gave no indication.
4.7 In relation to the question in the consultation booklet around preference for naturalised or engineered banks; 72 submitters (58 percent) prefer naturalised banks, 23 submitters (18 percent) prefer engineered banks and 30 submitters (24 percent) have given no indication (58 percent).
4.8 The responses varied by the property address of submitters, as per the table below. The areas described below correspond with the map areas contained in the consultation booklet on pages 4 and 5. 179 COUNCIL 11. 12. 2014
29 Cont’d
Overall agreement on Proposed Option – option 2:
AREA Total Strongly Agree Neutral Disagree Strongly Not Submissions Agree Disagree indicated Area 1 22 1 0 5 2 10 4 Banks Avenue Area 2 12 3 6 1 0 0 2 Warden Street Area 3 and 6 10 1 2 1 4 1 1 Stapletons Road North and South Area 4 and 5 12 3 7 2 0 0 0 Aylesford Street/Hills Road North/ Slater Street North/Chancellor Street North Area 7 7 1 1 2 1 1 1 Hills Road South/Slater Street South and Dudley Street Bings Drain 6 1 1 2 1 0 1 catchment area (outside of the Proposed Option) St Albans Creek 7 2 3 1 0 1 0 catchment (outside of the Proposed Option) Flockton area 32 7 10 5 5 3 2 Other (general 17 1 9 2 1 1 3 feedback) Total 125 20 39 21 14 17 14
180 COUNCIL 11. 12. 2014
29 Cont’d
Naturalised or Engineered banks:
AREA Total Naturalised Engineered Not indicated Submissions 1 Banks Avenue 22 10 0 12 Area 2 12 7 3 2 Warden Street Area 3 and 6 10 9 1 0 Stapletons Road North and South Area 4 and 5 12 5 5 2 Aylesford Street/Hills Road North/ Slater Street North/Chancellor Street North Area 7 7 3 1 3 Hills Road South/Slater Street South and Dudley Street Bings Drain 6 3 1 2 catchment area (outside of the Proposed Option) St Albans Creek 7 5 2 0 catchment (outside of the Proposed Option) Flockton area 32 19 7 6 Other (general 17 11 3 3 feedback) Total 125 72 23 30
4.9 The following discussion of feedback should be considered in conjunction with the summary of issues raised during consultation and project team responses. The responses will be made publicly available prior to the Council meeting on the 11 December 2014.
4.10 During the first public meeting a member of the public identified an alternative bypass alignment. This has been considered along with other alignments and this is discussed in further detail below.
Area 1 Banks Avenue
4.11 Feedback received indicated that Banks Avenue residents have strong associations with the existing mature trees and other planting in the area and are opposed to see the existing environment modified. There are a number of submitters who would not like to see any further tree removals. This was also expressed strongly through the group submission received from 46 submitters (some of whom also put in an individual submission).
4.12 Submitters also expressed that they had insufficient information to understand the impacts of the proposal.
4.13 Submitters were concerned about the devaluation of their property in relation to this proposal. 181 COUNCIL 11. 12. 2014
29 Cont’d
4.14 Ten submitters including a group submission from residents of Banks Avenue (this submission consisted of 46 submitters, some of whom also put in an individual submission) supported an alternative option to alleviate the need for work in this part of Dudley Creek. Information on suggested alternative bypass options are discussed further in this report, see section 4.42.
4.15 In response to this feedback Council has taken the opportunity to advance design of the Proposed Option to inform this report. Topographic information recently collected was used to better understand the likely extent of the Proposed Option and potential impacts on mature trees. A concept for the application of the Proposed Option has been developed with the objective of minimising property impacts and removal of trees. This has involved a greater proportion of low engineered walls. These walls could be softened with planting. The additional work has found that a significant number of trees may be required to be removed should Council approve the Proposed Option (assuming the engineered walls described above and dependent on detailed design). Council arborists will make preliminary assessments of the trees along Banks Avenue and an update will be provided during the Council meeting.
4.16 This additional work has found that the Taskforce works have delivered much of the excavation required to deliver the proposal. The consultation document identified that much of the work can occur on Council land. Ongoing negotiations will be required with these land owners to enact the Proposed Option, particularly on the form of the Proposed Option and replanting plans. Generally these residents would prefer an alternative option if available. Compulsory purchase of land under the Public Works Act may be required in this reach to enable works along Banks Avenue should the proposed option proceed.
4.17 Resource consent is likely to be required to remove trees to enact the Proposed Option. The trees which require removal are a mixture of street trees with no protection and street trees protected as special purpose road zone trees under Category C as river and streamside roads with special tree, landscape and environmental values.
4.18 The impacts of the proposal on the residents of Banks Ave need to be considered alongside the benefits to the Flockton Street area residents. The area will be landscaped as part of the Proposed Option and suitable trees will be replanted to re-create the pleasant mature environment over time.
Area 2 Warden Street
4.19 Feedback was received in relation to the underground bypass pipe beneath Warden Street and across Shirley Intermediate School grounds. Council will continue to work with the Ministry of Education throughout any design stages in relation to this bypass.
4.20 A number of alternative options to a buried pipe beneath the Shirley Intermediate playing field have been identified. These include alternative alignments and constructing the bypass as an open channel rather than a buried pipe which would reduce ongoing maintenance costs and increase amenity value. Any open channel design would need to consider public safety. These options were presented to Ministry of Education officials and discussed at a high level.
4.21 Further design work will be required to inform any decision from the Ministry and the schools on the most appropriate form of the bypass across their land. Ongoing discussions with the Ministry will be required during the next stages of design. In general terms the options that had a lower impact on the function of the playing fields were viewed more favourably. The results of the negotiations and the final form of the bypass will be reported back to the chair of the Infrastructure, Transport and Environment committee prior to construction for information.
4.22 Feedback was also received in relation to a pump at Warden Street; however in previous investigations a gravity option bypass was preferred. A pump could be installed at a later date if required. 182 COUNCIL 11. 12. 2014
29 Cont’d
Area 4 and 5 Aylesford Street/Hills Road North/ Slater Street North/Chancellor Street North
4.23 Feedback was received regarding the possibility of the Chancellor Street bridge remaining a pedestrian bridge. Only three submitters commented on this, with two submitters in support of a pedestrian bridge and one submitter in support of a vehicle bridge. The value engineering is likely to consider a cul-de-sac option, however further consultation will be required for this.
4.24 Feedback was also received regarding the possibility of the Slater Street bridge being replaced with a pedestrian bridge (at Dudley Creek). Five submitters commented on this, with two submitters in support of a pedestrian bridge and three submitters in support of a vehicle bridge. The value engineering is likely to consider a cul-de-sac option, however further consultation will be required for this.
4.25 Feedback was received from a number of directly affected property owners (including residents who have met with Council staff on site) through this area. Feedback was varied depending on individual circumstances. Ongoing negotiations and discussions with affected residents will be required through the next design stage.
Area 3 and 6 Stapletons Road North and South
4.26 Feedback was received by a number of property owners who live adjacent to this section of Dudley Creek. Feedback varied between concerns around future set back requirements if partial property purchase went ahead and the possibility of Council completing a full property purchase of affected properties along Stapletons Road. As with other affected property owners, ongoing discussions with these residents will be required throughout the design process. The current proposal does not require full property purchase in this section of Dudley Creek.
Area 7 Hills Road South/Slater Street South and Dudley Street
4.27 Feedback was received from a number of directly affected property owners (including residents who have met with Council staff on site) through this area. Feedback was varied depending on individual circumstances. Ongoing negotiations and discussions with affected residents will be required through the next design stage.
Bings Drain catchment area (outside of the Proposed Option)
4.28 A number of submissions were received from residents in the Bings Drain catchment area. This area is outside of the current Proposed Option, however Bings Drain is the subject of an investigation project within the land drainage recovery programme. This project will investigate earthquake effects on the waterway and change in a flood risk, including street flooding.
St Albans Creek extension area (group outside the Proposed Option)
4.29 Group and individual submissions were received from residents within the Edgware Road area of St Albans Creek. This section of St Albans Creek is outside the current Proposed Option, which extends upstream as far as Hills Road.
4.30 Council has a project planned within the Land Drainage Recovery Programme to specifically investigate St Albans Creek. This project is intending to investigate the earthquake effects on the creek and in the catchment and may conclude that physical works are appropriate. Survey of the creek has only recently been completed and will be used to inform the next stage of design.
4.31 Residents have identified the creek as a cause for flooding, particularly of Edgeware Road and properties upstream of Champion Street. 183 COUNCIL 11. 12. 2014
29 Cont’d
4.32 The Proposed Option will reduce water levels and flooding in the section of the creek immediately upstream of Hills Road but is unlikely to make a significant difference to water levels upstream of Champion Street. There will be flooding of the street and properties even if the Proposed Option proceeds.
4.33 Both computer models of the creek and residents identify flooding upstream of Champion Street culvert, however further work is required to understand the impacts of this flooding, particularly if any habitable floor levels are at risk. Any modifications to the culvert would need to be considered in the context of the creek and the private bridge crossings down to Hills Road so that increasing the capacity of the culvert did not make flooding worse at the properties downstream.
4.34 There may be flooding issues elsewhere on St Albans Creek, in addition to those which have already been identified. These will be identified and assessed as part of the St Albans Creek investigation.
4.35 It is recommended to progress investigation into the Champion Street culvert and existing flood risk during the next design phase, in advance of the St Albans Creek project, to better understand the costs and benefits of the Proposed Option.
Flockton Group
4.36 Mixed feedback was received from properties in the Flockton area. There was support for the proposal from 12 submitters, there were also submitters concerned over whether the proposal would alleviate the issue of flooding within the area. There were six submitters who would prefer the retreat option and it was noted in the group submission. However, this was not considered to be a reasonably practicable option when presented to Council on 23 October 2014. Further discussion on this option can be found in the 23 October 2014 report.
4.37 There will still be flooding of streets, residential land and a limited number of houses if the proposal is constructed (as described in the 23 October 2014 report) and many submitters thought this undesirable. The objective of the Proposed Option is to return the Flockton Street Area to pre-earthquake levels of flood risk. The Proposed Option could be enhanced to provide a greater reduction in flood risk within the catchment. This would come at greater cost and impact to other property owners. Engineering works to avoid all flooding of residential land is not regarded as feasible or viable.
4.38 Limited floor level surveys are proposed to further understand flood risk within the catchment and to inform the next stages of design.
Other (general feedback)
4.39 Seventeen (17) submissions were received from people who have an interest in the Proposed Option, but do not live within the catchment.
4.40 This feedback mostly supported the proposal in order to provide a solution for the residents of the Flockton area. Two submissions provided alternative options; one option involves investigation of a buoyant foundation system and the other an alternative bypass route which would alleviate the need for work along the Banks Avenue section of Dudley Creek.
Buoyant Foundation System
4.41 The buoyant foundation system is outside of the scope of this project and would involve work on private property, so has been discounted. It may be feasible to construct ‘floating houses’ but a great deal of investigations would be required to prove the concept and quantify the cost, along with the property owners level of acceptance around such an option. 184 COUNCIL 11. 12. 2014
29 Cont’d
Alternative Bypass Options
4.42 A number of alternative bypass options have been proposed during and prior to the consultation period (refer Attachment 1). These alternative alignments are generally intended at minimising the works required in-stream, particularly in the Banks Avenue Reach. These alternatives have been given serious consideration and a further option has been investigated which was suggested by Council Officers. The options investigated were:
4.42.1 An alternative bypass along Averill Street, along Poulton Street, through Richmond Park to the Avon via the Red Zone.
4.42.2 An alternative bypass from the confluence of Dudley Creek and St Albans Creek, along Randall Street, Medway Street to the Avon.
4.42.3 Varying and extending the Warden St bypass through Marion College, Richmond Park and private property to the Avon via the Red Zone to bypass Banks Avenue.
4.43 Engineering concepts proposed by submitters or Council are the subject of a publically available report published on the Council flood mitigation webpages. The alternative bypass options were evaluated against the Proposed Option. It was found that the original proposal was preferred as it provides the shortest construction period and lowest cost. This finding will be peer reviewed before the 11 December 2014 meeting.
4.44 The alternative alignments did have considerable merits but at increased costs. The next highest scoring was the extension to the Warden Street Bypass as proposed by Council Officers. This came at an additional cost of approximately $5 million. This option negates the works along Banks Avenue and would avoid the need to remove a significant number of trees along Banks Avenue but would require greater land acquisition and would impact on existing parks, some trees and recreational facilities. The two southern alignments would require significant works along Stapletons Road downstream of Warden Street, potentially with strong resistance from those residents.
Extending the Proposed Option
4.45 A number of submissions involved extending or enhancing the Proposed Option. Increasing the benefits of the Proposed Option (i.e. extending it to other areas or further reducing flood risk within the affected catchment) could be undertaken at a later date at additional cost and following detailed investigations. A submission made to council prior to the consultation period involved a request to extend the benefits of the Tay Street Drain pumping station up to Thames Street.
4.46 The Proposed Option will permit some later modifications to the upstream network (e.g. widening of Shirley Stream upstream of Shirley Road, St Albans Creek upstream of Hills Road or the Tay Street Drain up to Thames Street) should Council decide to do so. However, the current Proposed Option extents are defined by Council’s current understanding of frequent floor level flooding within the catchment. Any further works in close proximity upstream would be to reduce property flooding. Further investigations are proposed to better understand flood risk in these and other areas. These investigations may result in physical works proposals but will need to be prioritised against other areas of known flood risk.
4.47 Options to reduce flood frequency, depth and extent within the existing option catchment could be developed. Additional benefits could be obtained by increasing the proposed widening, pumping of the bypass or widening the creek in the reach left unmodified by the bypass. Although feasible, it is likely that the additional costs would be considerable.
4.48 Residents of Francis Avenue presented themselves at the public meetings and raised strong concerns about residual flood risk, the limited benefits to their properties that the Proposed Option provides and overflows from the wastewater network that contaminate flood water. Options for extending the Proposed Option up to Francis Avenue could include: 185 COUNCIL 11. 12. 2014
29 Cont’d
4.48.1 Reconstruction of the local stormwater drainage, known as the ‘Flockton Invert’ which runs parallel to Warrington Street and collects the stormwater from Francis Avenue and the Flockton Street Area.
4.48.2 Construction of a pump station at the location of the temporary pump station site on Warrington Street in conjunction with some upgrading of the Flockton Invert.
4.49 Considerable further investigations would be required to assess the viability of these, or other, options. It is recommended to progress these investigations during the next design phase to better understand the costs and benefits of any further works.
4.50 Current understanding is that floor level flooding in the extension areas is limited. There are other areas of the city with known floor level flooding issues. Council would need to balance the magnitude of flooding in the extension areas against other areas in the city as there is limited current budget available for flood remediation.
Private bridges and retaining structures
4.51 There are a large number of private bridges within the proposed extent of Proposed Option. Modification or replacement of many of these bridges will be required. An allowance has been made within the current budget estimates for this. Ongoing ownership of the structures needs careful consideration on a case by case basis.
4.52 Many of the bridges have been damaged during the earthquakes and are awaiting repair or replacement. Council may seek to recover any repair or replacement monies owed or previously paid to the private landowner by insurance companies.
4.53 Different circumstances apply to retained banks where the Proposed Option may be enacted wholly on private property or on the property boundary. Final ownership of the walls may reside with Council, depending on the particular circumstance, as they are required for ongoing function of the proposal.
Targeted rates
4.54 Targeted rates were the subject of formal and informal feed back from the community (Facebook, Press articles, Stuff commentary) which highlighted that this is a contentious and potentially misunderstood issue that is not supported by submitters.
4.55 The merits of applying a targeted rate to fund the Proposed Option are being considered and will be reported back to the Mayor and Deputy Chair of the Strategy and Finance Committee by the end of March 2015 in accordance with resolution 14.6 from the 23 October 2014 Report.
Progress with Peer Review
4.56 The peer review of the proposed option has been undertaken by Pattle Delamore Partners (available on the Council Flood mitigation webpage). The peer reviewer concluded that the review of the investigation carried out to address the flooding issues in the Dudley Creek catchment has not revealed any major shortcomings. The reviewer identified seven (7) items of further work being to:
4.56.1 Consider revisiting the weighting given to the cost criteria used in the options assessment due to the importance of cost to options assessments.
4.56.2 Produce flood level differencing maps so the impacts of the models are more easily seen.
4.56.3 Rerun the optimised solutions with a lower Mannings n to reflect the upgrade of private bridges to determine the level of conservatism that may be present in the current information presented. However, it may not be necessary to report this unless it shows significant changes to the improvements currently identified. 186 COUNCIL 11. 12. 2014
29 Cont’d
4.56.4 Ensure that the final design makes allowance for changes in discharges resulting from improvements to those drains that contribute flow to Dudley Creek.
4.56.5 Accelerate the process of acquiring the land required in Cranford Basin to give full effect to the Tay Street Drain Pump Station installation.
4.56.6 Prepare a quantitative comparison of the pumping versus gravity feed for the bypass option.
4.56.7 Re-estimate the costs to ensure these are more realistic given that there is now more certainty around the preferred options.
4.57 These items will all be progressed during the next design stage. Regarding the quantitative comparison (item 4.54.6) a retrospective analysis will be formalised. It is unlikely that there will be significant numerical differences between the two options using the current assessment criteria.
Procurement
4.58 Multiple contracts will be required to deliver the project. This will include a consultancy contract to deliver the scheme design and consenting and a second contract to deliver the detailed design and construction of the Proposed Option. A separate construction contract may be used to deliver early wins within the Proposed Option.
4.59 The request for proposal for the scheme design and consenting will soon be going to market. It is hoped to award the work prior to Christmas 2014 so that sufficient engineering design work can be undertaken to facilitate an early start on construction by April 2015. Given the tight time line on the award of the consultancy agreement delegated authority to award the contract to the Director Council Facilities and Infrastructure is requested should the contract value exceed $500,000.
4.60 In parallel with the design and consenting of the proposed option work will need to progress on the contract documentation for the physical works. It is proposed to engage with the contracting industry well in advance of the final scheme design being available though a Registrations of Interest (ROI) process. Information can be supplied to short- listed contractors as the design progresses a short formal tender period can be realised. At this stage a design and construct tender is preferred but this will be considered further during the next stage.
4.61 Award of any construction or design and construction contract may require Council approval, depending on the size of the contract. It may be possible to award a portion of the works to a contractor so that some early works could begin by April 2015. The feasibility of this will be established in the next stage of design. Any procurement would be within existing delegations.
5. PROGRAMME
5.1 The 23 October 2014 report outlined an indicative programme:
The work to inform procurement of the preliminary design and consenting can begin immediately following the acceptance of the recommendations within this report. In parallel with this negotiations with key land owners can be initiated. The preliminary design work immediately follow procurement with consents being lodged around April 2015. Detailed design and construction of components of the preferred option could start as early as April 2015 with completion of the bypass and downstream works by September 2016. Full commissioning of the preferred option would follow in mid 2017.
5.2 This indicative programme is still considered to be achievable. 187 COUNCIL 11. 12. 2014
29 Cont’d
6. PROPERTY ACQUISITION AND ACCESS
6.1 Discussions have been instigated with many of the property owners about the effects of the Proposed Option on their property. There are many sections of the banks and bed of the creek that are in private ownership. Ongoing discussions with many landowners will be required to:
6.1.1 Establish any site specific constraints and access limitations
6.1.2 Confirm preferences for form of any works on the property and manage expectations
6.1.3 Agree nature of any reinstatement of any boundary fences, planting or other features
6.1.4 Confirm any existing damage to private bridges and establish if any insurance monies are owed on these structures
6.1.5 Understand the impacts of setback requirements on future site development
6.2 There will be two properties required for full purchase to enact the Proposed Option. Discussions with these two property owners have been initiated to establish if the current owners are willing sellers. Both parties indicated that they would be willing to sell if agreeable terms could be reached. Up to a further four properties may be required depending on detailed design.
6.3 There will be approximately 16 additional properties where partial purchase maybe required to enact the Proposed Option. Typically these properties are where the widening works will be substantial and the properties are located adjacent to land owned by the Council or the Crown.
6.4 Approximately a further 70 properties will require easements or access agreements. These properties are typically adjacent to the waterways where works will include widening, bank reconstruction, access requirements or other channel improvements. Discussions with some of these landowners have been undertaken as part of the consultation. The feedback from residents has been varied with some property owners comfortable with the Proposed Option progressing and other highly resistant.
6.5 Council has powers under the Christchurch Drainage Act 1951 and the Local Government Act 1974 (Section 509) to enact works on private property and access properties to undertake drainage related works or maintenance. These powers could be used to enact the Proposed Option. Council’s approach to seeking easements over properties has varied over time. For this proposal easements will be considered on a case by case basis.
6.6 Given the scale and number of agreements required to enact the Proposed Option delegated authority is sought to purchase and dispose of land required for the Proposed Option.
6.7 At least one resident has clearly stated that they do not wish to sell any land to Council. Further detailed design is required to inform the quantity of any land required for the Proposed Option. There may be a requirement for compulsory purchase of properties under the Public Works Act and if so, further reports to Council will be required. Detailed design will attempt to minimise the effect on land owners with strong preferences against the sale of their land. This may lead to a greater length of engineered walls within the Proposed Option or increases in costs. 188 COUNCIL 11. 12. 2014
29 Cont’d
7. FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS
7.1 The Proposed Option includes a blend of asset types (creek base, bridges, culverts, pump stations and pipes). These asset types attract different funding splits in the Cost Share Agreement and include SCIRT and Non-SCIRT work scope. The components that could be considered eligible within the cost share include damaged engineered walls and structures. Any new walls and other infrastructure (i.e. the bypass culvert) have not currently been indicated as eligible.
7.2 The Proposed Option is provisionally within the Horizontal Infrastructure Rebuild programme but is yet to be approved. The scope of the Proposal and eligibility within the Funding Agreement between the Crown and the Council (“Cost Share Agreement”) will need to be confirmed during the next design stage. These discussions will confirm any funding split.
7.3 A review of the Cost Share Agreement is currently underway. This may give a clearer indication of eligibility of the Proposed Option within the Cost Share Agreement.
7.4 Negotiations with the Crown on works to resolve increased flood risk could yield a more favourable result. There has been no indication from the Crown that funding outside the current Cost Share Agreement will be provided. Council may need to fully fund the Proposed Option should other avenues for funding not be available.
7.5 The current cost estimate for the Proposed Option is up to $48 million.
7.6 The Earthquake Commission has been considering the appropriate compensation for damages related to increased flood risk associated with ground settlement. It is currently assessing properties that are potentially affected by increased flood vulnerability (IFV). This will not be resolved until the completion of the Declaratory Judgment being sought by EQC through the High Court.
7.7 The Council has been working with EQC to identify collaboration opportunities where area wide engineering schemes could be used to restore pre-earthquake levels of flood risk. EQC have indicated that engineering options in the Dudley catchment have potential for collaboration. Ongoing discussions with EQC are required to understand, if and how, funding could be made available. Any funding split with EQC will need to be finalised at the next stage of design.
7.8 While the Council currently has funds within the Land Drainage Recovery capital budget it sits within the Cost Share Agreement and budgets allow for CERA contributions. Approximately $44.7 million is included within the Cost Share Agreement for Ponds and Natural Waterways. This work category is 100 percent Council funded. Any additional funds removed from other categories within the Cost Share Agreement would need to account for the 60 percent funding from CERA within the current allowances.
7.9 Progressing the Proposed Option as a matter of high priority may limit the funds available within the current budgetary allowance to progress other lower priority schemes elsewhere within the city. These other schemes are being, or will be, developed within the LDRP within the overall planned funding constraints.
7.10 Given that the Cost Share Agreement has a fixed cap and that the eligibility and funding split for the Proposed Option is uncertain it may be prudent to explore withdrawing the Proposed Option from the Cost Share Agreement. This could allow other works within the city to progress which could obtain a greater subsidy from the other finding partners (i.e. road or bridge projects). This could provide greater physical works for Council funding than the current approach. Should the proposal be withdrawn from the cost share agreement then it could be replaced by other projects which may yield a greater proportion of funding from other partners within the current cost cap. Council would still have to provide budget for the Council’s share within the Cost Share Agreement and this may or may not be made available from the overall estimate review of the Cost Share Agreement. 189 COUNCIL 11. 12. 2014
29 Cont’d
7.11 If this approach were to be undertaken then Council would need to find funds from other areas to progress the Proposed Option. This could involve substitution with other capital expenditure funded by future borrowing.
7.12 Given the level of uncertainty with the funding for the Proposed Option it is recommended that further work be undertaken prior to awarding any construction contracts. Proceeding with the scheme design and consenting will put the council at risk of having to fully fund these activities should the Proposed Option be ineligible within the Cost Share Agreement.
8. NEXT STEPS
8.1 The next steps for progressing of the proposal include: property negotiations with affected landowners; and award of the scheme design to a consultant who will progress any required consent applications. In parallel with the scheme design and consenting the physical works tendering process will be progressed. 190 COUNCIL 11. 12. 2014
29 Cont’d
9. STAFF RECOMMENDATION
It is recommended that the Council:
9.1 Receive the report.
9.2 Proceed with the Proposed Option in a modified form, including:
9.2.1 Obtaining approval from CERA to proceed on the cost share components for Proposed Option within the Cost Share Agreement.
9.2.2 Further engagement with directly affected residents where property purchase is required.
9.2.3 Ongoing engagement with residents of Banks Avenue throughout the detailed design process and prior to works being undertaken.
9.2.4 Investigation of easement options instead of partial property purchase where feasible.
9.2.5 Ongoing discussions with the Ministry of Education on options for an open channel bypass along varied alignments.
9.3 Progress investigations into funding of the Proposed Option both inside and outside of the Cost Share Agreement.
9.4 Progress investigations into extending the Proposed Option up to Francis Avenue and Geraldine Street during the next design phase to better understand the costs and benefits of any additional works and report back to Council on the findings.
9.5 Progress with all the items identified within the Peer Review.
9.6 Approve that the Director Council Facilities and Infrastructure be granted delegated authority to award a consultancy contract for the scheme design and consenting of the works should the contract amount exceed $500,000.
9.7 Approve that the Property Consultancy Manager be granted delegated authority to negotiate and enter into contracts for the purchase by the Council of any or all of the properties and /or property rights, including compensation or all other costs required for the proposed Dudley Creek Long Term Flood Remediation Project on the best terms considered available, provided the purchase price for such transactions is at market value as established Council’s standard practices and supported independent registered valuer.
9.8 Approve that the Property Consultancy Manager be granted delegated authority to dispose of any excess land after the proposed Dudley Creek Long Term Flood Remediation Project works have been enacted on the best terms considered available, provided the purchase price for such land transactions is at market value as established Council’s standard practices and supported independent registered valuer. COUNCIL 11. 12. 2014 ATTACHMENT 1 TO CLAUSE 29 Information Circulation: 191 - 7,340 flyers delivered - 718 booklets delivered - 4 drop-in sessions - 1 public meeting - Material at A&P Show, Community Boards, Service Centres, Libraries, MPs, and MoE - Social media - Council website
Feedback: - 140 visitors to drop-in sessions (approx) - 125 submissions
There were 27 submissions from outside the mapped area (not shown
192 COUNCIL 11. 12. 2014 ATTACHMENT 2 TO CLAUSE 29 193 Christchurch City Council Dudley Creek Preferred option for long-term flood remediation Consultation: Monday 10 November — Wednesday 26 November 2014
Contact us: Phone: (03) 941 8999 and 0800 800 169 Email: fl[email protected] Post: Freepost 178 Dudley Creek Flood Remediation External Relations and Communications Christchurch City Council PO Box 73011, Christchurch, 8154 194 test page
COUNCIL 11. 12. 2014 ATTACHMENT 2 TOChristchurch CLAUSE 29 City Council195
Introduction Christchurch City Council is seeking your feedback on Councillors chose an optimised version of Option 2 as its preferred option for reducing the risk to properties the preferred option for long-term flood protection in the against regular flooding in the Flockton area, part of the Flockton area and this is now being consulted on. The Dudley Creek catchment, following earthquake-related preferred option expands the benefits of the Tay Street land damage. Drain pump station (PS202), currently under construction as part of the Mayoral Flood Taskforce’s work, with a Flood risks across the city have changed since the gravity-piped diversion and an upgrade of surrounding Canterbury Earthquakes and 70 per cent of the homes waterways at a cost of up to $48 million. The pump with repeated flooding above the floor since the quakes station (Tay Street Drain PS202) will be operating by are in the Flockton area. Many residents trying to recover February 2015. from the earthquakes are now faced with flooded and unhealthy homes, and report increasing health problems, Option 2 is expected to reduce the frequency and severity stress and financial challenges. of flooding in the Flockton area. In a major event (1 in 50 year event) the works reduce the number of homes The Council has been working since 2012 on ways to likely to flood above the floor from 91 to 10. In a 1 in 10 address increased flooding following the earthquakes. year storm event the number of floor levels at risk reduces The Council is focusing on Dudley Creek first because of from 55 to 3. Overall, the work will reduce flooding depth the significant flood risks in this area, but work is also for at least 585 properties. This option will effectively underway to address the issues faced by flood-affected return most of the catchment to the same level of flood residents in other parts of Christchurch. risk, or slightly better, than before the Canterbury Fourteen options for Dudley Creek were identified in Earthquakes. November 2013, with two of the engineering options put to the Council in March 2014. Further work on the longer-term options for Dudley Creek saw two lower-cost versions – optimised Option 1 and optimised Option 2 – presented to the Council on 23 October 2014.
What we are seeking your views on now The Council is seeking your feedback on its preferred option to return most of the Flockton area, part of the Dudley Creek catchment, to the same level of flooding risk as before the earthquakes. Even if the work is progressed, there will still be flooding in some areas of the catchment after heavy rainfall. Your feedback, along with technical advice, will inform the Council decision on 11 December 2014. The Flockton area was at risk of flooding before the earthquakes and the preferred option returns the area to pre- earthquake levels of flooding. Unfortunately, about 14 properties may experience regular flooding until Option 2 is in place. We estimate three of these properties may flood regularly even once Option 2 is in place. Council staff have contacted these residents to update them and seek their views. There will still be some flooding of streets and houses after a prefered option is built. This booklet includes details of the preferred option – Option 2, as well as information on the other options that were initially considered. A submission form and information about drop-in sessions, where residents can speak to Council staff and make a submission, is included at the end of the booklet.
Dudley Creek preferred option for long-term flood remediation 3 COUNCIL 11. 12. 2014 Christchurch City Council ATTACHMENT 2 TOChristchurch CLAUSE 29 City Council196
Proposed work areas for preferred Option 2
The scale, impact and construction involved with proposed works is different in each of the seven areas.
Key to map 1. Dudley Creek widening along Banks Avenue between the Avon River to North Parade
2. A new underground rectangular Flockton Street pipe beneath Warden Street and across the Shirley Intermediate grounds (the Warden Street Aylesford Street 6 Bypass)
Hills Road Orontes Street
3. Dudley Creek along Stapletons Quinns Road Road from Shirley Stream down to St Albans Creek 5 4. Dudley Creek from Hills Road to Carrick Street Stapletons Road 5. Dudley Creek from Aylesford Street to Hills Road 4 6. Shirley Stream from Orontes Warrington Street Shirley Road Street down to Dudley Creek 7. St Albans Creek from Hills Road to Dudley Creek (Stapletons Road) 2 For full details on each area, see Warden Street 1
pages 7—9 Street Slater Stapletons Road Stapletons
3 Averill Street North Parade
7
4 Dudley Creek preferred option for long-term flood remediation Dudley Creek preferred option for long-term flood remediation 5 COUNCIL 11. 12. 2014 Christchurch City Council ATTACHMENT 2 TOChristchurch CLAUSE 29 City Council197
About preferred Option 2 Summary of proposed changes under preferred Option 2 includes a gravity-piped diversion and upgraded waterway capacity. A significant upgrade of Dudley Option 2 Creek is required. This will involve culvert removal in problematic pinch-points along Dudley Creek (for example Warden Street and Slater Street). Some mature, significant and protected trees will need to be removed but the Council will retain as many as possible. Where required, creek channel widening and deepening will be carried out and modifications to the creek bank will be made. The modifications to the banks will be either ‘naturalised’ or 1. Dudley Creek widening along Banks Avenue between the Avon River to ‘engineered’. North Parade Option 2 has the potential to improve the landscape, ecological, recreational and community values associated with parts of Dudley Creek and its tributaries through well-considered urban planning and landscape design. Further Widening and deepening of Dudley Creek will be required in this area to increase the capacity of the waterway so discussions will be held with local residents on landscaping options once an option is confirmed. floodwater can efficiently pass through to the Avon River. Much of the work can occur on Council land, and some existing mature trees may need to be removed but we will retain trees where possible. Some land purchases would Engineering works mean the Council will need to purchase at least two properties, and discuss a possible full or be required to construct the proposed option. Naturalised banks are preferred for much of this area with only limited partial purchase with a number of other owners. These directly affected owners are being contacted. At this stage lengths of engineered walls, particularly about Achilles and Cooper streets. Replacement of existing access bridges Council is seeking to understand the views and preferences of these owners. Detailed property negotiations will will be required with the widened waterway. follow the Council’s decision of the preferred option in December. Option 2 has altered significantly since it was first proposed, due to the Mayoral Flood Taskforce work already underway. The Tay Street Drain pump station (PS202) is now under construction and expected to be in operation by What is a naturalised bank? February 2015. The creek channel upgrade options were reduced and there is no longer an upgrade of the Hills Road – Shirley Road intersection culvert. This ‘optimised’ Option 2 provides the greatest opportunity for cost savings.
Legend
Culvert upgrade Pump station Engineered banks Naturalised banks
Peak Flooding Depth (m) 0.0 - 0.15 0.15 - 0.3 0.3 - 0.5 0.5 +
Naturalised banks are preferred by the Council. They are visually appealing as they include plants that fit in with the creek and stream environments. They have sloped banks that provide a suitable environment for vegetation to flourish. Naturalised banks require additional land, so discussions need to take place between the Council and private property owners to progress such work.
Map of Option 2
6 Dudley Creek preferred option for long-term flood remediation Dudley Creek preferred option for long-term flood remediation 7 COUNCIL 11. 12. 2014 Christchurch City Council ATTACHMENT 2 TOChristchurch CLAUSE 29 City Council198
What is an engineered bank? 4. Dudley Creek from Hills Road to Stapletons Road
Works are proposed to widen and deepen the creek in this area so floodwater can pass through efficiently. Typically, the stream is bounded on one side by Council-owned property or the road reserve and the other by private property. Much of this area will require engineered banks of timber or concrete, rather than naturalised banks, to maximise the capacity of the channel. Access to private property will be needed during construction of these walls. On the other bank (the Shirley Road side) a mix of engineered and naturalised banks is proposed. Terracing will be used to maintain a low-flow channel and pedestrian access. Option 2 proposes to replace Slater Street Bridge and reinstate Chancellor Street Bridge. However, leaving these as pedestrian-only bridges may be an option — feedback on this is welcomed. 5. Dudley Creek from Aylesford Street to Hills Road
Deepening the existing timber-lined drain is proposed. The walls of the channel are likely to be timber or concrete, depending on what is easier to construct in this confined area. Some trees may need to be removed to build the enlarged channel.
6. Shirley Stream from Orontes Street down to Dudley Creek
Works are proposed along Shirley Stream, downstream of Orontes Street, to reduce flooding on Emmett Street. The Shirley Road culvert will be replaced with a larger culvert. Engineered banks may be required, particularly downstream of Shirley Road. A naturalised approach to banks is preferred, however it may not be possible in all areas. Upstream of Shirley Road the work will be minor, mostly reshaping the channel. Replacement of existing access bridges will be required with the widened waterway.
7. St Albans Creek from Hills Road to Dudley Creek (Stapletons Road) Engineered banks are vertical walled creek banks made from either concrete or timber. While some people consider A mix of naturalised and engineered banks is proposed along St Albans Creek to reduce flooding upstream of Hills them to be less visually appealing, they maximise the waterway capacity of the channel during flood conditions. In Road. A 3 metre creek width is required from Hills Road down to the Churchill Complex. Hills Road and Slater Street some instances, where there are land restrictions, engineered banks may be the only option. culverts will be enlarged. Most of the channel widening works will require partial purchase of private properties.
2. Warden Street Bypass
A new underground rectangular pipe (3 metres wide by 1.5 metres high) is proposed beneath Warden Street and across the Shirley Intermediate grounds. The inlet and outlets from the pipe will be engineered structures with grills / grates. Access to properties along Warden Street will be maintained. This is a cost-effective solution that avoids extensive work on private property and the need to upgrade several bridges.
3. Dudley Creek along Stapletons Road from Shirley Stream down to St Albans Creek
The works upstream of the bypass inlet (at Warden Street) will be substantial and are likely to involve some property purchase and tree removal or vegetation clearance. Widening of the creek will take a naturalised form, but some engineered walls may be required. Downstream of the bypass the work will be much smaller in scale with a reduced impact on existing trees.
8 Dudley Creek preferred option for long-term flood remediation Dudley Creek preferred option for long-term flood remediation 9 COUNCIL 11. 12. 2014 Christchurch City Council ATTACHMENT 2 TOChristchurch CLAUSE 29 City Council199
Other options considered for long-term flood remediation in the Flockton area
Fourteen options were initially identified in November 2013 as possibly offering long-term flood remediation benefits Legend in the Dudley Creek/Flockton area. Culvert upgrade Pump station The 14 options included gravity based solutions, such as channel and culvert upgrades as well as diversions that seek Engineered banks to enhance natural drainage systems to reduce the flooding risks. Also considered were a range of pumping upgrades Naturalised banks that target the most vulnerable locations and could potentially be implemented much faster than catchment-wide measures. Another important group of solutions considered were property based upgrades such as localised bunding, Peak Flooding Depth (m) house raising or property purchase. 0.0 - 0.15 0.15 - 0.3 After further analysis and assessment, three options were considered further. 0.3 - 0.5 0.5 + Option 1 – Major upgrading of waterway capacity using gravity – This option would improve flood protection through upgrading the waterway capacity using gravity. The benefits would be achieved by increasing the width and depth of watercourses, including all of Dudley Creek downstream of the Aylesford culvert to the Avon River, and short sections of Shirley Stream, Bings Drain and St Albans Creek. It also includes the replacement of culverts at 12 road crossings, two public footbridges and 29 private vehicle access bridges. It would impact 115 properties to some degree. This option would benefit 550 properties and cost up to $60 million. Construction of this option would require major works and temporary traffic management plans and may require land purchase discussions with up to 40 private property owners. Option 2: Major pump station, gravity piped diversion and lesser upgrading of the waterway capacity (see page 6 for more information) - This is the preferred option. Option 3: Retreat – The option of retreating from those properties most affected by the flooding was explored. A “retreat” scenario has been considered where properties in the most affected areas would be purchased. Also included are engineering works to maximise the benefit of the vacant land as a stormwater storage basin and to ensure any flooding of surrounding houses does not increase. In October 2014, the Council identified Option 2 as its preferred option.
Map of Option 1. Summary of advantages and disadvantages of the three options
Effect of option Preferred Option 2 Option 1 Option 3 — Retreat Advantages • Cheaper than Option 1 or • Slightly more scope • Zero flood risk for Retreat for environmental properties purchased • Fewer property purchases enhancement than Option 2 • Resilient to future • Earlier benefits from • More resilient to very major earthquakes works storm events than Option 2 • More resilient to future earthquakes than Option 1 • Some scope for environmental enhancement Disadvantages • Less benefit in 1 in 50 year • More property purchase • Very expensive plus rain events • Higher costs • Less catchment wide • Some trees need • More traffic disruption benefit removing, but fewer than during work • Redirect existing services for Option 1 • More trees removed than • Reduced occupation has • Slightly less resilient to Option 2 an economic impact very major storm events • Less resilient to future than Option 1 earthquakes than Option 2 Cost estimate $48m $60 million $90 million
10 Dudley Creek preferred option for long-term flood remediation Dudley Creek preferred option for long-term flood remediation 11 COUNCIL 11. 12. 2014 Christchurch City Council ATTACHMENT 2 TOChristchurch CLAUSE 29 City Council200
Questions and answers The consultation process More about preferred Option 2
Question Answer Question Answer Why are you consulting Consultation will focus on the enhanced version of Option 2 now it has been With Option 2, how much Many of the most seriously affected residents (41 of 55) will no longer experience again? Option 1 and 2 have chosen by the Council as the preferred option. We are detailing the impact of the longer until people living above floor frequent flooding once the Tay Street Drain Pumping Station becomes been on the table for months engineering work now that more detail about this proposed work is available. in the Flockton area are operational from February 2015. Once all engineering work for Option 2 is and you’ve already had This proposed work is being presented to the community to get their views and actually protected against completed by mid-2017, only three homes will continue to experience regular feedback from residents. preferences, including from those particularly affected. flooding? flooding above the floor in a regular (1 in 10 year) rainfall/flood event. Even with the proposed long term option, some streets and properties will flood, but the Why are you consulting on Time is short and if we are to begin work on engineering solutions before work will reduce the number of houses which flood above floor level. an option at the same time as winter we need to run a two-track process. However, the Council is approaching preparing detailed design? consultation with an open mind and this may mean some rework of detailed Where is the Tay Street Drain It is located just outside the volunteer library at 42A Kensington Avenue, design based on feedback from communities. pump station? Mairehau. Is Option 2 fixed, or will The consultation will be genuine; we will be inviting feedback from the What are the financial The Council has approved a budget of $48 million for this work in the draft Long there be room for changes? community. Feedback will be analysed and on 11 December 2014 a report will go implications of Option 2? Term Plan, although funding contributions from the Crown and EQC will be to the Council for their consideration. In early 2015 we hope to be progressing pursued. The report also mentions possible revenue options such as a targeted detailed design work, subject to Council approval, and by April 2015, again subject rate across the city. This will be further investigated and reported back to the to Council approval, work is scheduled to start. Overall, the works are expected to Council. take two years to complete. I thought the Council was Overall, 585 homes have a reduced risk of flooding on their properties. We also short of money – why are considered the economic impact of flooding on local businesses and residential you spending up to $48 property values, and the effect of flooding on the landscape and the environment. million to benefit 585 homes? Why isn’t the Council We have looked at 14 options (go to page 16 for a timeline which outlines the looking at other options? Is history of flooding events and Council reports). Each has its merits, but for this because Option 2 is the technical and other reasons, such as cost or the amount of land required, they cheapest option? have been discounted. Councillors have selected a preferred option – Option 2, which we will be consulting on. We have used a multi-criteria analysis approach to find the best option for the city. Cost consideration was just one factor. Exactly how is Option 2 a Both options work to reduce the risk of flooding. Option 2 is the preferred option better option than others? based on a number of criteria such as: costs, concentration of essential services such as power and wastewater on particular routes, the potential for work to impact on private property and timeframes. Can’t you just dredge the The tide is an almost infinite volume of water – no matter how deep you dredge Avon River? the river, the sea will always fill it up.
12 Dudley Creek preferred option for long-term flood remediation Dudley Creek preferred option for long-term flood remediation 13 COUNCIL 11. 12. 2014 Christchurch City Council ATTACHMENT 2 TOChristchurch CLAUSE 29 City Council201
Effect on the community
Question Answer I live in the Flockton area - There will always be some homes that experience flooding in an extreme event. with Option 2 will there ever Many homes may still experience regular flooding on their properties and on the be flooding at my place? street outside similar to the flooding experienced before the earthquakes. A much bigger and far more expensive scheme would be needed if we were to protect against every possible storm event. If the Council widens Dudley Widening of the creek will only take place as part of a permanent solution. So Creek, as proposed in Option far only a preliminary design for the channel has been prepared, but widening 2, will they be taking part of will take place on Council-owned public land (the road side) wherever possible my land or will they use land without reducing the width of the road or affecting road safety. from the road side? Doesn’t Option 2 mean In certain places yes and in others no. We will be speaking to the community to a much more invasive ensure we understand their views and preferences. This may include naturalised approach to the river bank? banks, engineered vertical banks, or a mix of both. The proposed work will also involve the deepening of the creek, which will give much more capacity through the network. What does part purchase There are approximately 16 properties that will require part purchase with Option mean? 2. This means we will purchase part of their section near the creek. It will be less than 20 per cent of the property. Will protection against As the work progresses the risk of flooding will reduce. By winter 2015, we will flooding improve before benefit from the Taskforce’s work and the Tay Street Drain pump station. By Option 2 is completed by winter 2016, the downstream works and bypass will be in action and by winter mid-2017? 2017 the channel works will be completed. Are the yellow parts on the The yellow area represents a naturalised area. The Council is very keen to work An artist’s impression of a private bridge over Dudley Creek with engineered and landscaped banks at Banks Avenue, Shirley. map of Option 2 the areas with residents to achieve naturalised banks wherever possible. However, there where Dudley Creek will be may be lengths of walls required along Banks Avenue or walls may be preferred by widened? the community. How much surveying has Dudley Creek has been surveyed several times since the earthquakes for a range been done in the Banks of reasons, such as establishing earthquake effects, quantifying silt removal and Avenue area? enabling Taskforce works. Recently we have undertaken a detailed survey which will be used to inform the next stages of design. Why are you proposing a The width is required as the creek is now ‘flatter’ due to the earthquakes, for 15 metre width for Dudley example some properties are now closer to the tide. Channels which are flat Creek. This is very wide. need to be bigger to carry the same amount of water as a steep channel. By incorporating terraces into the design of the new channels, a low flow channel will not need to be as wide – the full 15 metre width would only be flooded during high-flow events. With this proposal, if No, bridge replacement costs are included in the current option estimates. residents’ bridges need replacing will this increase the cost of the overall option?
14 Dudley Creek preferred option for long-term flood remediation Dudley Creek preferred option for long-term flood remediation 15 COUNCIL 11. 12. 2014 Christchurch City Council ATTACHMENT 2 TOChristchurch CLAUSE 29 City Council202 Christchurch City Council
Post-earthquake flood protection timeline This timeline outlines the history of the flooding events, Taskforce work to date and workplans for the next two years.
November 2013 0 — 3 months 3 — 6 months 6 — 12 months 2 years Dudley Creek Draft issues June 2014 — August 2014 September 2014 — November 2014 December 2014 — May 2015 and options report with 14 December 2014 — Mid-2017 options in total identified, Community engagement, Construction of Dudley Creek Ongoing planning and implementation of Taskforce Flood management steadily improving. two selected to progress to a investigations, consulting, design, Catchment Scheme completed, recommendations. Mid-2017: Long-term option physical feasibility and design report. tagerted maintenance and some majority of other local area works complete. physical work. Rates rebate and schemes completed. October 2014 Canterbury Earthquake Temporary Options 1 and 2 have been re-assessed in light of the short/medium-term Accomodation Service assistance. mitigation work the Taskforce has done, such as: • Tay Street Drain Pump station Feasability Report • creek widening • culvert and bridge removals March 2014 The Council has identified its preferred option to reduce the risk of regular Flood flooding in the Flockton area and reported to Council on 23 October. Dudley Creek Feasibility Report July 2014 went to the Council — the report Report Tay Street Drain Pump Station 10—26 November 2014 February 2015 includes options for long-term construction begins in Shirley. Consultation on Tay Street Drain Pumping May 2014 June 2014 flood mitigation for Flockton and This pump station will be used to preferred option Station completed. surrounding areas Mayoral Flooding Taskforce Temporary pump divert flood water to the Dudley begins. December 2014 • Option 1 – creek deepening and established. First progress installed in Dudley diversion, reducing the flood risk widening. report delivered to Council on Creek ahead of to homes in the Dudley Creek/ Expected Council decision • Option 2 – installation of a 12 May. The report outlines forecast heavy rains. Flockton area. on consenting and detailed pump station and bypass as well recommendations to protect the Permanent stop bank design. Culvert and foot as minor creek widening and areas identified as vulnerable to reinstatement in Southshore. flooding. Short-term mitigation bridge removal in deepening. Late November 2014 Dudley Creek. Widening creeks, removal of Early 2015 April 2015 Options One and Two to be re- work starts in these areas. vegetation and sediment from Submissions along Detailed design Long-term option early assessed in October, in light of the waterways across Christchurch. with technical starts (subject to works start (subject to short/medium-term mitigation advice analysed. approval). approval). This work will be work the Taskforce has done. Successful ‘House-tanking’ water- proofing pilot. added to the LDRP.
4—5 March 2014 30 April 2014 14 August 2014 160.8mm rainfall 85.4mm rainfall 5 June 2014 Mayoral Flood Taskforce Final Mayoral Flood Taskforce delivers report delivered to Council, its second progress report to the Council. The report outlines including a section on Lyttelton. further recommendations to The report outlines short/ protect the areas identified as medium-term recommendations 19 April 2014 to protect the areas identified as May 2012 vulnerable to flooding. Short-term 79.2mm rainfall mitigation work ongoing. vulnerable to flooding. Land drainage operations, Land Drainage Recovery LDRP and Surface Water Programme (LDRP) Management Strategy FloodFlood Flood continue to maintain and FloodFlood ReportReportReport September 2009 — 2039 ReportReport improve flood protection. Surface Water Management Strategy
16 Dudley Creek preferred option for long-term flood remediation Dudley Creek preferred option for long-term flood remediation 17 COUNCIL 11. 12. 2014 Christchurch City Council ATTACHMENT 2 TOChristchurch CLAUSE 29 City Council203
Have your say How to give us your feedback A submission form is included at the end of this booklet. However, you can provide your feedback in a Decision making number of ways:
Rebuilding essential infrastructure is a top priority for the Council. However, the Council has many demands on its By using the online submission form at: www.ccc.govt.nz/haveyoursay finances and needs to be prudent. By emailing your feedback and any attachments to: fl[email protected] The Council is acting responsibly by considering the best interests of the whole city, and wants to check with the (please make sure your full name and address is included with your submission). public on the preferred option for long-term flood protection in the Flockton / Dudley Creek area. Once consultation By mail, post to (no stamp required): has closed, your feedback, along with technical advice, will inform the Council decision on 11 December 2014. Freepost 178 Before the Council makes its decision, we will inform submitters of the community feedback and update you on the Dudley Creek Flood Remediation next phase of the project. External Relations and Communications Feedback and comments are being sought during the consultation period from 10 November to 26 November 2014. Christchurch City Council PO Box 73011 What next? Christchurch 8154 By hand delivery to: Submissions close at 5pm on Wednesday 26 November 2014. Civic Offices, 53 Hereford Street; or at the drop-in sessions as shown below By late November, when consultation ends, the Council will be analysing submissions and considering further technical advice. The Council will consider the report and decide on an option on 11 December 2014. In early 2015 the Council hope to be progressing detailed design work, subject to Council approval, and by April 2015, again subject to Please make sure your submission arrives with the Council before the consultation closes at 5pm, Wednesday Council approval, early work is scheduled to start. Overall, work is expected to take two years to complete. 26 November 2014.
Presentations and drop-in sessions
• Wednesday 12 November – Shirley Boys’ High School Library, North Parade, Shirley, 7pm—9pm • Thursday 20 November – Shirley Boys’ High School Library, North Parade, Shirley, 7pm—9pm • Saturday 22 November – Shirley Primary School, 11 Shirley Road, Shirley, 10am—2pm • Monday 24 November – St Albans/Shirley Working Men’s Club, 269 Hills Road, Shirley, noon—3pm
Consultation Leader contact details
Tara King Phone: (03) 941 5938 Mobile: (027) 208 3235 Email: [email protected]
Ann Campbell Phone: (03) 941 8717 Mobile: (027) 479 1586 Email: [email protected]
18 Dudley Creek preferred option for long-term flood remediation Dudley Creek preferred option for long-term flood remediation 19 COUNCIL 11. 12. 2014 Christchurch City Council ATTACHMENT 2 TOChristchurch CLAUSE 29 City Council204
Preferred option for Dudley Creek long-term flood remediation Christchurch City Council is seeking your feedback on its preferred option to return flooding to pre-earthquake levels in the Flockton area, part of the Dudley Creek catchment. Even if the work is progressed, there will still be flooding in some areas of the catchment after heavy rainfall. Feedback and comments are being sought during the consultation period from Monday 10 November 2014 to 5pm Wednesday 26 November 2014.
Overall, do you agree or disagree with the Council’s preferred option – Option 2
Strongly agree
Agree
Neither agree or disagree
Disagree
Strongly disagree
Any comments (optional)
The Council is keen to look at a naturalised approach to flood control, where possible as an alternative to engineered walls. We want your views on this. Which would you prefer?
Mostly naturalised (requires more land than engineered solutions, see page 7)
Mostly engineered (less land required, but less visually appealing for some people, see page 8)
Any comments (optional)
Do you have any other comments?
Thank you for taking the time to respond. Please include your contact details over the page.
20 Dudley Creek preferred option for long-term flood remediation Dudley Creek preferred option for long-term flood remediation 21 test page
Contact details COUNCIL 11. 12. 2014 ATTACHMENT 2 TO CLAUSE 29 205 I am completing this submission
If you are representing a group or organisation, how many people do you represent?
If your submission is supported by others, have you attached a supporting submission form? Send a scan of your supporting submission form to fl[email protected] with your name and your group’s name in the email.
Name:
Organisation: (if representing)
Role in organisation:
Postal address: Post code:
Phone: (home/work/mobile) Email: (if applicable)
Date:
fold staple or tape here fold
No anonymous feedback will be accepted. Whether you use this form or not, you must provide your full name and telephone number please. If you are submitting on behalf of an organisation, please state this and your role within that organisation.
Submissions must be made no later than 5pm Wednesday 26 November 2014.
Please note: On request, we are legally required to make all written or electronic responses available to the public, including the name and address of the author, subject to the provisions of the Local Government Official Information and meetings Act 1987. If you consider there are compelling reasons why your contact details and/or feedback should be kept confidential please contact the Council’s Principal Adviser Engagement, telephone 941 8999 or 0800 800 169.
Presentations and drop-in sessions • Wednesday 12 November – Shirley Boys’ High School • Saturday 22 November – Shirley Primary School, 11 Library, North Parade, Shirley, 7pm—9pm Shirley Road, Shirley, 10am—2pm • Thursday 20 November – Shirley Boys’ High School • Monday 24 November – St Albans/Shirley Working Library, North Parade, Shirley, 7pm—9pm Men’s Club, 269 Hills Road, Shirley, noon—3pm
fold fold
Dudley Creek Flood Remediation External Relations and Communications Christchurch City Council
tape here tape PO Box 73011 here tape Christchurch 8154 206 COUNCIL 11. 12. 2014 ATTACHMENT 2 TO CLAUSE 29 207
Contact us: Phone: (03) 941 8999 and 0800 800 169 Email: [email protected] Post: Freepost 178 Dudley Creek Flood Remediation External Relations and Communications Christchurch City Council PO Box 73011, Christchurch, 8154 208 COUNCIL 11. 12. 2014 ATTACHMENT 3 TO CLAUSE 29 209 Attachment 3:
How information on the Dudley Creek Flood Remediation Consultation project was circulated
• 7,340 flyers were hand delivered to residents and businesses in the wider project area (inside blue area). • 718 consultation booklets were hand delivered by the project team to the closest affected residents and businesses in the project area (red area). See map below.
Flyer and booklet delivery area:
Key: Area inside and including this line received a flyer
Streets marked in red Innes Road received a consultation booklet Marshland Road
New Brighton Road Cranford Street
Gayhurst Road
Sherborne Street
Bealey Avenue North Avon Road
COUNCIL 11. 12. 2014 ATTACHMENT 3 TO CLAUSE 29 210
• Flyers were made available at the Christchurch City Council stand at the Canterbury A & P Show from 12 November to 14 November 2014.
• Information about the project and the drop in sessions were posted and emailed to key stakeholders and absentee land owners.
• Consultation booklets were posted to all Community Board members.
• Consultation booklets were posted to all Service Centres and Libraries.
• Consultation booklets were posted to Ministers and MP’s.
• Consultation booklets were delivered to local schools in the area and the Ministry of Education.
• One on one meetings:
These have taken place with directly affected property owners (16 properties) where partial or full property purchase is a consideration as part of this project. The majority of these meetings have taken place face to face at the affected properties, but due to the location of some property owners a small number have taken place via email or over the phone. The aim of these meetings was to discuss the project and the potential affect to their property and to discuss whether they are open to a full or partial property purchase. These meetings were attended by the technical team and consultation team members.
• Social media:
The Council Facebook page and Twitter account was used to keep residents informed about the consultation.
Event Post date Facebook/Twitter post
Public consultation starts Monday 10 November We’ve got a preferred option for reducing the extra risk of flooding in the Flockton area since the earthquakes and want to hear your thoughts. Consultation is open from now until Wednesday 26 November. Click here to have your say.
Public drop-in session Tuesday 11 November Join us tomorrow at Shirley Boys’ High School Library, North Parade from 7-9pm to find out about the Council’s preferred option for reducing the extra risk of flooding in the Flockton area since the earthquakes. For more information, including other drop-in dates, see the website.
Last week of Wednesday 19 November Only a week away until consultation closes on the preferred option for reducing the extra submissions risk of flooding in the Flockton area since the earthquakes. Make sure you give us your COUNCIL 11. 12. 2014 ATTACHMENT 3 TO CLAUSE 29 211 Link to/tweet media feedback – click here to make response. release Public drop-in session Thursday 20 November We’re asking residents if they’d prefer a naturalised approach to flood control, where possible, rather than engineered walls. Join us tomorrow at Shirley Boys’ High School Library, North Parade from 7-9pm to find out more about this or click here to have your say.
Public drop-in session Saturday 22 November Drop in and discuss the preferred option for reducing the extra risk of flooding in the Flockton area since the earthquakes with members of the project team. We’re at Shirley Primary School, 11 Shirley Road, from 10am to 2pm today. Join us this afternoon at St Albans/Shirley Working Men’s Club, 269 Hills Road, from 12- 3pm to share your views on the preferred option for reducing the extra risk of flooding in Monday 24 November the Dudley Creek catchment since the earthquakes We will be there from 12pm–3pm to Public drop-in session answer your queries. For more see the website.
Submission period Wednesday 26 November Consultation closes at 5pm today on the Council’s preferred option for reducing the extra closes risk of flooding in the Flockton area since the earthquakes. Make your response here.
Total number of 39 likes Information reached a total of 3,969 Facebook users. No direct comments were posted, however a local community group did re-post the Dudley Creek consultation information on 22 November 2014. See table below for more detail around the reach. COUNCIL 11. 12. 2014 ATTACHMENT 3 TO CLAUSE 29 212
COUNCIL 11. 12. 2014 ATTACHMENT 3 TO CLAUSE 29 213 • Website: http://www.ccc.govt.nz/cityleisure/projectstoimprovechristchurch/landdrainage/flocktonarea.aspx
• Public advertising and signage (during the consultation period)
On the back of buses on route 28, 146 and 7 Posters at 113 Hills Road Posters at the Marshland Road Bollard Posters at Avalon Street 30 second radio advertising on Radio Live and Newstalk ZB Advertising in the Christchurch Mail, The Christchurch Star and the Press
Images of posters that were installed as part of the consultation:
COUNCIL 11. 12. 2014 ATTACHMENT 3 TO CLAUSE 29 214 • Drop in sessions:
Drop in sessions involved having relevant technical, consultation and communication team members available during a fixed time for stakeholders to be able to visit the drop in centre and get any questions answered by the appropriate person. Visual posters and consultation booklets were also made available on the day. Those attending could also leave their completed submission form with staff members.
Date: Location: Number visited (approx):
Wednesday 12 November Shirley Boys’ High School Library 30
Thursday 20 November Shirley Boys’ High School Library 40
Saturday 22 November Shirley Boys’ High School 30
Monday 24 November St Albans/Shirley Working Men’s Club 20
Total 120
COUNCIL 11. 12. 2014 ATTACHMENT 4 TO CLAUSE 29 N Legend 215 Innes Road Bypass Open Channel Bypass Alternatives
Akaroa Street " Culvert Upgrades
Marshland Road ¯ (! Channel Works WestminsterSignificant Street Widening Works Minor Channel Works - Mix of engineered and - Mix of engineered and (! Tay Street Drain Pump Station naturalised banks naturalised banks - Includes works downstream of Warden Street and Shirley
Stream below Shirley Road Hills Hills Road
Warden Street Bypass - Discussions with MoE to " confirm form of bypass - Mixture of pipes and open Widening Works channel or all pipes - Mostly engineeredWarrington walls Street Shirley Road New Brighton- Approximate Road alignments Forfar Street " shown - Dashed lines show potential " open channel alignments " " " Minor Channel Works - Within road reserve - Downstream of bypass contraction " Edgeware Road " "
Barbadoes Street Widening Works Significant Widening Works - Mostly engineered walls River Road - Further design requried Madras Street - Impact on trees
North Avon Road NorthParade
0125 250 500 Metres 216 217 COUNCIL 11. 12. 2014
30. CHRISTCHURCH EARTHQUAKE MAYORAL RELIEF FUND: APPLICATIONS
Contact Contact Details General Manager responsible: Director Office of the N Chief Executive Officer responsible: Strategic Initiatives N Manager Author: Project and Funding Y Emma Pavey, 941 5214 Adviser
1. PURPOSE AND ORIGIN OF REPORT
1.1 The purpose of this report is to seek the Council’s consideration and agreement on the grant allocations from the Christchurch Earthquake Mayoral Relief Fund as detailed below.
1.1.1 That the Council considers and approves a grant of $500,000.00 to the Orana Wildlife Trust (Orana Park) towards the Great Ape Centre.
1.1.2 That the Council considers and approves a grant of $500,000.00 to the Aviva (Incorporated as Christchurch Women's Refuge Inc) towards the Child and Family Wellbeing Services in Eastern Christchurch.
1.1.3 That the Council considers and approves a grant of $3,000.00 to the Linwood Rugby League Football Club (Inc) towards a container to store the club equipment.
1.2 This is a staff initiated report.
2. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
2.1 The purpose of the Christchurch Earthquake Mayoral Relief Fund as adopted by the Council on 12 May 2011 is set out in paragraph 2.2 below. As trustee for the Fund, the Council is bound to apply the monies only for the purposes specified in the Council resolution of 12 May 2011.
2.2 At the Council meeting of 12 May 2011 it was resolved:
(b) That the Christchurch Earthquake Mayoral Relief Fund was established, and will continue to be maintained, by the Council as a “public fund” (as described in section LD 3(2)(d) of the Income Tax Act 2007) exclusively for the purpose of providing money for any one or more charitable, benevolent, philanthropic or cultural purposes related to and in particular to provide relief to the people of Christchurch from the adverse effects of the 4 September 2010 and 22 February 2011 earthquakes, and associated aftershocks, by providing money for any activity or work required as a result of those events that:
(i) contributes to the rebuilding of the social and physical infrastructure of Christchurch, and (ii) assists in: remedying hardship suffered by individuals, groups, community organisations and businesses, and/or protecting, repairing damage to or enhancing the physical fabric of the city.
2.3 The three applicant organisations seeking funding assistance have requested a total of $1,253,000.00 towards the costs incurred by them as a result of earthquake damage. Summary details of the individual requests are provided in the Comments section of the report.
2.4 Staff recommends that the Council make grants totalling $1,003,000.00 to the three applicant organisations projects.
218 COUNCIL 11. 12. 2014
30 Cont’d
3. BACKGROUND
3.1 The Christchurch Earthquake Mayoral Relief Fund was established to provide relief to the people of Christchurch from the adverse effects of the 4 September 2010 and 22 February 2011 earthquakes and associated aftershocks, by providing money for any activity or work required as a result of those events that:
3.1.1 Contributes to the rebuilding of the social and physical infrastructure of Christchurch, and;
3.1.2 Assists in remedying hardship suffered by individuals, groups, community organisations and businesses, and/or protecting, repairing or enhancing the physical fabric of the city.
3.2 Eligible organisations who meet the criteria make an application to the Christchurch Earthquake Mayoral Relief Fund. Eligibility assessments and additional information requests are undertaken by staff, with recommendations discussed with the Mayor with a report being put to the Council for consideration.
3.3 As at 31 October 29014, the Fund had received $7,982,353.00 in donations and interest. Grant allocations to over fifty projects totalling $6,450,549.00 have reduced the remaining funds on hand as at 31 October 2014 to $1,531,804.00. At the time of writing, there is one application being recommended for a grant of $100,000 yet to be considered at the Council meeting of 27 November 2014.
4. COMMENT
4.1 Orana Wildlife Trust is seeking funding assistance of $750,000.00
4.2 Orana Wildlife Trust (Orana Park) was registered as a Charitable Trust in 2001 although the Park opened 25 September 1976. The Park is based at McLeans Island Road, Harewood on land owned by Environment Canterbury. The lease is a 21 year renewable lease with a rent review every seven years.
4.3 Orana Park had a sister attraction named Southern Encounter Aquarium and Kiwi House in Cathedral Square from 2000 to 2011. The facility closed due to the February 2011 earthquake and has subsequently been demolished. The insurance company has agreed a settlement figure of $1.95 million to Orana Park and accepted Orana Park's plan to build a Great Ape Centre as an alternative rebuild to Southern Encounter.
4.4 The Great Ape Centre will become home to three gorillas that are male brothers, currently living at Taronga Zoo, Sydney from March 2015. This will be followed in 2016 by three orangutans whose location is unknown at present. Orana Park is a member of the World Association of Zoos and Aquariums (WAZA), the Zoo and Aquarium Association of Australasia (ZAA) and ZAA NZ Inc. In total Orana Park participates in 23 zoo-based breeding programmes (WAZA/ZAA administered) for endangered species. Conservation advocacy is a key function of a modern zoo and Orana Park's initial role will be to support the breeding programmes by holding offspring and raising awareness of the plight of these Great Apes. The threats to gorillas and orangutans are primarily driven by human lifestyle choices (habitat loss for gorillas, due to coltan mining and forest conversion for oil palm plantations for orangutans). 219 COUNCIL 11. 12. 2014
30 Cont’d
4.5 The project cost for the Great Ape Centre is $5,276,959.00 and will be the biggest development in Orana Park's history. The Centre will consist of six den rooms, a day room for each species, kitchen and storage rooms, a glassed public viewing area and outdoor exhibit areas. Funding has been secured from the insurance payment of $1,950,000, bequests of $1,228,310.00 and grants to the value of $233,000.00. There is shortfall of $1,865,649.00 to complete the works at the Great Ape Centre. Orana Park is looking to raise the shortfall through fundraising initiatives and funding applications and has secured a bank overdraft if the need arises. Work is underway on the Great Ape Centre with the opening of the Centre due to be held in April 2015.
4.6 Orana Park is open 364 days per year and hosts approximately 150,610 visitors annually with entry fees ranging between $9.00 and $28.00 depending on age. The Park also runs educational programmes for schools and universities charging $8.00 to $9.00 per student. The general public also has the opportunity to adopt an animal with different adoption packages ranging between $100 and $1,000. The Park has 36 staff and is also supported by 70 volunteers providing over 20,800 volunteer hours per year.
4.7 The financial statements for Orana Wildlife Trust for the year ending 30 June 2013 shows a total income of $2,160,458.00 and total operational expenditure of $2,432,122.00. This equates to a deficit of $271,664.00 for the 2013/14 year.
5 Aviva (Incorporated as Christchurch Women's Refuge Inc) is seeking funding assistance of $500,000.00
5.1 Aviva registered as an Incorporated Society under Christchurch Women's Refuge Inc in July 1976. They have been based at 90 Fitzgerald Avenue since June 2011 after losing their premises on Cashel Mall and a Christchurch Safe House due to the earthquakes. The Fitzgerald Avenue premises are temporary until Aviva is able to relocate into a permanent home.
5.2 In July 2011 at a conference attended by the Hon. Paula Bennett, the Minister encouraged like minded Non Government Organisations (NGO) to co-locate due to the shortage of premises in Christchurch. With the aim of improving service outcomes a number of Canterbury based NGO's formed "the Alliance" with a view to co-develop an integrated and holistic service model for children, young people, individuals and families affected or potentially affected by violence. The Alliance partners consisting of Aviva, Relationship Aotearoa, START, Barnardos, Family Help Trust and He Waka Tapu are committed to transforming the response model for families and communities.
5.3 The Alliance applied for Capability Investment Resource funding to explore if it was feasible to co-locate and the successes and pitfalls there may be. The outcomes from the study have shaped the strategy the Alliance intends to implement.
5.4 As a result of the feasibility review four of the six Alliance partners (Aviva, Family Help Trust, Barnados and He Waka Tapu) agreed to co-locate either all or some of their services subject to being able to secure sufficient funding. An expression of interest to co-locate with the four Alliance organisations was also received from the Canterbury Youth Development Programme, to which the Alliance members accepted. In addition to this, Red Cross New Zealand has also expressed an interest in accommodating its Community Outreach Team with the Alliance's co- located social services. The total number of personnel accommodated within the co-located office is anticipated to be up to 78 staff. 220 COUNCIL 11. 12. 2014
30 Cont’d
5.5 While looking for potential locations, the Alliance became aware of the planned co- location of a number of primary care services next to the Community Library on Level 1 of the Eastgate Shopping Centre, Linwood. Whilst the potential benefits to individuals, families and communities of such a location were apparent, the proposed leasing costs were prohibitive. The owners of the Eastgate Shopping Centre, the National Property Trust (NPT) initially offered fit out costs, amortised over 10 years resulting in a rental cost of $300.00 to $375.00 a square meter. Further discussion resulted in an agreement that if the Alliance could secure an agreed amount of capital development funding upfront, the rent would be reduced to an affordable $185.00 per square meter, including outgoings, making the lease affordable and sustainable for the Alliance. The lease offered by the NPT is for six years with the right to renew it for a further six years with the NPT being responsible for ongoing maintenance costs.
5.6 The Alliance will contribute to the fit-out development costs and lease floor space of 1,037 square meters. The total costs for construction for the fit out totals $2,742,100.00 with the Alliance's agreed contribution totalling $1,623,600.00. It is the intention of the Alliance to provide funding of $145,000.00 towards the construction costs, either from insurance payments, fund raising initiatives. The Alliance expects to fund the balance of $1,478,600 through this application from Aviva, and applications to the Working Together More Fund (pending), the Canterbury Community Trust (pending), the Ministry of Social Development (pending), Red Cross New Zealand (pending) and through undertaking fund raising events from 20 November 2014.
5.7 There were various leasing models investigated when the Alliance sought legal advice and the preferred option is to have a Head Lease and a Sub Leasing arrangement. This will place Aviva as the Head Lease operating as the single point of contact with the landlord, coordinating all shared resources, mediating on behalf of the other groups and invoicing the sub-tenants for their share of the rent and utilities. On this basis, Aviva will be the head lessee, with the annual rental cost equating to approximately $192,000.00 for a floor-space of 1,037 square meters. Aviva are confident that the annual lease cost is sustainable and highly competitive in the current commercial property market as a result of being able to front-load the fit-out costs and through efficiencies and sharing of resources that arise as a result of co-location. Aviva also notes that the competitive rent will enhance their ability to attract new tenants over the term of the lease, should they need to do so.
5.8 The Alliance once co-located, have agreed that the safety and wellbeing of children will be paramount in service development and delivery; the emotional experience of using health, early childhood education and social services directly affects family engagement and outcomes and that engagement begins with whanaungatanga, which will be the centre of all decisions. Though delivered independently, co- located providers will offer the client a rapid, smooth, integrated, effective experience; and families and individual service users will be heard and lead their own journeys towards wellbeing.
5.9 The Alliance notes that the benefits of co-locating to the site in the Eastgate Shopping Centre is the easy access to primary care services, including doctors and dentists; the proximity to other social and community services including Work and Income; free car parking; 24/7 security of the premises; a library; banks and affordable shops. The co-location will base the Alliance directly within Christchurch's communities of highest need and there is an established public transport system from a range of locations throughout the city. The Library and Community Centre within the Eastgate Shopping Centre is currently recording foot traffic of 30,000 people per month which is likely to be maintained or increased when more agencies move into vacant sites adjacent to the Library.
5.10 The financial statements for Aviva (Incorporated as Christchurch Women's Refuge Inc) for the year ending 30 June 2013 shows a total income of $ 1,589,609.00 and total operational expenditure of $1,534,686.00. Their total surplus for the 2012/13 year was $54,923.00. 221 COUNCIL 11. 12. 2014
30 Cont’d
6. Linwood Rugby League Football Club (Inc) is seeking funding assistance of $3,000.00.
6.1 The Linwood Rugby League Football Club was registered as an Incorporated Society in 1946. The Club is based at 15 Olliviers Road and also owns the land and buildings at 14 and 20 Mathesons Road.
6.2 Due to the earthquakes the Club currently has no club rooms and is waiting to find out if their facilities can be repaired or if they will be demolished. Whilst the Club waits for an outcome it is using the small Tennis Club on Linwood Park as an office and meeting space, but it has no storage for the Clubs equipment. The Club is seeking assistance to purchase a container to be used for storage.
6.3 The Club is a well established, with sound management systems in place. There are 12 junior teams ranging from age six to 18 years, two senior teams and a Presidents team. The membership base is made up of 240 players, a part time paid Administrator and is supported by approximately 40 volunteer coaches, managers and trainers. The Club provides significant social support, physical activity and community connectedness for the area and is a positive presence and influence at Linwood Park. Membership fees are charged at $120.00 for seniors, $70.00 for students, $50.00 for children with $25.00 for additional children from the same family.
6.4 The financial statement for Linwood Rugby League Football Club for the year ending 30 September 2013 shows a total income of $47,086.00 and a total operational expenditure of $72,724.00. Their total deficit for the year was $25,638.00.00.
5. FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS
5.1 The financial requests for each project are outlined in the comment section of this report. As at 31 October 2014 there was $1,531,804.00 in uncommitted funds held by the Christchurch Earthquake Mayoral Relief Fund. If the grants recommended in this report are approved in full, the amount of $528,804.00 will remain in the fund. However, this figure could be further reduced by up to $100,000.00, as there is an application which, at the time of writing this report, has yet to be considered by the Council at its meeting of 27 November 2014.
6. RECOMMENDATION
It is recommended that the Council:
6.1 Consider and approve a grant of $500,000.00 to the Orana Wildlife Trust (Orana Park) towards the development and construction of the Great Ape Centre.
6.2 Consider and approve a grant of $500,000.00 to Aviva (Incorporated as Christchurch Women's Refuge Inc) towards the development and construction fit- out costs for the, Alliance-led, Child and Family Wellbeing Services in Eastern Christchurch office accommodation situated in the Eastgate Shopping Centre.
6.3 Consider and approve a grant of $3,000.00 to the Linwood Rugby League Football Club (Inc) towards a container to store the clubs equipment.
222 223 COUNCIL 11. 12. 2014
31. AMENDMENT OF REGISTER OF COUNCILLORS’ AND EXECUTIVE LEADERSHIP TEAM INTERESTS
General Manager responsible: Director Office of the Chief Executive Officer responsible: Darryl Griffin, Manager Governance and Civic Services, DDI 9416436 Author: Peter Mitchell
1. PURPOSE AND ORIGIN OF REPORT
1.1 The purpose of this report is to recommend to the Council amendments to the Register of Councillors’ and Executive Leadership Team Interests.
2. BACKGROUND
2.1 On 27 June 2013 the Council resolved to:
(a) adopt a Register of Pecuniary Interests based on the model used by Parliament for its Members;
(b) appoint Mr Mel Smith as its Registrar of Pecuniary Interests for a five year term commencing on 1 July 2013; and
(c) amend the Council’s Code of Conduct by including a section on pecuniary and other specified interests.
2.2. The Council was advised at that meeting that the Executive Leadership Team would complete a Register based on the Register completed by elected members. If the recommended changes in this report are adopted by the Council, they will also apply to the returns completed by the Executive Leadership Team.
2.3. At its 27 August 2014 meeting the Council received the first Report by the Registrar of Pecuniary Interest. This report by the Registrar has been published on the Council’s website.
2.4. As noted above the Council’s Register is modelled on the Register used by Parliament for its Members. This year Parliament’s Standing Orders Committee reviewed the Parliamentary Register and recommended a number of changes to provide clarification. Some of these Parliamentary changes are considered applicable to being included in the Council’s Register.
2.5. The proposed changes are based on issues that have arisen in the Parliamentary context and which have the potential to arise in the future in a Council context. This report is based on the commentary used by the Standing Orders Committee in its report back to Parliament as adapted for the Council.
2.6. The detailed wording of the proposed changes, to be used by the Registrar when he asks for returns to be completed in early 2015 and thereafter, are contained in Appendix A attached which had been adopted by the Council on 27 June 2013.
2.7 The Registrar has considered these proposed changes and supports their adoption by the Council.
3. PROPOSED CHANGES
3.1 Definition of Business Entity - Unit Trusts
The Standing Orders Committee considered external legal advice on the need to disclose interests in unit trusts and their assets when completing the return. The legal advice stated that the law does not differentiate between a unit trust and any other trust.
Therefore, as holders of units in a unit trust are beneficiaries of the unit trust, then the name of the unit trust should be declared in the Register, as with any other trust. However holding an interest in a unit trust should not require real property held by a unit trust to be declared, as holders of interests in unit trusts delegate investment decisions to the managers of such trusts. 224 COUNCIL 11. 12. 2014
31 Cont’d Amendment 23 Proposed Change Amend the definition of business entity used by the Registrar in paragraph 9 of his document “Requirements for a Register of Pecuniary and Other Specified Interests”, to clarify that elected members declaring an interest in a unit trust do not have to declare the real property or other property of the unit trust.
3.2 Trustee relationships
At present, paragraph (d) of Appendix A requires the declaration of the name of any trust of which a person is a trustee or beneficiary. There is no requirement to specify whether they are a trustee, beneficiary, or both. There is a substantial difference between a person being a trustee or a beneficiary, as a trustee is the holder of property at law, but cannot benefit from the trust property unless he or she is a beneficiary. Amendment 21 Proposed change Require a declaration in the register whether an elected member is a beneficiary or trustee (or both) of any trust they have.
3.3 Real property held in personal superannuation schemes
Paragraph (f) of Appendix A (relating to ownership of property), does not require an elected member to declare property held in a private superannuation scheme, in a trust or otherwise. When adopting the Register system in 2013 the Council decided that elected members belonging to large-scale public superannuation schemes should not be required to declare the names of the schemes, because members of such schemes could not be expected to know precisely the property held in large, diverse schemes and members of such schemes have no decision-making powers or influence over investment decisions such as the purchase of real property by the schemes.
On the other hand a superannuation scheme that is not open to the general public and that has been established as a trust particularly for the benefit of the elected member should be treated differently; an elected member should be required to declare in the register their beneficial interest in the real property held by the scheme.
Proposed Change Add a paragraph (fa) to Appendix A to require any elected member who belongs to a registered superannuation scheme established for his or her benefit to declare any real property held in that superannuation scheme.
3.4 Description of real property
The current requirement in the Register of “the location of each parcel of real property” to be identified can be unduly onerous in cases where a piece of land comprises several different titles. It is proposed that elected members should be required to declare the description and location of any real property in which a member has a beneficial interest and the description and location of any trust-owned real property in which a member has a beneficial interest, except for real property held by a unit trust, or by a registered superannuation scheme that is open to the public. Amendment 24 Proposed change Amend paragraph (f) of Appendix A to simplify the wording for the declaration of real property.
225 COUNCIL 11. 12. 2014
31 Cont’d
3.5 Multiple gifts from the same donor
The current $500 threshold for the declaration of gifts may not deal adequately with a series of gifts of lesser monetary value, such as a number of dinners, which cumulatively provide a benefit to the elected member, or may be perceived as intended to gain influence. To alleviate this concern, elected members should be required to declare any gifts below the $500 threshold that have been received from the same donor over the period covered by the return, if the cumulative value of the gifts exceeds $500.
The intention is for elected members to declare gifts that cumulatively have a value of more than $500 while each having a value of less than that amount. Individual gifts with a value of more than $500 are declared separately. Amendment 26 Proposed Change Amend paragraph (j) of Appendix A to require elected members to declare the gifts and the name of the donor, when gifts are received from the same donor in the same year that cumulatively exceed the $500 threshold, excluding the value of gifts worth more than $500, which are declared separately.
3.6 Discharged debts
At present there is an inconsistency whereby elected members do not have to disclose gifts over $500 from close family members (paragraph (j) of Appendix A), but if a close family member discharges a debt of over $500 for a member, for example by paying off a credit card balance, then this is declarable (paragraph (k) of Appendix A) . It is considered that there is little public interest served by requiring elected members to declare debts discharged by close family members. Amendment 28 Proposed Change: Amend paragraph (k) of Appendix A to provide that debts discharged by family members (that is, any of the following: the elected member’s spouse or partner or any parent, child, stepchild, foster-child, or grandchild of the member) are not required to be listed in the return.
4. STAFF RECOMMENDATION
It is recommended that the Council:
4.1 Adopt the underlined changes to the Register, identified in Appendix A attached, for use by the Registrar when he requests returns by elected members and the Executive Leadership Team to be completed in 2015 onwards. 226 COUNCIL 11. 12. 2014 ATTACHMENT 1 TO CLAUSE 31 227
APPENDIX A – CHANGES TO DEFINITIONS AND CONTENTS OF THE RETURN
‘business entity’ means any body or organisation, whether incorporated or unincorporated, that carries on any profession, trade, manufacture or any undertaking for pecuniary profit, and includes a business activity carried on by a sole proprietor but does not include a unit trust;
The interests and activities that elected members are required to register:
(a) the name of each company of which the elected member is a director or holds or controls more than 10% of the voting rights relating to the control of the company and a description of the main business activities of each of that company.
(b) Names of companies or business entities in which the elected member has a pecuniary interest, other than an interest as a unit holder in a unit trust, and a description of the main business activities of each of those companies.
“Pecuniary interest” is “a matter or activity of financial benefit to the elected member.” Includes ownership of shares, bonds and debentures.
(c) If an elected member is employed, the name of any employer, and a description of the main business activity of that employer.
(d) The name of each trust in which the elected member is aware, or ought reasonably to be aware, that he or she is a beneficiary or trustee or both of it; and whether the elected member is a trustee, a beneficiary or both.
(e) If the Councillor is a member of the governing body of an organisation or a trustee of a trust that receives, or has applied to receive, Council or Community Board funding.
(f) The location of each property in which the elected member has a legal interest as owner or leasehold or stratum estate, or in which any such interest is held by a trust which the councillor knows, or ought reasonably to know, he or she is a beneficiary.
The location of real property in which the elected member has a legal interest, other than an interest as a trustee, and a description of the nature of the real property;
The return must specify a general location at a suburb level.
(fa) the location of real property, and a description of the nature of the real property held by a trust to which the following apply:
(i) the elected member is a beneficiary of it; and (ii) the elected member knows or ought reasonably to know that elected member is a beneficiary of it; and (iii) it is not a unit trust; (iv) it is not a registered superannuation scheme whose membership is open to the public.
The return must specify a general location at a suburb level.
(g) The name of each debtor who owes more than $50,000 to the elected member, and a description, but not amount, of each of the debts owed to the elected member.
(h) The name of each creditor to whom the elected member owes more than $50,000 and a description, but not amount, of each of the debts owed by the elected member.
COUNCIL 11. 12. 2014 ATTACHMENT 1 TO CLAUSE 31 228 - 2 -
(i) Name of countries travelled to where costs are met by third party (other than Council approved travel), purpose of travel and name of persons who contributed to travel costs and to accommodation costs. Excludes costs paid by family members.
(j) Description of gifts received by the elected member with an estimated market value of more than $500 and the name of the donor of the gift – gifts include hospitality or donations in cash or kind. Excludes gifts from family members. Corporate hospitality is a gift if its market value is over $500. Does not include donations for election purposes because there are separately declared.
(ja) Description of each gift that has an estimated market value in New Zealand of $500 or less, and name of the donor, that is given by a donor who gives the elected member more than one gift in the period, and contributes to a total value of gifts to the elected member from the donor in the period of more than $500, not counting a gift declared under (j) above.
(k) Description of all debts of more than $500 that were owing by the elected member that were discharged or paid (in whole or in part) by some other person, and the name of that person. Excludes debts discharged by family members.
(l) Description of each payment received, and not previously declared, by the elected member for activities in which the elected member was involved, including the source of each payment. Can include director’s fees, speaking engagement fees and book royalties. 229 COUNCIL 11. 12. 2014
32. CHRISTCHURCH CITY COUNCIL’S SUBMISSION TO THE PRODUCTIVITY COMMISSION’S ISSUES PAPER “USING LAND FOR HOUSING”
Contact Contact Details Executive Leadership Team Chief Planning Officer Y Diane Campbell, 941 8281 Member responsible: Officer responsible: Unit Manager, Strategic Policy Unit Y Michelle Oosthuizen, 941 8812 Author: Siobhan Storey Senior Policy Analyst Y 941 8916
1. PURPOSE AND ORIGIN OF REPORT
1.1 The purpose of this report is to request the Council to adopt the attached submission to the Productivity Council’s Issues Paper “Using Land for Housing” November 2014.
2. BACKGROUND
2.1 The issue of land for housing is to be addressed by the Productivity Commission. The Government has asked the Commission to:
Examine the by-laws, processes and practices of local planning and development systems across New Zealand’s faster-growing urban areas; Identify those councils which are effective in making enough land available to meet housing demand and processes that could be adopted more widely Examine overseas approaches to identify leading practices which might provide valuable lessons for NZ
Submissions on the Commission’s issues paper (and terms of reference) close on 22 December 2014.
3. COMMENT
3.1 The attached submission is the Christchurch City Council’s response to the questions raised by the Productivity Commission in its Issues Paper.
3.2 Following close of submissions on 22 December 2014 the Productivity Commission will issue a draft report in May 2015 with a further submissions process. The draft report submissions will close in July 2015 and the Commission will provide its final report to Government on September 2015.
4. FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS
4.1 There are no financial implications.
5. STAFF RECOMMENDATION
It is recommended that the Council adopt the attached submission. 230 COUNCIL 11. 12. 2014 ATTACHMENT 1 TO CLAUSE 32 231
Inquiry into “Land used for housing” New Zealand Productivity Commission PO Box 8036 The Terrace WELLINGTON 6143
25 November 2014
Dear Sir/Madam
Re: Inquiry into using land for housing
The Christchurch City Council thanks the New Zealand Productivity Commission for the opportunity to make a submission on its Inquiry “Land used for housing” Issues Paper November 2014. The content of the submission follows overleaf.
The Council’s ability to respond in greater detail to the Commission’s inquiry at this time is compromised by the very limited capacity of Council staff to participate in the inquiry at the same time as reviewing the Council’s District Plan through an accelerated process under the Canterbury Earthquake Recovery Act.
If you require clarification on the points raised in this submission, or additional information, please contact Siobhan Storey, Senior Policy Analyst, telephone 03 941 8916, email [email protected].
Yours faithfully
Karleen Edwards Lianne Dalziel CHIEF EXECUTIVE MAYOR Christchurch City Council Christchurch City Council
COUNCIL 11. 12. 2014 ATTACHMENT 1 TO CLAUSE 32 232
Christchurch City Council’s Responses to Questions in the Productivity Commission’s Report “Using Land for Housing”
Q1 Is it helpful to think of the planning and development system as a means of dealing with externalities associated with land use and coordination problems? What other factors should the Commission consider in evaluating the role of the planning and development system?
Q2 Can the current land planning and development system be made to work better to benefit cities throughout New Zealand? Is a different type of planning system required to meet the needs for housing in New Zealand’s fastest growing cities?
Q3 What criteria should the Commission consider in evaluating the current land planning and development system in New Zealand?
The Commission should consider the degree to which the current land planning and development system in New Zealand is contributing to the delivery of housing provision that is well suited for both the current and future housing needs of communities. New Zealand has an ageing population and the forecast is for an increasing need for smaller homes to accommodate single people and couples. However the majority of new homes being developed are larger family homes. There appears to be a significant mismatch between the homes the market is providing and the future needs. See further comments in answer to question 4.
The Commission should also consider the degree to which the current land planning and development system in New Zealand is contributing to meeting the country’s housing and business needs in a way that is environmentally sustainable and helps to reduce the impacts of climate change.
Q4 Would a significantly increased supply of development capacity lead to an increased supply of affordable housing, or would further regulatory or other interventions be required to achieve that outcome?
Increased supply of development capacity alone is not likely to be sufficient. Further intervention is needed to prevent land banking and slow release of sections to the market by developers.
In Christchurch in Greenfield areas, the majority of houses being built are still large single family homes on single lots. Developers indicate this is the market preference; evidence suggests that there is a latent demand for a different housing type.
See Tony Brazier’s comments in his opinion piece (Press Property section, 29 October 2014), for his interesting take on land housing supply and the risk he foresees of oversupply in 5 to 10 years, in particular of Greenfield subdivisions houses.
Depends on definition of development capacity; It could be land supply (be it rural land or changes to rules to enable higher density infill). It could also refer to developer capacity to deliver, or the knowledge and skills in the development community. A willingness to build alternative housing forms or reference to a limited range of housing providers working in the affordable market. Planning rules may (and are being through the DPR) changed to enable more development in the city (both Greenfield and urban redevelopment). This is in both terms of quantity and distribution. Planning rules establish what is allowed and to a certain extent can make some forms of development carry less risk to a developer and incentivise some forms of development. Note: Question 7 separates capacity into land and development. COUNCIL 11. 12. 2014 ATTACHMENT 1 TO CLAUSE 32 233
The capacity to deliver on either Greenfield or urban redevelopment is dependent a wide range of additional factors such as developer capacity, workforce availability and skill base, economic, financial and market fluctuations, the supply and price of materials.
The assumption that pure supply and demand governs eventual house prices is too simplistic. Land is a finite resource, especially if well located, and it is also able to be used for a range of purposes. Hence, owners will, generally, hold land until they can maximise the return on it, retaining it in an alternative revenue generating / productive use until the optimal capital receipt is achievable.
Comparisons are made with selected US cities where substantial homes can be delivered for under $300k. It must be recognised that in a large multi-centric country like the US, the fortunes of cities are far more tidal resulting in returns on land fluctuating more widely meaning that capital receipt expectations are not as high. In contrast, in New Zealand where employment and facilities are centralised into a handful of larger cities, the market price of land is more resilient, tracking, broadly, in a constant upward direction. No more so is this the case than in Auckland where its geography limits the supply of land more so than it would in a city that can grow in a more orthodox radial fashion.
An obvious long term solution is a move towards decentralisation. Auckland, Wellington and Christchurch are dominant centres with considerable economic gravities driving ever increasing levels of growth. This means the treadmill of land values is ever upward. In contrast, the housing markets of mid sized and smaller centres range from being either in decline, stagnant or enjoy modest growth. By stimulating these lower order centres, through the incentivising employers to relocate, matching employee skills to employer needs and enhancing social and community facilities, demand pressure can be diverted from larger centres enabling smaller centres become more viable in turn creating economic conditions to support higher order commercial and social facilities.
Q5 What data sources will be most useful in identifying effective local authority planning processes for the development of land for housing?
Q6 Are there other local authorities exhibiting good policies or practices in making land available for housing that the Commission should investigate?
Q7 What policies and practices from other countries offer useful lessons for improving the supply of effective land or development capacity for housing in New Zealand?
The UK has introduced rolling 5 and 15 year land supply requirements, attached to which are carrots and sticks. The level of supply is derived from projected growth levels determined in local development plans as informed by sub-national/regional housing market assessments. Each Council must demonstrate, year on year, that it has a 5 year supply of land with consent or that is allocated for immediate consenting (i.e. land where homes could be delivered and be in occupation within 5 years). Where an authority cannot demonstrate this landowners can apply for alternative land parcels via consenting processes for development subject to them satisfying general policy and infrastructure requirements. Incentives are applied by government in the form of top ups/discounts to local authority funding – in effect if the council does not deliver its core funding is incrementally reduced. Development Plans must demonstrate at least 15 years of future supply – phased as needed to fit with, say, infrastructure extensions. In practice, authorities are actually looking 20-25 year ahead in relation to supply as they are recognising the need.
COUNCIL 11. 12. 2014 ATTACHMENT 1 TO CLAUSE 32 234
Q8 Alongside the Resource Management, Local Government and Land Transport Management Acts, are there other statutes that play a significant role in New Zealand’s planning and development system?
Q9 How easy is it to understand the objectives and requirements of local authority plans? What improves the intelligibility of plans?
Policies and objectives can be clear in setting the overall intentions, which when accompanied by assessment matters offer a framework which can be understood by a broad cross section of the community. However, technical and legalistic demands for certainty have driven the creation of rules and standards that for many have become impenetrable. The difficulty faced by councils is that in rolling back from complex rules, there is a need for more subjective and flexible assessment matters whose interpretation may not be consistently applied. Herein lies the dilemma facing any reform.
Q10 Is ensuring an adequate land supply for housing an objective of current District or Unitary Plans? If so, what priority is this objective given?
Q11 What steps do local authorities take to ensure that all people potentially affected by land use Plan provisions or changes have the opportunity to comment? How effective and efficient are these steps?
Q12 What steps do local authorities take to understand and incorporate the views of people who are potentially affected by Plan provisions or changes, but who do not formally engage in the Plan process?
Q13 How can the Plan development process be improved to increase the supply of development capacity?
See answer to 7 – i.e. build in long terms supply
Q14 How accurate are local authority assessments of the demand for and supply of land? How well do they reflect market demands and the actual development capacity of land? Are there any good examples of supply and demand forecasts?
Q15 How well do zoning decisions in District Plans and infrastructure planning in Long-Term Plans reflect demand and supply forecasts?
Good question – and how does this interrelate with the RPS and UDS
Q16 How effective are local authorities in ensuring that the rules and regulations governing land use are necessary and proportionate?
Local authorities work hard to ensure that the rules and regulations governing land use are necessary and proportionate. In many respects the question of whether the are necessary and proportionate is a subjective one. Through the RMA there is a very robust process for creating the rules and regulations during which those who believe local authorities proposed rules and regulations governing land use are not necessary and proportionate have the opportunity to challenge them.
Q17 What are the characteristics of the most effective processes for testing proposed rules, Plans or Plan changes?
Q18 How effective are local authority processes for connecting decisions across the different planning frameworks? Which particular processes have been successful? What explains their success? COUNCIL 11. 12. 2014 ATTACHMENT 1 TO CLAUSE 32 235
Q19 What impact does transport planning have on the supply of development capacity?
The Council considers that this question and the preceding statement about state highways network is referring to the restrictions on housing supply to protect transport infrastructure. There are a number of these types of restrictions. For example:
Housing is generally restricted within the noise contours for Christchurch International Airport There are also restrictions on development close to Lyttelton Port Housing close to noisy transport corridors (such as State Highways, arterial and collector roads and railway lines) can sometimes be subject to some additional standards (i.e. more design standards to limit the amount of noise). There are also often restrictions on the number and design of accessways on to State highways, arterial and collector roads.
These restrictions are important to protect the efficient operation of transport infrastructure and limit noise from transport infrastructure adversely affecting residents. Without these restrictions being in place there may need to be noise restrictions on the operation of strategic transport infrastructure (e.g. imposition of a curfew at the airport which would restrict 24/7 operations). Such restrictions could reduce the efficiency and productivity of transport infrastructure which could increase costs on the economy.
Another important aspect of the relationship between transport and development capacity is the transport implications of the idea that increasing housing supply by releasing more greenfield land for development surrounding a city will reduce the cost of housing. Greenfield land is generally located further from employment areas and existing community facilities than development within existing urban areas. So an individual’s transport costs to travel to employment and community facilities can be higher when living in a greenfield development and needs to be considered when considering whether how ‘affordable’ a house is. Also due to the distances involved and new infrastructure required, the cost of providing transport (and other) infrastructure to greenfield developments can be higher than providing infrastructure for development within existing urban areas. Greenfield development can also have effects on traffic congestion as the greater travel distances to and from greenfield developments increase car dependency and the amount of traffic on city roads. So restrictions on greenfield developments can reduce the transport costs on the economy. So when deciding whether increasing house supply in greenfield areas will make housing more ‘affordable’, the increase in transport and other infrastructure costs needs to be considered.
Q20 Are there examples of effective integration between regional policies and district plans, and what are the features of processes that lead to effective integration?
Q21 Do rules or Plan requirements in your area unnecessarily restrict the use of land for housing? Why are these requirements unnecessary? What are the impacts of these rules and requirements?
Q22 How important is it that rules for development and land use provide certainty?
In the interests of simplification and certainty the rules based planning system prescribes what can and can’t be done as the base line. The consenting process is meant to be the release valve for innovation, allowing the opportunity for different approaches to be proposed, investigated and tested. However, in the interests of certainty and risk reduction, the resource consent process becomes something to be avoided.
COUNCIL 11. 12. 2014 ATTACHMENT 1 TO CLAUSE 32 236
The perception is often that rules provide a greater level of certainty, whilst this is true in the majority of cases as highlighted by the level of permitted development, experience shows that even where well considered and accepted rules or standards exist there is still a tendency for developers to push beyond them. Breaches to the rules trigger the need for an assessment of the effect, particularly where there is an impact on neighbouring properties, therefore creating a level of uncertainty as ultimately a judgement call will need to be made on the acceptability of the breach. The desire to push the limits of the rules often results from the wish to develop
A recent case in Christchurch relates to the Champions Mile exemplar proposal (see http://resources.ccc.govt.nz/files/TheCouncil/meetingsminutes/agendas/2014/November/ StrategyandFinanceCommittee20NovemberSupplementaryAgenda.pdf). Exemplars, as set out in the Land Use Recovery Plan, are seeking a level of innovation around the provision of affordable housing in Christchurch. The landowner and developer understandably want certainty around their development, while the exemplar process requires a level of risk to be carried to achieve the outcome.
In some cases the housing types proposed by developers are incompatible with the selected site, the reduction in functioning living space and/or the desire to extract as much economic value from the a site, rather than the rules not being fit for purpose. Where breaches in rules do occur, council officers are able to exercise a level of discretion provided sufficient evidence is available or appropriate justification can be provided.
Q23 Are rules consistently applied in your area? Is certainty of implementation more important than flexibility?
Christchurch Urban Design Panel - The Christchurch Urban Design Panel is a group of professionals who can provide independent design reviews for both Christchurch City Council and to private developers on urban design aspects of new developments. Private developers are encouraged to submit their plans to the panel for a pre-application review to provide greater certainty at the resource consent application stage. The urban design panel provides an opportunity to obtain a design review from a group of Christchurch's leading urban designers, architects, landscape architects and property professionals. This advice is currently provided at no cost by the Christchurch City Council and can assist in achieving high quality design outcomes for new developments. The panel does not have decision making powers. Its role is to provide expert advice to the Council and private developers. The panel can assist with: . Providing independent expert advice and recommendations on urban design issues. . Providing pre-application advice to developers on significant developments. . A quicker, easier consent process through early identification of design issues. . Adding value to developments through high quality design.
The panel have a firm understanding of the City Plan and its associated urban design rules, and are able to make reasoned judgments on the appropriateness of proposals and can provide advice to council officers in support of schemes that are technically non- compliant, as it is recognised that often the best design outcome is not necessarily fully compliant with the rules due to a number of variables. This is also a reflection that rules cannot hope to cover all possible development and design options and some flexibility needs to be included in the system. The recommendations of the panel will be sent to the applicant and will be given to the Council as well. In terms of a resource consent application the recommendations will carry the same weight as any other technical report. Interaction with the Urban Design Panel is best placed and encouraged at the pre- application stage, as this is the point at which any issues can be resolved prior to lodgement of the resource consent. The panel review is attended by the designated urban designer and resource consent planner who will ultimately process the application, COUNCIL 11. 12. 2014 ATTACHMENT 1 TO CLAUSE 32 237
thus ensuring a strong and on-going relationship is built between the applicant and council officers, consistent advice is provided throughout the process and ultimately a well informed and considered decision is reached at submission stage.
Q24 Which local authorities have the best approach to implementing land use rules or Plan requirements? What makes their approaches the best?
Whangarei District Council in the Far North region has, over a number of years, introduced plan changes using the mantra of diminishing the use of rules in favour of applicants demonstrating a range of effects in a more holistic sense, for example, in the use of management plans. The implementation experience of this approach would warrant exploration.
Q25 Do second-generation Plans take a more flexible or enabling approach to land use control?
Q26 What effect do design guidelines have on the availability of effective land for housing? Are the processes by which land use can depart from a design guideline transparent and applied consistently?
Non-Statutory Design Guides - A design guide has the potential to provide a vision and outline design outcomes for a given area. The use of non-statutory design guidelines is a common approach to reinforcing or building upon earlier work such as master plans or urban design frameworks. The design guide typically provides a set of design criteria or overarching principles that when appropriately applied help achieve the wider aspirations or objectives for an area. Whilst some might consider that non-statutory design guides lack control and thus the ability to sufficiently influence design, the benefit that they bring is in appreciating the need for flexibility in a market led approach to development, recognising the inability to anticipate every outcome and often the long term benefit of a more passive approach.
Q27 How many developers work in more than one local authority? Do variations in planning rules between councils complicate, delay or add unnecessary cost to the process of developing land for housing?
A lot of developers in Christchurch would carry out developments within more than one local authority area (Christchurch City, Selwyn, Waimakariri, Hurunui) Variations in rules would add a degree of complexity as their designers would need to be familiar with the different sets of rules. House designs may need to differ between local authority areas to meet the respective rules. There is likely to be a cost involved in this for the developer. The variations in rules would not result in delays in the process. It may be appropriate in some cases for there to be a local flavour or variation to planning provisions to reflect unique circumstances or the participatory process a District Plan is subject to.
Undoubtedly this is a major issue for the development industry as a whole and underlines the flaws of government abdicating responsibility for not putting in place some form of national planning framework. National Policy Statements, such as that on Contaminated Land, define key directions and parameters. This type of direction, not applied to the point where it stifles local determination or innovation, can give local authorities a consistent framework from which they can develop policies as well as setting common standards or definitions which nationwide lead to so much variation.
COUNCIL 11. 12. 2014 ATTACHMENT 1 TO CLAUSE 32 238
Q28 Which local authority pre-application advice and information services are the most effective for communicating expectations and reducing unnecessary cost for applicants? What makes them effective?
Meetings are considered the most effective service The right people need to attend, including experts and infrastructure staff relevant to the proposal. Pre-circulation of concept plans to enable preparation, and ensure the right staff can attend To be useful to the developer, staff attending the meetings need to be sufficiently experienced and confident to be able to provide an indication of whether the proposal is likely to be supported or not There needs to be a documented record of the meeting The cost of pre-application meetings does not appear to be a deterrent, as the advice provided can be invaluable to project planning and is usually money well spent.
Rebuild Central was set up by the Christchurch City Council in 2012 in response to the earthquakes and the need to enable development. It offers a (free) service to developers interested in building on the Central City, Lyttelton or Sydenham, the latter two are commercial suburban centres most impacted by the 2010-2011 earthquakes. Planning advice and urban design advice is available on a walk-up basis. Further access to consenting (planning and building) is arranged through Rebuild Central. The service reduces some upfront advice costs to applicants and helps to provide clear information and certainty around the viability of development proposals, particularly before they enter a more formal process.
Q29 Which processes are most important to applicants for providing consistent and efficient assessments of resource consent applications?
Consistency in identification of affected persons for similar types of proposals, and in the information required to accompany the application Consistency in decision-makers and decisions, including conditions Clear assessment matters and explanations for rules, for the benefit of both staff and developers Checklists are useful to make sure all relevant matters are identified and addressed Standard conditions Vetting of the application early to identify any key issues at the start of the process Practice notes to ensure consistency in interpretation Standardised report templates Pre-application advice – the mindset of the applicant has to be changed so that the Local Authority is viewed as an enabler of development (within defined boundaries) rather than being perceived as a barrier.
Q30 Have resource consent processing times resulted in unnecessary delays in the development of land for housing? If so, do you anticipate that the recent changes to processing timeframes will address delays?
Note – the paragraph at the bottom of page 39 regarding the Resource Management Amendment Act 2013 implies that the new timeframes are already in effect, however this is not the case. These provisions require an Order in Council before they will come into force, which must occur by March 2015.
97% of applications nationally are processed within the statutory timeframe. Applications can be rejected if incomplete and only one request for information can be made where the statutory clock can be stopped. Timeframes can only be COUNCIL 11. 12. 2014 ATTACHMENT 1 TO CLAUSE 32 239
extended under S37 if special circumstances exist or the applicant agrees to the time being extended Delays in overall resource consent processing times are often the result of incomplete applications being lodged, necessitating a request for further information. Applicants do not always provide additional information within the 15 working days required by the RMA. Another reason for delays can be a difference in opinion between Council officers and developers as to the acceptability of the proposal or the method of servicing, and it can take time to work through such matters. If timeframes were the most important factor, the Council could proceed to make decisions on applications more quickly on the basis of the information provided, however the outcome may be notification, a decision to decline, or the imposition of conditions that may not be practical for the developer. The Council considers it beneficial to take the time to work through any issues with the developer, if they wish to do so. Changes to notified application timeframes are unlikely to reduce delays, as most applications for housing developments in Christchurch City are not notified. The changes to the notification timeframe (20 working days) and acceptance of applications (10 working days) will not improve timeframes but will assist consent authorities to undertake proper assessment of applications. Key to improving overall timeframes is minimising disagreements and the need for further information. This can be improved by a number of initiatives particularly good quality pre-application meetings.
Q31 What explains the variation between jurisdictions regarding requests for additional information and use of stop-the-clock provisions when assessing resource consent applications?
It is difficult to comment as there would need to be an analysis of the information. It could be attributed to variations of practice/processes/systems or it could relate to the planning framework for that area. Different lodgement processes and council-specific requirements for acceptance of applications (i.e. some councils may carry out a more detailed information check prior to acceptance, thus avoiding the need to suspend processing later on). Extent/availability of pre-application advice about information requirements. How the provisions in s.37 are applied, e.g. the use of “scale and complexity” or “special circumstances” as a reason to extend timeframes.
Q32 What are the impacts of notification on the supply of development capacity? How could the processes surrounding notification be improved?
Developers may be deterred from applying for innovative proposals that might require notification if they don’t meet District Plan rules. Less formality, shorter reports etc may assist in reducing cost and time of notified applications, but appeal rights are a strong deterrent for a lot of developers as they introduce uncertainty.
Q33 What explains the reduction in the prevalence of pre-hearing meetings?
Don’t know
Q34 Which local authorities make the best use of pre-hearing meetings? What factors best contribute to successful pre-hearing meetings?
COUNCIL 11. 12. 2014 ATTACHMENT 1 TO CLAUSE 32 240
A good chair/facilitator, degree of informality to assist with open and honest communication between parties. Understanding of the process by all parties, including benefits and opportunities for both applicant and submitters.
Q35 Does the type of person making the decision on resource consent applications affect the fairness, efficiency or quality of the outcome? What difference (if any) does it make?
Generally speaking decision makers need to be experienced and competent in the RMA area. The decision is a legal and technical decision and decision makers with the right expertise ensures a robust decision. Greater likelihood of consistency in decisions where council officers are involved, due to the volume and greater familiarity with previous decisions.
Q36 Does the use of external experts (for example as independent commissioners or contracted staff) in making resource consent decisions create conflicts of interest? If so, how are these conflicts managed?
Generally not. It is expected that external professionals would declare any conflict. Commissioners are required to sign a conflict of interest declaration. There may be a perception from the general public that conflicts exist where professionals represent Council and applicants.
Q37 What processes do local authorities use for ensuring that consent conditions are fair and reasonable? How successful are local authorities in meeting the “fair and reasonable” test?
Use of experienced professionals for decision-making where possible Use of standard conditions Legal advice where necessary Sending draft conditions to the applicant for their comment prior to making the decision
Q38 In your experience, what impact do conditions on resource consents have on the viability of development projects?
Not much. Conditions should only be imposed where necessary to mitigate adverse effects, and would generally reinforce what has been proposed in the application. It is our practice to run draft conditions past the applicant, and this identifies potential issues of concern or practicality of implementation prior to the decision being made.
Q39 Which local authorities have been most successful in providing coordinated decisions over applications to use land for housing? What explains their success?
Use of Case Managers can help to navigate consent processes.
Q40 Are there issues relating to the process for challenging or changing decisions which impede the supply of effective land for housing?
Court timetables may impact on the time taken to resolve appeals so the supply of land for housing may need to be given priority. Aside from this, there should be no delay within councils provided efficient processes are in place to enable timely decision-making on changes to conditions and objections.
COUNCIL 11. 12. 2014 ATTACHMENT 1 TO CLAUSE 32 241
Q41 Compared to other processes of relevance to land release and development, how important is the ability to obtain a Plan change or variation? Why?
Q42 How easy is it to obtain a Plan change or variation in your area? What are the major barriers?
Q43 Do council-led Plan changes or variations help or hinder the supply of development capacity?
Q44 What is your experience working with the infrastructure component of the land supply system?
The Council is responsible for planning for the provision of infrastructure to service growth areas across the city. The developer, or the Council in the case of a development area in multiple ownership, is responsible for preparing Plan Changes for areas not currently zoned residential. An Outline Development Plan would normally be prepared as part of the plan change and this sets out the main infrastructure required to service the development in an efficient manner that integrates with the wider network. The developer is required to deliver infrastructure on its property that meets the requirements of the Outline Development Plan and gain Council's approval for any variations to the plan. Council often facilitates agreements between neighbouring property owners about infrastructure (e.g. road and pipeline routes) that pass through multiple properties.
The Council is generally responsible for providing infrastructure up to the boundary of a development, and the developer is required to provide infrastructure within its development. In the case of roading, the developer may also be required to undertake some upgrades on the existing road frontage, including constructing a new intersection if this is required for the development.
Issues can arise when individual developers wish to develop earlier than planned, where a direct connection to the existing network is not yet available, particularly in terms of water and wastewater. In this case, the developer is required to extend its network to an existing water supply and/or wastewater pipe, at its own cost.
Infrastructure Provision Agreements are one way in which the Council can work with developers to achieve greater efficiency in the provision infrastructure. These agreements can take many forms and are agreed under legally binding contract. Generally an agreement is entered into where the developer agrees to supply a level of infrastructure greater than that required for their development alone (“extra-over” work) and that will cater for a bigger picture of expected future demand from development. In this instance the Council will reimburse the developer for the cost of works done over and above the particular needs of the individual development. The cost of the extra-over work is, over time, recovered through development contributions for growth-related projects. On completion of the project the infrastructure is vested to the Council. These types of agreements benefit the Council where the developer can provide the infrastructure more efficiently and resources are freed up for other work. They may also enable development to occur ahead of its planned work programme, however the Council needs to balance any early delivery of planned infrastructure with pressures on operational resources and budget to service it.
Private Development Agreements (PDA) are part of the Development Contributions Policy and operate in a similar way to Infrastructure Provision Agreements. However, they usually involve the supply of land or works instead of, or in partial fulfullment of, development contributions. These agreements are most often done for reserves and stormwater where land may be vested and potentially improved for recreation, or where mitigation works are undertaken to the level that Council would have otherwise provided. COUNCIL 11. 12. 2014 ATTACHMENT 1 TO CLAUSE 32 242
PDAs may also be used where infrastructure is provided. Some examples of situations in which the Council has entered into a PDA are below:
Developer A (reserves and landscaping) The developer vested land of high landscape and natural value to the Council and worked with Council on improvements to the land to provide recreational opportunities for wider communities of Christchurch. Once the value of the land vested was credited against the DCs owed (over $2M DC total), the developer agreed to undertake landscaping in line with that already planned by the Council against which remaining DCs were credited.
Developer B (infrastructure build and DC credit to allow development progression) The Outline Development Plan for an area included a requirement for a pedestrian and cycle connection across a railway to have been constructed or for financial provision for this to have been made in the Councils capital programme prior to development of residential lots in a certain area. The developer wished to progress their project and offered to pay for the construction of the crossing, the cost of which would then be credited against the transport related DCs associated with their development.
Developer C (private build of Council facility and reimbursements) The developer shared a boundary with Council land and both parties planned to build stormwater facilities in the same area. It was agreed it would be more cost effective and efficient for the developer to construct one facility that would serve both areas. Each party reimbursed the other for that portion of land the facility was built on as it sat on the boundary.
The Council acquired land from the developer to replace the reserve land the facility was to be built on and some of the value of this was credited to reserve DCs. On completion of the facility to the standards required, the developer received DC credits for the works proportional to expected service provision outside of the development (for which the Council had intended to build a facility for). The Council also paid for the linking pipes not related to the development and the facility was vested to the Council.
Developer D (reserves and stormwater) The developer vested some land as reserves and as environmental compensation and received DC credits for reserves. Agreement specified staged release and the distribution of the available credits. The Council allowed that only 20% of the stormwater and flood protection charge would be required due to inclusion of first flush and wetland stormwater facilities.
Q45 Are there particular aspects of the system, or particular types of infrastructure, that are problematic?
In Christchurch's case, the provision of wastewater infrastructure is the main constraint on development of greenfield areas. The wastewater network is already at capacity in many parts of the city, with untreated wastewater overflows occurring during storm events, due to groundwater infiltration and stormwater inflow to the wastewater system. This was already an issue before the earthquakes, and the damage to the pipe network has made this issue significantly worse. While SCIRT is repairing some of the wastewater network, many of the damaged wastewater pipes will be left unrepaired, so overflows will continue to be an issue for the city. Adding more wastewater from greenfield areas to a network that is already at capacity will only exacerbate the situation. While Council has plans for major wastewater projects to allow for growth and to reduce overflows, due to funding issues many of these are being deferred.
COUNCIL 11. 12. 2014 ATTACHMENT 1 TO CLAUSE 32 243
Stand alone greenfield developments can create issues for transport infrastructure as there will always be the need to connect the development by widening rural roads to an appropriate standard, providing footpaths and street lighting. The majority of the cost of infrastructure provision to connect to greenfield developments is covered by development contributions. However, not all of the work required to connect to these developments satifactorily can be anticipated and accordingly provided for in the capital programme (this work is therefore ineligible for development contribution funding). Any additional or unexpected costs that arise in connecting these developments will be paid for by ratepayers.
Public transport is also an issue for development, as this is planned and delivered by Environment Canterbury (ECan). While Council and developers can plan for public transport in greenfield areas, ECan may decide not to provide, or to delay providing, a new public transport route, for economic or other reasons.
Stormwater and wastewater limitations. Social infrastructure provision, especially in areas where medium density housing is proposed in medium to low socio-economic areas.
Q46 What are the opportunities to improve this part of the land supply system?
If more funding was available, Council would be able to more quickly remove the constraints on development, particularly in terms of wastewater.
Q47 Is there sufficient alignment of incentives for the various organisations involved in the provision of infrastructure to support housing? If not, what could be done to improve alignment?
Before the earthquakes, Christchurch City Council, Environment Canterbury, Selwyn District Council, Waimakariri District Council, NZ Transport Agency and Te Rūnanga o Ngāi Tahu, had collaboratively developed a strategic plan to manage future growth called the Greater Christchurch Urban Development Strategy (UDS). In terms of wastewater, the key growth area to be targeted was the south west. However, the UDS has been overtaken by the Canterbury Regional Policy Statement (CRPS) and the Land Use Recovery Plan (LURP), which identified additional greenfield areas for development in the north of Christchuch, for which Council must provide infrastrucure. This means that providing wastewater infrastructure for growth is occuring in a less efficient and more disjointed fashion than was originally planned for. Moving back to an approach similar to the UDS would enable better alignment of organisations for the provision of infrastructure.
Q48 Are there differences in the approaches taken between council controlled and private infrastructure organisations (eg, electricity lines companies)? What is the nature of these differences? What explains the differences?
Q49 What comparative information about the provision of infrastructure to support housing should the Commission be aware of?
Council's annual average budget for growth projects for the next ten years are $23M for transport, $5.6M for wastewater, $3.3M for water and $14.8M for stormwater.
Q50 Is there evidence that territorial authority debt levels are acting a barrier to the provision of infrastructure for housing in rapidly growing areas?
Debt levels are definitely a barrier for providing infrastructure for growth in Christchurch. The Council funds all capital expenditure (including that for growth) through debt, but due COUNCIL 11. 12. 2014 ATTACHMENT 1 TO CLAUSE 32 244
to its financial position following the earthquakes is unable to take on any more debt. For some types of infrastructure (e.g. wastewater pipes), infrastructure needs to be installed for the area as if it is fully developed, before development has started. As it can take many years for an area to develop, this means that Council can carry the debt for that infrastructure for a long time before the funding is fully recovered through development contributions. However, in the case of transport, upgrades can generally implemented as growth occurs and therefore spread the costs over a longer period.
Q51 How variable are the practices and processes around infrastructure charges across different jurisdictions? Does variability complicate, delay, or add unnecessary cost to the process of developing land for housing?
Council uses development contributions to recover the cost of providing infrastructure for new developments. Council does not use financial contributions under the RMA. While developers working in multiple jurisdications probably take the difference in costs of development contributions and financial contribtutions between jurisdictions into account when considering whether to develop, we do not believe that the difference in approach taken by other Councils (for example charging a different development contribution amount, or using financial contributions instead) complicates, delays or adds unnecessary cost to the process of developing land for housing.
Q52 Are there particular examples of good practice regarding infrastructure charges?
As for all local authorities, Council is bound by the Local Government Act in terms of the structure and policy for development contributions. Where there is uncertainty, we seek clarification from Ingenium.
Council does not currently structure its development contributions to encourage or discourage development in particular areas (refer also to the response to Q53).
Q53 Are there particular types of development (eg, greenfields, infill etc) that are less costly to service with infrastructure? What evidence can you provide about any variation in infrastructure costs?
It is much more expensive to provide water and wastewater infrastructure for greenfield areas, compared to infill development. For water and wastewater, there is often capacity in the existing network to accommodate growth, whereas for greenfield areas new pipes, wells and pump stations are required.
It is also much more expensive to provide roading infrastructure for greenfield areas, compared to infill development. In the case of infill development, normally only intersection upgrades (if any) are required to accommodate growth, whereas for greenfield areas new roads are required and existing roads normally need to be brought up to urban standards. There are also higher operational costs involved with Greenfield developments as the new infrastructure adds to the maintenance costs of the city and will normally require downstream improvements. There will also be additional travel costs for residents as Greenfield areas are typically located away from major employment areas, such as the central city.
Council currently charges a flat rate development contribution across the city for provision of roading, water and wastewater services ($1,979, $2,470 and $4,702 respectively in 2013). If this was instead levied on a catchment basis, based on the actual cost of providing infrastructure to that part of the city, then the development contributions for infill areas would be around $1,400 for roading, $450 for water and $1,200 for wastewater, and for greenfield areas would be around $3,200 for roading, $6,500 for water and $8,300 for wastewater. COUNCIL 11. 12. 2014 ATTACHMENT 1 TO CLAUSE 32 245
However, in the case of stormwater, it is more expensive to provide stormwater infrastructure in infill development areas, compared to greenfield areas as there is often limited land available for treatment and attenuation and so more expensive solutions need to be implemented. A stormwater basin to provide treatment and attenuation for a 62 hectare catchment in a greenfield development cost $2.9M (excluding land costs), which equates to $37,000 per hectare. In the case of an infill development in a residential suburb of Christchurch, three options were considered, with stormwater basins costed at $167,000 per hectare, above ground tanks at $58,000 per hectare and below ground tanks at $65,000 per hectare (excluding land costs).
In summary, it is significantly less expensive to provide infrastructure for infill developments, compared to greenfield developments.
http://www.researchgate.net/publication/227619274_Brownfield_Redevelopment_versus _Greenfield_Development_A_Private_Sector_Perspective_on_the_Costs_and_Risks_As sociated_with_Brownfield_Redevelopment_in_the_Greater_Toronto_Area
Q54 Do development contribution policies incentivise efficient decisions about land use, or do they unduly restrict the supply of land for housing?
In terms of economic efficiency, development contributions reflect the marginal cost of land development associated with growth. In doing so, the DC cost sends economic signals (i.e. price) about the relative efficiency of one area of development compared to another. DC’s in themselves do not lead to a restriction on the supply of land for housing. District-wide catchments do not always support efficient decisions about land use. The potentially significant difference in the cost of supplying infrastructure to greenfield sites as opposed to brownfield and infill sites is concealed by one level of charge for all and gives no indication of where it is more efficient to develop. District-wide charges remain relevant where the demand is caused, and benefits accrued by, the whole community regardless of location of the infrastructure (for example a wastewater treatment plant). The availability of greenfield land needs to be balanced with careful long term city planning. Providing infrastructure to greenfield sites in a reactive manner when and where it happens is very inefficient for the Council and reduces the ability to plan effectively for major infrastructure projects. It can also drive specific aspects of capital programme that would otherwise not have been a priority for the Council which can in turn increase the charges because of increased spend. Better use of catchments will support clearer signals to developers of where it is more efficient to build. Some of the catchments the Council are proposing to introduce are based on land use which reflects the different levels of demand or cost of supplying infrastructure within these. One reason DC charges are expected to be lower in medium to high density catchments is because of some existing capacity already within infrastructure in these areas. There is also usually a lower cost in adding additional capacity to existing infrastructure as part of normal renewal and replacement work. DC charges under these proposed catchments should encourage developers to make decisions that support more efficient land use. The CCC DCP provides an adjustment that can lower DC charges for units that are developed in a way that does not increase impervious surface area. This can provide an incentive to developers to consider a more efficient configuration of their developments. COUNCIL 11. 12. 2014 ATTACHMENT 1 TO CLAUSE 32 246
An adjustment is also available for minor residential units (those under 100m2). This supports developers who wish to produce more intensified residential developments over larger dwellings, which is a more efficient choice in terms of infrastructure supply and use of available land. Q55 Are development contributions used exclusively to drive efficient decisions about land use, or are they used to promote broader goals?
The primary use of DCs (as clarified by the amended LGA) is to enable Councils to recover from developers a fair, equitable and proportionate portion of the total cost of capital expenditure necessary to service growth over the long term. The recovery of this cost is permitted regardless of the efficiency of land use. The primary purpose of DCs is simply to fund growth-related capital expenditure. Increased use of catchments in DC calculations will tend to send economic price signals (although there are practical limits to how granular such signalling can become), but this does not diminish the primary funding purpose of DCs. It is not considered possible or appropriate to use DCs to promote broader policy goals, except through separate remission, postponement, or rebate schemes. The Council is careful to keep any use of DCs as an incentive outside its DCP and that there is zero impact on the expected fund of DCs recovered to contribute towards the capital programme. Where there are significant differences in infrastructure cost (such as land drainage) then DC’s provide a price signal to developers about the relative efficiency of land options. The fact that developers subsequently develop on relative more DC-costly land suggests that DCs are less important than other economic drivers in developers’ investment decisions. Lower charges are expected in the central and inner city as a result of the new catchments proposed by the Council. These would support the Council’s broader strategic goal for more development and greater intensification within these areas. However, while this is fortuitous it was not the driver behind setting the catchments as they are. The Council does currently have a Central City Residential Development Contributions Rebate Policy in place. The intention of this policy to reward “first movers” within the central city where the Council sees residential development as a priority for the rebuild. The rebate is only available to applicants that meet specific design criteria and that will be able to reach a certain stage of development within a designated time. A separate fund has been set aside by the Council that pays into the DC fund in place of the developer receiving the rebate to ensure the rebate does not create a shortfall in funding for the capital programme. The development sector has previously expressed a strong desire to keep the DCP ‘pure’. It is a technical policy that relies on careful consideration and calculations to set charges fairly, consistently, transparently and equitably over time. The Council’s DCP states that should the Council wish to advance particular strategic objectives this will be done outside the DCP. Q56 How effective have the recent changes to development contributions been that were introduced in the Local Government Act 2002 Amendment Act 2014?
The new purpose and principles are extremely close to those that are in our existing policy so there is no impact on our practice in relation to those. As acknowledged in the issues paper, it is too early to say how effective the changes have been. For the most part the Council already included, or had plans to progress, COUNCIL 11. 12. 2014 ATTACHMENT 1 TO CLAUSE 32 247
the required level of information and transparency of practice clarified by the amendments. The greatest effects on this Council are: . the loss of cost recovery on growth-related projects for libraries and leisure facilities (this was over $420,000 in the month of July 2014 alone) that will now have to be sourced from the ratepayer; . the need to reconsider the reserves facilities it chooses to provide in commercial areas if at all; . shifting funding for growth-related cemeteries infrastructure to the ratepayer. How effective the changes have been in terms of efficient land use decisions depends on what is meant by “effective” – in principle: . Increased use of catchments will tend to improve price signalling and therefore contribute to efficient development, but . Reducing the categories of infrastructure that can be included will tend to reduce price signalling, by limiting Council’s ability to apply a “user / exacerbater pays” approach and shifting this portion of growth costs onto ratepayers. No requests for reconsideration of, or objections to, a development contribution assessment have been made to date to the Council.
Q57 What is the likely effect of long-term infrastructure strategies on the availability of land for housing?
The amended LGA asks for the preparation of a long-term infrastructure strategy that identifies significant infrastructure issues and options for managing these. There has been a very limited timeframe for the development of this strategy and this has had to be done in parallel with developing the Long-Term Plan.
Because of these pressures, the Council does not anticipate that the effect of the new infrastructure strategy on the availability of land will be significantly more than what would have been expected anyway as a result of the Long-Term Plan. It is hoped that future updates of the strategy will support a more strategic approach to managing identified significant infrastructure issues and a clearer dierection to be set and lead the Long-Term Plan
Q58 Do councils in high-growth areas require a greater range of approaches for funding infrastructure?
Like other local authorities, the Council faces constrained rates funding, some ageing infrastructure, and challenges of funding new infrastructure in growth areas. Given the limits to funding infrastructure through rates and development contributions, a full range of other options should be considered.
Other funding options should take account of equity across the community, and seek to minimise the growing expense of upfront costs of infrastructure of residential development in particular, which also has inequitable housing outcomes. Addressing infrastructure costs should include taking account of value uplift when the use of land is changed to a higher level of development, and spreading the cost burden over a period of time. Mechanisms to achieve these outcomes could include tax increment funding (or bond financing) and betterment levies. Tax increment funding could also provide opportunities for public dialogue on what the community wants from a development. It could also provide a source of investment for local communities and organisations to in COUNCIL 11. 12. 2014 ATTACHMENT 1 TO CLAUSE 32 248
turn further invest in their local authorities. Betterment levies could be refined to take a number of forms, e.g. negotiated agreements between developers and local authorities to deliver a range of community benefits in return for the publically-conferred planning gain.
There is still a justifiable case for some form of development contributions to help fund new infrastructure in new developments given the direct benefits that often accrue, especially in residential greenfield areas. What needs to be investigated is how other clearly delineated measures such as tax increment funding and betterment levies can be part of the infrastructure funding mix to achieve long term equitable outcomes.
Q59 What alternative approaches for funding infrastructure should be considered in New Zealand’s high-growth areas?
http://www.bpf.org.uk/en/files/bpf_documents/finance/BPF_TIFS_Paper_Final_A4
Q60 What are the main advantages and disadvantages of having infrastructure vested in Council Controlled Organisations?
Q61 Does the use of Council Controlled Organisations create challenges with respect to integrated provision of infrastructure to support housing?
The use of Council Controlled Organisations has the potential to add complications and increase the difficulty of coordination with respect to integrated provision of infrastructure to support housing. In working on the consenting and infrastructure provision to support housing developments the use of CCO’s for infrastructure provision can mean the developer has to work with several separate and largely independent organisations (CCO’s) rather with one organisation (Council).
Q62 Has the National Infrastructure Plan helped promote coordination of infrastructure investment? Is there sufficient integration between central and local government infrastructure planning?
In terms of Council's infrastructure, the National Infrastructure Plan only affects roading, through the Roads of National Significance. There are regular meetings between the NZ Transport Association, Christchurch City Council, Waimakariri District Council and Environment Canterbury, and this level of integration is adequate.
There is currently no integration between central government and Council for water, wastewater and stormwater. However, as these are all local issues, there is no need to coordinate the infrastructure for these on a national basis, so the current arrangement is sufficient.
Q63 What impact does heritage protection have on the supply and development of land for housing?
Q64 Are there good examples of local authorities, in areas where there is a housing shortage, working well with landowners who want to build housing for whänau on Mäori land?
Q65 To what extent are Plan change requirements, consultation requirements, or the need for infrastructure, barriers to Mäori aspirations for building housing for whänau on Mäori land?
Q66 How important is the aggregation of land for housing development? How difficult is it? Do some local authorities have processes in place that make land aggregation easier – if so, which ones, and how? COUNCIL 11. 12. 2014 ATTACHMENT 1 TO CLAUSE 32 249
Comment on shape of traditional residential sections in Christchurch. Need to aggregate sections to enable better urban form – not ‘sausage houses’. We could supply a photograph. Developers not always able to achieve aggregation or able to hold land. The Exploring New Housing Choices document (http://resources.ccc.govt.nz/files/centralcitydecember2011/exploringnewhousingchoi ces.pdf) really emphasises that to achieve good urban design outcomes, efficient use of land and higher densities, site amalgamation is required. Sausage flats of old and town house approaches to infill now are a relatively poor use of a site, poor design outcomes result and a lot of land becomes devoted to driveways rather than housing. The shape of a development lot can be an influence of development potential and outcomes for urban design and density. Aggregation of lots can address some of the issues. However, there is a need to be clear that the aggregation of lots is to support better approaches to infill and intensification, rather than more space to duplicate the same approaches to development.
Q67 Is there a need for public agencies that can aggregrate land in New Zealand cities? If so, who should establish these agencies? What powers and functions should they have?
Holding land is a cost and risk to the developer, particularly if the site amalgamation involves the acquisition of many lots (the last hold-out is the biggest risk). The cost and risk may be too great for the relatively small developers working in the infill and intensification markets. There is potentially a need for a public agency to aggregate land and fill the void of medium-sized developers specialising in the type of development that needs. There may be a conflict within a public agency between the need for transparency and potentially handling sensitive and confidential land acquisition processes.
Land amalgamation could form part of a more pro-active approach. Sporadic infill and intensification based on when a lot comes up for sale is replaced by a coordinated approach. A land acquisition agency could focus on an appropriate area (zoned, agglomerations of older housing, demographic trends etc) acquire and hold land and maybe deal with pre-consenting and infrastructure (e.g. community based stormwater treatment, and particularly for Christchurch, ground conditions?), effectively removing risk from the developers (to which the land is sold as a viable building site). Added benefit is the agency could set the agenda for design outcomes.
Q68 To what extent do central or local government policies and practices prevent or discourage landowners from selling or developing land for housing?
This would very much depend on the perspective of the person answering this question. It can also be applied on a site by site basis (or Greenfield by Greenfield).
Q69 How much land in New Zealand is being held in anticipation of future price rises? What evidence is there?
The fact that real estate agents often advertise sites as Land Banks suggests that this is a factor and so the findings of the commission on this question should not glibly conclude that there is no evidence that land banking does not occur (both inside and outside urban rural boundaries). Unpicking the intentions of landowners would be difficult to collect evidence on and invariably be reliant on some degree of subjectivity.
COUNCIL 11. 12. 2014 ATTACHMENT 1 TO CLAUSE 32 250
Q70 Does the setting of rates on the basis of land value or capital value (that is, including the value of improvements) influence the supply of land for housing? What evidence can you supply?
Q71 How common is the use of covenants in new housing developments? To what extent are private covenants restricting the supply of development capacity?
Council’s generally do not see private covenant. Anecdotally they are commonly used by developers and some do control density.
Q72 What are the advantages and disadvantages of the Housing Accords and Special Housing Areas Act 2013 and of its implementation to date?
Access to $75million of central government funding. Opportunity to identify areas for fast-track housing, where need greatest.
The Council entered into a Housing Accord with the government this year. Based on our experiences to date, we would note the following advantages of the Accord alongside the possible risks to mitigate:
Advantages Brings central and local government together to address housing issues. Allows for targeting of resources at specific issues, e.g. emergency housing, social housing, affordable housing. Is a mechanism to address long term sustainability of Council's social housing stock Provides momentum to streamline planning and consenting processes Provides opportunities to increase housing supply including through best use of Council and Crown land Helps improve understanding of housing market as Accord progress reporting needs good quality housing data and analysis
Risks Urban sprawl if supply of housing through Special Housing Areas not carried out in a cost-effective way with regard to integrated land use planning, i.e. transport and infrastructure considerations. Too much focus on purely supply without regard to good connections to services and activities, especially in regard to social and affordable housing. The focus on increasing housing supply including affordable housing provision may miss those households under the most stress, i.e. lower income renting households Lack of long term support for Community Housing Providers may undermine efforts including those seeking to improve long term sustainability of Council social housing
Q73 Are there wider lessons for New Zealand from the planning and development processes that have been used in greater Christchurch?
Q74 What evidence is there that the Land Use Recovery Plan changes are resulting in more land being made available for housing, or allow land to be developed faster?
In terms of Greenfield, LURP basically implemented the proposals going through the RPS process at the time of the earthquakes and also added on some new areas (Prestons, Highfields). These areas are planned for but will not be brought to market any faster than the infrastructure provision allows.
COUNCIL 11. 12. 2014 ATTACHMENT 1 TO CLAUSE 32 251
For intensification the LURP introduced a series of mechanisms to allow intensification (EDM, CHRM) and infill development. 252 253 COUNCIL 11. 12. 2014
33. LIBRARIES 2025 FACILITIES PLAN – UPDATED PLAN
Contact Contact Details Executive Leadership Team Chief Operating Officer Jane Parfitt Jane [email protected] Member responsible: Officer responsible: + Manager Libraries and Information Carolyn [email protected] Unit) Robertson Author: Places and Spaces – Libraries - Sally [email protected] Major Facilities Rebuild Unit Thompson
1. PURPOSE AND ORIGIN OF REPORT
1.1 The reviewed Libraries 2025 Facilities Plan was present to the former Community Committee meeting on 11 February 2014. The actions required:
1.1 The Committee request that an executive summary be produced with updated maps and demographics. It is recommended that staff seek feedback from Community Boards on revised actions and the updated plan and bring back to the Committee for consideration.
1.2 The Committee request a copy of the Voluntary Library Report.
1.3 The Committee request that the table 1: Forecast population in key areas, 2006- 2026 on page 148 of the Community Committee agenda be updated and a copy distributed to the Committee.
1.4 The Committee request an executive summary of the Libraries 2025 Facilities Plan which clearly outlines the levels of service and the direction the Council wants to take going forward. This will be useful for the Long Term Plan.
2. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
2.1 The Executive Summary was produced with updated maps and demographics. Feedback from all Community Boards has been collated.
2.2 The Voluntary Library Report was distributed.
2.3 The population table was updated and incorporated into the Libraries 2025 Facilities Plan Executive Summary and will be included in the revised 2025 Plan.
2.4 All former Community Committee and Community Board members were issued with a copy of the executive summary.
3. BACKGROUND
3.1 In 2008 the Libraries 2025 Facilities Plan was signed off by the Council. The original plan was created using an external working group in conjunction with extensive community consultation and submissions. The plan has informed all library facility development since its adoption in 2008 and continues to inform long term planning.
3.1.1 The first review of the plan was due to take place in 2014 but due to the earthquakes the desktop review was brought forward and was completed early 2014.
3.1.2 The reviewed plan was presented to the former Community Committee in February 2014. Presented to the Community Boards for comment and feedback on the review
3.1.3 At the Council meeting of 29 September it was It was resolved that the report was referred to the Community Boards for their formal consideration. This occurred in October and November 2014. Hagley/Ferrymead Board requested an updated Voluntary Libraries Report be completed (attached) 254 COUNCIL 11. 12. 2014
33 Cont’d
3.1.4 Community Boards formally supported the Libraries 2025 Facilities Plan Review and received the Voluntary Library Review
4. COMMENT
4.1 Key themes, suggestions and questions related to the 2025 Libraries Facility Plan from the Community Board meetings include:
All were supportive of the plan and the role of libraries in Christchurch, especially post earthquake Understanding and support for libraries in the growth areas in the city as referenced in the map Central Library – who is going to use this library if the CBD takes too long to be rebuilt? What support is there to continue with Voluntary Libraries in relation to CCC run libraries? Belfast library planning – where is the library going to be located? Suggest retiring Redwood library when Belfast opens. Why retain the facility when the area is fully serviced? Consider the light rail and transport hubs when locating Belfast Library Storage facility – is the Christchurch Art Gallery a natural partner for storing materials? Linwood Library – consider maintaining the library in the Eastgate Mall instead of building a new one Temporary libraries valued highly by local communities Is there a new library planned for Diamond Harbour? Support for the combining of Voluntary Libraries and Community Centres to create value for money for the community eg Heathcote Library Noted no growth projects in Banks Peninsula
4.1.1 Suggested changes to the review to reflect the Community Board feedback:
Retire the Redwood Library when the Belfast library opens - this recommendation was supported by the Shirley Papanui Community Board with the board indicating a desire to be involved with the community engagement process when appropriate.
5. FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS
5.1 All costs associated with new or replacement library facilities are captured in the existing Council plans and programmes of work including the Facilities Rebuild Plan and the Major Facilities Rebuild Programme. For all facilities still in development, the costs are identified through the respective project control groups then submitted to Council for approval. Projects yet to be started will be submitted with business cases through the 2015-2025 LTP
6. STAFF RECOMMENDATION
It is recommended that the Council:
6.1 Receive the updated Voluntary Libraries Review and;
6.2 That the Council accepts and adopts the updated 2025 Facilities Plan –including changes recommended by the Community Committee.
COUNCIL 11. 12. 2014 ATTACHMENT 1 TO CLAUSE 33 255 - 2 -
VOLUNTARY LIBRARIES REVIEW
General Manager responsible: General Manager Community Services. DDI 941-8607 Officer responsible: Libraries and Information Manager, Libraries and Information Unit Author: Carolyn Robertson
PURPOSE OF REPORT
1. The purpose of this report is to provide the Community Recreation and Culture Committee with a review of the voluntary libraries in Christchurch, including options for future facility development.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
2. The Libraries 2025 Facilities Plan (2008) identified the need to examine the role and future of voluntary libraries in Christchurch. The timing of this review of voluntary libraries, post Canterbury earthquakes, informs the Facilities Rebuild Plan and will help guide Council with options and recommendations in relation to community facility provision during the recovery and rebuild process in the years ahead.
3. The Council Library and Information Unit Activity Management Plan describes the level of service provided for voluntary libraries as: . Provide for 10 voluntary libraries rent free facilities, building and maintenance and support for collections within a joint use space. . Develop a plan within the Libraries 2025 Facilities Plan framework for the voluntary libraries service to be provided for within facilities that allows for the maximisation of the use of the facility by the community as a whole.
4. The Voluntary Libraries have total independence from the Council in regards to the level of service they deliver from their facilities. This includes hours open to the public and type and range of lending material available.
5. In light of the earthquake damage to many community facilities, it is timely for Council to question the dedicated use of space used by voluntary libraries in Council owned and maintained buildings. There are opportunities to rethink facility provision to ensure communities are receiving best value and Council is optimising the use of its investment to ensure that facilities are fit for purpose and sustainable for the long term.
6. There is now an opportunity to rebuild and replace demolished voluntary library facilities with new modern, multi purpose community facilities that contribute to place making and community connection.
7. Review recommendations: (a) Consult with the Voluntary Library committees on options going forward, with priority to be given to those with damaged or demolished facilities.
(b) Council staff from Facilities Rebuild Programme, Libraries and Information and Community Support units to undertake tactical planning to develop options for voluntary library spaces within multipurpose community facilities with regards to suitable location, size and projected community use.
(c) Bring recommendations back to Council on a case by case basis for approval and funding through the Facilities Rebuild Programme.
FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS
8. Redevelopment of damaged or demolished voluntary libraries is included within the Facilities Rebuild Programme Top 30.
Do the Recommendations of this Report Align with 2013-16 TYP budgets?
9. Recommendations align with the Facilities Rebuild Programme Top 30. COUNCIL 11. 12. 2014 ATTACHMENT 1 TO CLAUSE 33 256 - 3 -
LEGAL CONSIDERATIONS
10. There are no direct legal considerations.
Have you considered the legal implications of the issue under consideration?
11. As above.
ALIGNMENT WITH LTCCP AND ACTIVITY MANAGEMENT PLANS
12. Aligns with Libraries and Information Unit Activity Management Plan and Three Year Plan 2013- 16 in relation to Facilities Rebuild Programme Top 30 priorities.
Do the recommendations of this report support a level of service or project in the 2013-16 TYP?
13. Provide for 10 voluntary libraries rent free facilities, building and maintenance and support for collections within a joint use space.
Develop a plan within the Libraries 2025 Facilities Plan framework for the voluntary libraries service to be provided for within facilities that allows for the maximisation of the use of the facility by the community as a whole.
ALIGNMENT WITH STRATEGIES
14. Aligns with the Libraries 2025 Facilities Plan.
Do the recommendations align with the Council’s strategies?
15. As above.
CONSULTATION FULFILMENT
16. Consultation is recommended with the Voluntary Library committees.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
It is recommended that the Community, Recreation and Culture Committee:
(a) Endorse the review recommendations outlined under point 7 above.
COUNCIL 11. 12. 2014 ATTACHMENT 2 TO CLAUSE 33 257
Christchurch City Council Libraries 2025 Facilities Plan For adoption by Council on 28 August 2008
2014 update
Version, September 2014
1 COUNCIL 11. 12. 2014 ATTACHMENT 2 TO CLAUSE 33 258
Explore new ideas and new worlds
“Public libraries are seriously dangerous places! This is because libraries are civic spaces that foster debate and argument, providing the opportunity for New Zealanders from all walks of life to explore new ideas and new worlds, as well as our own short but rich history. They can be challenging places, offering access to complex information in a world shifting from a largely print environment to one that is also electronic and virtual.
Public libraries engage, inspire and inform the people of New Zealand. They are also instrumental in developing strong communities. One of your many strengths is that you engage with, and reflect, the diversity of the communities you serve.”1
2014 Update
“The library as place – a community hub, a business hub, a space for innovation and creativity – is becoming more important even as libraries become more digital and virtual. The library is changing from being a place where people came to get ideas and information, to an experiential place where people meet with others to create, share and learn about new ideas in a social context.
Libraries are about sharing and sustainability – sharing resources, and reusing content and facilities over and over to gain competitive advantage for individuals and communities. The roles of public libraries for the foreseeable future are: * Collecting, curating and providing access to knowledge ideas and works of the imagination * Fostering the joy of reading and supporting the development of literacy in all its forms * Enabling independent lifelong learning, research and innovation * Providing community-based services for all in places that are at the heart of their community * Collecting, creating an making available local content and history”2
1 Associate Minister of Arts, Culture and Heritage, Honourable Judith Tizard at the New Zealand Public Libraries Summit, 26 February, 2007 2 Local Government New Zealand et al (2012). [Public libraries of New Zealand: a strategic framework. Local Government of New Zealand, Association of Public Library Managers, National Library of New Zealand. Wellington, New Zealand. 2012. 2 COUNCIL 11. 12. 2014 ATTACHMENT 2 TO CLAUSE 33 259
Executive summary
The Libraries 2025 Facilities Plan is a framework to guide the future development of the Christchurch City Libraries network through to 2025.
Christchurch has a proud history of investing in libraries; it has a network of 19 facilities that provide a customer-driven, value for-money and technologically advanced service for residents and ratepayers.
The Plan looks to grow the network by tailoring any future development, network configuration or extension of services to better meet changing community needs, address growth and create focal points for community learning and leisure activities.
Through the Plan, Council recognises the importance of libraries in providing social hubs in the community and the need to ensure that future development reflects the cultural diversity of the community and the advances in digital information and communication technology.
The four key principles of the Plan are to provide library facilities which are: 1: community focal points, reflecting and responding to local needs; 2: accessibility across the network to a mix of library services and facilities, including non-building based provision; 3: maximum efficiency and effectiveness of facilities; and 4: optimisation of partnership opportunities with other agencies and/or services.
Proposed under the 2008 Plan:
A new library at Aranui to meet high community need. A new library at Belfast to cater for population growth. A replacement library at Halswell, to address population growth. Explore development options for Central Library in time to inform the 2012-2022 Long Term Plan (LTP). Retain the library service at Bishopdale but review its location in the retail precinct. Optimise partnership and/or co-location opportunities with retail development at The Palms to relocate and upgrade the Shirley Library. Retain Hornby Library but investigate future options in line with the Greater Christchurch Urban Development Strategy (UDS). Evaluate the future role of Redwood Library following the opening of a new library at Belfast. Align Fendalton Library’s asset with similar sized suburban libraries in the network and investigate development of seven day opening. Consider inclusion of a café following the ‘Cafes in libraries’ feasibility project. Develop a plan for the voluntary libraries within the 2025 framework that will maximise the community use of these facilities. This will include investigating partnership opportunities with external agencies and other Council units. Review service provision to Banks Peninsula libraries (Akaroa, Diamond Harbour, Little River and Lyttelton) within the framework of current levels of service for the library network. Scope future and current needs and acknowledge rural community needs. Continue to maintain and refurbish all community libraries and the Central Library as part of regular asset maintenance programmes and cycles. This includes those identified for possible future development and those expected to fulfil current need i.e. New Brighton, Parklands, South, Spreydon and Upper Riccarton.
Priorities identified in the Plan will guide development of the Christchurch City Libraries network during the next 20 years and inform Council decision-making for the 2009-2019 Long Term Plan. Adoption of the Plan does not guarantee a facility will be upgraded, redeveloped or built.
The Plan signals Council’s intention to continue to use the Mobile Library Service to provide access to resources where facility provision is not sustainable and investigate non-building based service delivery and self-help delivery options, such as library kiosks.
Partnerships have been identified as key to the development of the library network. These could include possible co-location with Council service centres, leisure and community facilities, and partnerships with educational institutions, retail complexes, neighbouring territorial authorities or rest home complexes.
Initial consideration will be given to opportunities for future enhancement of services at Linwood, Hornby or Papanui.
The Libraries 2025 Facilities Plan will be reviewed every six years to address city growth and changes in 3 COUNCIL 11. 12. 2014 ATTACHMENT 2 TO CLAUSE 33 260 priorities. These reviews will coincide with the timing for funding within the Council’s LTP and Annual Plan cycles. It will also be informed by the triennial reviews of the UDS.
2014 Update –
The Libraries 2025 Facilities Plan was intended to be updated each six years, to align with Council’s long term planning processes. The 2010 and 2011 earthquakes necessitated its early review.
The effects of the earthquakes on individual library buildings vary from some that require cosmetic or structural repairs through to those requiring demolition or prolonged closure to enable major repairs. Customers have been able to access library services, facilities and collections soon after each major earthquake event, albeit often not at their closest or familiar location. Libraries have moved promptly to re- establish services, recognising early the important role they could play in communities. They are reassuring and trusted social and information centres and act as an electronic gateway for people to connect with relatives and friends.
The strategic context, principles and attributes for provision, basic network map for library provision and criteria for proposed developments defined in the original 2008 Facilities Plan have proved robust and still applicable in this 2014 update.
As expected, the 2008 survey of trends in library and information services required updating – though the essential recognition that libraries continue to be successful and popular for early adopters of new technologies and reading formats holds true.
In 2014, the major changes required to the 2025 Facilities Plan relate to the sequencing and timing of planned developments. With some buildings lost or damaged, there are gaps in the network’s provision. Reconsideration of the timing and/or sequencing of rebuilding and new developments is needed, in order to restore equitable access to library services across the city. The Facilities Rebuild Plan started in mid 2012 and the Libraries 2025 Facilities Plan provides strategic direction for decision making, although financial and insurance considerations may affect decisions regarding cost effectiveness of repair, rebuild or demolition and more specifically the timing of this work.
Changes to the predicted population availability and timing of Greenfield developments, along with relocation of red-zoned households are key factors to be considered as part of the re-prioritising to ensure that it is still a good fit with growth.
Throughout the revised 2025 Facilities Plan, a number of comments have been added (in blue boxes). The only sections that have been substantially rewritten are: Trends in Library and Information Provision Population and Demographics Table 3: Summary of new development to complete the network of library facilities: major capital developments Table 4: Other significant developments and projects
4 COUNCIL 11. 12. 2014 ATTACHMENT 2 TO CLAUSE 33 261
1.0 Introduction
Background Initial scoping work for the Libraries 2025 Facilities Plan (the Plan) began in 2005. It identified there was a need to undertake detailed planning for library facility provision for the next 20 years, including the location of, and services available at, all community libraries as well as the role and location of the Central Library. The Plan provides the information to support future planning decisions and identifies areas of current need.
In 2006, the Council completed a 10-year library development programme. This saw the addition of new library buildings at Papanui, New Brighton, Fendalton, South Christchurch, Parklands and Upper Riccarton; the total refurbishment of Shirley after fire damage; establishment of three co-located learning centres at South Christchurch, Parklands and Upper Riccarton libraries; major upgrades at Central and Sumner libraries; and the addition of four Banks Peninsula libraries into the network.
Usage of the Council’s library and information services continue to grow and compare favourably with reported usage at other local authority libraries. The community has strongly indicated libraries are valued as key destinations and “anchors”.
Libraries help fulfil several of the city’s Community Outcomes:
A City of Lifelong Learning. A City for Recreation, Fun and Creativity. A City of Inclusive and Diverse Communities.
These are key contributors to meeting the Council’s strategic direction for creating Strong Communities along with a Liveable City and Prosperous Economy.
Public libraries fulfil a significant role in local communities. “As part of local government, public libraries make an important contribution to New Zealand society. Public libraries strengthen the communities in which they are situated: helping to build community unity, identity and developing citizenship; providing people with the information they need to enrich and excite them; supporting, encouraging and facilitating lifelong learning and fostering literacy; and encouraging a love of reading. Public libraries assist in drawing people out of social exclusion and contribute to the economic development and cultural well being of their communities.3”
The value of public buildings such as libraries is emphasised in the Urban Design Protocol (which Christchurch City Council is a signatory to): they protect the cultural identity and heritage of our towns and cities; provide creativity; and add social, environmental and cultural benefits by creating well connected, inclusive and accessible places.4
Christchurch has long enjoyed a strong library tradition. From its origins in 1859 as the Mechanics Institute, subsequent management by the then Canterbury College to its eventual adoption by the City Council in 1948 it has been a significant presence in the city and surrounding area. A travelling library service to country districts started in 1920, the first branch library was opened at Spreydon in 1971 and in 1975 Christchurch became the first public library in New Zealand to use a computerised lending system. Today’s library network is nationally and international renowned for its excellence in buildings, services and digital developments with several of the current facilities receiving architectural awards and recognition.
With current and anticipated growth in Christchurch’s population, providing library access to the new and growing communities needs to be addressed. There is no capital provision for major library projects in the 2006/2016 Long Term Council Community Plan (LTP). A programme of regular refurbishment continues through asset management planning, which at the same time allows limited opportunity for service re-definition if required.
3 Local Government New Zealand, LIANZA, National Library of New Zealand (2006) Public Libraries of New Zealand: a strategic framework 2006 to 2016. Wellington: Local Government New Zealand, LIANZA, National Library of New Zealand 4 Ministry for the Environment (2005). Urban Design Protocol. Wellington: Ministry for the Environment 5 COUNCIL 11. 12. 2014 ATTACHMENT 2 TO CLAUSE 33 262
2014 Update - The Impact of the 2010-11 earthquakes
Communities’ appreciation of libraries has been evident as they reflect on how they can retain and build on the cohesiveness, kindness and openness they shared following the 2010-2011 earthquakes. Libraries that were able to remain or reopen soon after the earthquakes quickly became vital community hubs and links with local people, agencies, information and the wider world.
The earthquakes caused significant damage to some of the library network. Library services in all locations were disrupted after the large earthquakes to allow for preliminary condition and safety assessments to be done, and several suburban libraries were partially or fully re-purposed to house Council staff for most of 2011.
The Central Library, Bishopdale and Linwood libraries and two voluntary libraries have been closed pending further structural or land assessments. Structural damage to Sumner Library and three voluntary libraries necessitated their demolition, and full assessments of all library sites could still result in further closures. Fendalton, Papanui and Upper Riccarton libraries have had intermittent public access over a prolonged period – at times being used to house Council staff from other parts of the city and then undergoing substantial repairs following the detailed building evaluation.
Those libraries that were able to remain open in the aftermath of the quakes rapidly became the only, vital link that people could have with friends and family elsewhere. Free access to the internet and social media enabled families to connect with family and friends to reassure them of their safety, sharing their experiences and expressing their needs. Public and community information was readily available at libraries – they became an information and social conduit for recovery. Libraries have always had this role in communities, but never more valued than during this time when other channels of communication were limited.
Throughout the earthquakes’ aftermath, the community’s loyalty, appreciation and need for libraries has remained strong. Their role as important hubs in local communities, providing access to information and the digital world, opportunities for social connection and leisure activities continues to be valued.
The library as a key public space in communities that have suffered from a natural disaster has been recognised elsewhere. Where evaluating the role of public libraries after Hurricane Katrina, researchers found that those libraries that could open immediately or soon after the natural disaster, “provided essential services to people in need…. [such as] access to computers and access to information via computers, aid in filling out necessary relief aid forms, listening and providing comfort, and volunteering time, money, and materials. The public library clearly played a role in both providing information and facilitating communication.”5
Central Library Peterborough opened in December 2011 on the very edge of the CBD Red Zone. A leased facility requiring a refurbishment of previous office and retail space has proved to be a vital community service not only to the inner city residents of the area but to many others to gain access to some of the unique collections housed in the Central library. Peterborough Library is also a magnet for visitors to the city and new immigrants. In the first two years of operation approximately 300,000 people visited the library each year. The positive impact of the temporary library was captured in comments similar to this one from a customer:
"Absolutely fantastic that you are soon to open the new “central” library. Congratulations and many many thanks to you all for your hard work and dedication in putting this together."
Similarly the opening of Central Library Tuam in July 2012, adjacent to the bus exchange and the RE;start mall provided library access to the people visiting the city south of The Square and provided a service to both people working in the city and for those transiting through. It proved as popular as the Peterborough Library, providing access to more of the Central Library collection, including the Aotearoa New Zealand collection, as well as access to internet and digital information. The visitor count topped 400,000 from July 2012 to July 2013.
5 Welsh, T. S. & Higgins, S. E. (2009). Public libraries post-Hurricane Katrina: A pilot study. Library Review, 58(9), 652-659 6 COUNCIL 11. 12. 2014 ATTACHMENT 2 TO CLAUSE 33 263
Project goal, scope and key issues addressed
Goal To develop a comprehensive facilities plan to support on-going and future library and learning centre provision that anticipates future service delivery needs.
Project scope This Plan provides direction for Council’s capital investment and upgrading of libraries until 2025. It is also the planning tool to inform the LTP process.
The UDS has underpinned much of the planning for future library provision. The Plan also aligns with the 2006 Aquatic Facilities Plan, Metropolitan Sports Facilities Plan and Community Facilities Implementation Plan (both currently underway) to ensure cohesive development of Council services and facilities.
Key issues Key issues considered in the Plan’s development:
Future network definition and shape – levels of service provision and distribution across a citywide network, provision gaps and areas of overlap.
Facilities and services – benchmarking standards (agreed criteria to support service delivery in different-sized facilities and locations), future-proofing facilities and/or services to accommodate technological and demographic change, current/future building performance measures, identification of customer needs and expectations of facilities, recognition of libraries as community space.
Identification of opportunities for engaging in joint use or partnership arrangements with other Council services/facilities, other providers and adjacent territorial local authorities.
Contingency and refurbishment planning – considered within the context of changing societal needs and trends, a need for sustainability and the Asset Management Plan.
7 COUNCIL 11. 12. 2014 ATTACHMENT 2 TO CLAUSE 33 264
2.0 Process followed
Initial scoping work for the Plan was carried out in 2005. Comprehensive work began in early 2007 to enable completion in time to inform the 2009-2019 LTP decision-making process.
In recognition of strong community interest in and support for local libraries, Council appointed a Working Party of elected members and community representatives to lead development of the Plan and make recommendations for Council approval.
Working Party The Working Party comprised two elected members, one Community Board chair and representatives from key stakeholder groups: community advocate for libraries; education sector; information technology sector; community sector and residential/retail property development. The Project Sponsor and Libraries and Information Services Manager attended ex officio along with other Council officers as required.
Goal To recommend to Council a Plan for the provision of libraries that would enhance access to facilities and services and inform the 2009-2012 LTP decision-making process.
Objectives Work collaboratively with Council staff and elected members to gain a thorough, shared understanding of Council and the community’s needs and expectations for library facilities within the context of Council-wide service delivery and its Strategic Directions. To report to Council on progress during the Working Party’s deliberations, particularly at milestone stages such as: a) to confirm the criteria for assessing provision and b) seek feedback on identified priority areas for future provision. To make recommendations in the Plan to Council consistent with the principles agreed to by Council.
Scope of work Confirm criteria for prioritising and planning future library provision. Identify and consider priority areas to enhance community access to library services across the city. Consider the hierarchy of size, function and ranges of services to be delivered from future library facilities. Assess vicinities (including co-locations) for future location of libraries. Seek feedback from key community stakeholders, including Community Boards, to inform the Working Party’s deliberations and recommendations.
Work programme Introduction - principles as agreed by Council, current provision, library and societal trends. Shape - definition of a twenty first century citywide library network. Site visits – libraries and urban areas in the northwest, south and central Christchurch. Identification of priority areas - impact of UDS and area plans. Criteria for prioritising future facility developments. Options assessment.
Communication and engagement with stakeholders A comprehensive communications plan was developed to keep all key stakeholders well informed of progress with the development of the Draft Libraries 2025 Facilities Plan. This featured an e-newsletter to connect with all key stakeholders, including elected members, and regular stories in Council’s Our Christchurch pages to keep the wider community briefed on progress.
Media briefings were also a key tactic in the communications plan to ensure the media was kept informed through each key phase of the Plan’s development. This was designed to help foster a better knowledge and understanding of the Plan as Council looked to deliver Christchurch a world-class library service.
The communications plan identified early the role Christchurch and Banks Peninsula residents would play in the decision-making process, providing a timeline for the development of the Plan.
The wider community was consulted on the Draft Plan. A public participation programme included open meetings around the community and with community boards. A range of submissions was received and elected members heard presentations from some of these.
8 COUNCIL 11. 12. 2014 ATTACHMENT 2 TO CLAUSE 33 265
Elected members’ consultation The Plan’s proposed recommendations were discussed at seminars with elected members and community Board members, before the Plan was presented to Council to adopt for wide community comment.
Key stakeholder engagement Selective pre-consultation engagement by the Project Team with key stakeholder groups was undertaken during the information-gathering phase to support and inform the Working Party’s deliberations. Representative community groups, library professionals, education providers, volunteers and library website users were among those consulted.
Earlier customer and stakeholder research was also referenced. In summary, the key and common points raised by many of these stakeholder groups were:
Role of library facilities in communities – Important, central meeting place and focal point in a community. Open, spacious, welcoming environment; warm place to be in winter; vital social contact for many (especially older persons); place to meet (café) and relax with children and friends or family. Outstanding location (e.g. overlooking ocean, park setting) – source of community pride, for the building and the resources available. Access to a diverse range of reading materials – books, magazines, children’s and talking books; Central Library used by people for the value and depth of collection and there are more items from which to choose. Free learning environment; provider of ‘second chance’ opportunities for adults wanting to learn. Provider of general services, e.g. photocopiers, community/local information
Location preferences Near local shops/supermarket/mall/bank/medical centre/schools/playground/toy library; malls and aquatic facilities not seen as highly desirable areas for co-location or as adjacent locations; co-location with a Council service centre favoured. On bus route/near transport hubs; handy walking distance from home; easily accessed, free, plentiful car parking adjacent to library. Attractive street visibility. Mobile Library excellent for plugging gaps in communities where there is no library.
Building requirements - needs and expectations Spaciousness – cafes; room for quiet spaces away from bustle of café and children’s area; generous space between book stack aisles to enable easy browsing by less nimble and multiple users at one time; plenty of chairs/ beanbags and desks at which to work/relax. Whanau-friendly facilities, e.g. children’s areas, baby feeding/changing facilities. Outdoor environment important – need natural features and to be welcoming; clear signposting within and outside the building. Accessible buildings and facilities for people with disabilities. Small local libraries – easy to find way around. Good infrastructure and building design (air conditioning, etc).
Service needs and expectations in the future Will always be a need for books. Continue free access to libraries. In the future, key uses will be for carrying out research using non- digitised resources and accessing leisure reading. Retain libraries as the key repositories for books/knowledge in the city; storage of local history and identity; act as a one-stop source for tourist and community information, e.g. InfoTap and Heartlands. Ensure adequate staffing by helpful, positive and knowledgeable librarians. Provide continuing education courses in information access/library use. Ensure libraries are safe, restful places; provide opportunities to relax - coffee and areas for families. Maintain a high-quality library website and electronic catalogue. Provide more resources in Te reo and materials of interest to Maori. Incorporate barrier-free access to latest technology, e.g. free Broadband and wireless network; provide online assistance for remote users; and free internet access. Include technologies that enable access to information by people with disabilities – important that Central and at least some of community libraries have a good range of technologies available; ensure information and leisure reading/listening/viewing resources meet needs of people with disabilities. Consider ‘Dial a library’, i.e. home deliveries, not just for permanently housebound residents but also for people with short-term special needs or as a user-pays service; increase outreach services, e.g. to women’s prison; mobile library service going out to young people. 9 COUNCIL 11. 12. 2014 ATTACHMENT 2 TO CLAUSE 33 266
2014 Update
Earthquake damage to some libraries and many local neighbourhoods prompted a review of network provision and a check of the Libraries 2025 Facilities Plan’s tactics and attributes of provision. This was to ensure that services could continue to be delivered across the city, reflect altered residential areas and continue to be synergistic with other community and education facilities.
The popular “Share an Idea” engagement with Christchurch people, as part of the Christchurch Central Recovery Plan’s development, gathered 106,000 ideas. Many of the ideas contributed were about people’s aspirations for Christchurch rather than just the central city.
People’s thoughts on libraries in our city’s future included that they are community hubs and lifeblood, provide accessible public spaces where all are welcome, are centres for preserving and reflecting cultural heritage, have exciting learning spaces, children’s areas, café, exhibition and performance spaces, and provide free WiFi and interactive access.
Feedback from customers in the Council’s 2012 regular customer satisfaction survey included some comments relating the role of the library post earthquake.
“I really did not realise how much I treasured my library until the earthquakes. Fendalton opened last week and I went 3 nights in a row. They are the ray of sunshine in a very grey winter”
‘Out in the community sharing with others. Had a chance to talk to & support lonely or elderly. Helped being able to read & ease my own nervous state’
“The library is the heart of the community, especially since the earthquakes, my library was open very soon [after the earthquakes] and it gave me hope, and obviously did the same for many others, the library is for everyone, it's a place to sit and have quiet time or meet people, the staff are friendly and helpful, it was lovely to walk in when it had reopened and be called by name and asked how I was. .... I love the access to information, the special events, and most of all the books, the library is the only place that always satisfies my expectations.’
Temporary Libraries
Following the earthquakes and the obvious community need and the level of damage of library and other community facilities, we responded in a variety of ways to bring libraries back to the community
July 2011 the South City Central library opened in a small shop next to the supermarket at the South City Mall. This library provided a vital link for people living in the eastern hill suburbs and those working in the redzone as access to libraries and shopping was very limited. This little library soon became a very busy place with extra tables and chairs being put in the mall to accommodate people using the free WiFi. It also bought much needed foot traffic to the mall and supported its recovery very soon after the earthquakes.
October 2013 the temporary Bishopdale Library opened in a small commercial space in the Bishopdale mall. The library was a strong anchor for the mall and about 15,000 people visited in the first two months of opening. Many positive responses have been recorded from customers and mall business owners.
Due to the success of the very small temporary Linwood Library a larger space was set up for a greater service in the Eastgate Mall. This library has performed beyond expectations and with visitor numbers of up to 30,000 per month the increased space and services provided a valued community resource. A customer writes…’in the course of my daily travels I often use various libraries, one stands out for wonderful friendly and helpful staff, a lovely building with loads of space. Well done Christchurch City Libraries'
10 COUNCIL 11. 12. 2014 ATTACHMENT 2 TO CLAUSE 33 267
3. Strategic context and alignment
Why Council provides library facilities “Public libraries are seriously dangerous places! This is because libraries are civic spaces that foster debate and argument, providing the opportunity for New Zealanders from all walks of life to explore new ideas and new worlds, as well as our own short but rich history. They can be challenging places, offering access to complex information in a world shifting from a largely print environment to one that is also electronic and virtual. Public libraries engage, inspire and inform the people of New Zealand. They are also instrumental in developing strong communities. One of your many strengths is that you engage with, and reflect, the diversity of the communities you serve.”
(Associate Minister of Arts, Culture and Heritage Honourable Judith Tizard, at the New Zealand Public Libraries Summit, 26 February, 2007)
Council made a commitment in the 2006-2016 LTP to provide cultural and learning activities services to Christchurch residents which give access to cultural activities and information throughout the city. Council provides access to information and recreation through its network of libraries and collection of books, music, videos and on-line services. The rationale for Council’s provision of library facilities is unchanged since 2006, having high levels of ratepayers’ support. The Plan is based on planning principles that reflect the rationale for provision, as accepted by Council in August 2007.
Alignment with Council’s Vision, Community Outcomes and Strategic Directions There are clear linkages between service delivery through library facilities and most of the city’s Community Outcomes and Council’s Strategic Directions.
The network of library facilities is important for Council to achieve its vision of making Christchurch a world- class boutique city.
The role of library facilities is aligned with Council’s strategic direction for Strong Communities:
Increase involvement in lifelong learning by: providing resources and information, through libraries and website; providing learning facilities, programmes and activities; and encouraging people of all ages to take advantage of learning opportunities. Promote participation in democratic process by: providing readily available and easily understood information about Council service and structures. Help communities to meet their needs by: targeting those who are most disadvantaged; and providing accessible and welcoming public buildings, spaces and facilities. Encourage residents to enjoy living in the city and to have fun by: providing and supporting sport, recreation and leisure activities.
For a Liveable City:
Maintain and enhance the quality of development, and renewal of the city’s built environment by: championing high quality urban design; improving people’s sense of community identity and their feelings of safety; encouraging better accessibility in public and commercial buildings; improving Christchurch’s heritage buildings and neighbourhood character.
And for a Prosperous Economy:
Work in partnership with business and education sectors to attract and train people with diverse skills that meet businesses’ needs by: encouraging people to take part in lifelong learning to make the workforce more skilled and adaptable; supporting the work of tertiary education providers.
Alignment with Council and central government planning Council has developed a suite of policies, strategies and plans to identify its contribution to fulfilling the Community Outcomes and Strategic Directions (see chart opposite).
Other Council strategies and policies that the Plan reflects are:
Greater Christchurch Urban Development Strategy Strengthening Communities Strategy Recreation and Sport Strategy
11 COUNCIL 11. 12. 2014 ATTACHMENT 2 TO CLAUSE 33 268
Aquatic Facilities Plan Equity and Access for People with Disabilities Policy Ageing Together Policy
Consistency and alignment with concurrent planning projects have been considered throughout the development of this Plan, notably the Community Facilities Implementation Plan, Metropolitan Sports Facilities Plan, Belfast Area Plan and the South West Area Plan.
2014 Update Context and Strategic Alignment
Libraries’ recovery and development planning will complement the Canterbury Earthquake Recovery Authority’s (CERA) Recovery Strategy, recovery plans and programmes. In particular, libraries’ planning will need to take into account the Directions for Education Renewal in Greater Christchurch6, Building and Infrastructure Recovery Plan, Building Community Resilience programme, Arts, Culture, and Heritage Collections Programme and CERA’s Central City Development Unit which draws on the vision of the Christchurch Central Recovery Plan. Also, several Suburban Master Plans and local neighbourhood recovery plans have been developed and implemented by the Council and this will guide libraries’ planning in respective local community areas.
In particular the Education Renewal Programme proposes the sharing of specialised school facilities, such as libraries with other community-based providers. It is also identified government priority going to investment in facilities that can be shared by two or more tertiary organisations, educational users and the community. This may impact on the way libraries are delivered in the future.
The CERA Recovery Strategy includes several goals which libraries can contribute to:
2.1 planning for a well-functioning Christchurch central city, thriving suburban centres, flourishing rural towns and a productive rural sector; (Economic 3.2 growing capacity, knowledge and skills within the community to build resilience (social recovery) 4.1 acknowledging and celebrating the rich and diverse Ngäi Tahu, colonial and other heritages and connections; 4.2 resuming cultural, community and sports events and activities; 4.3 encouraging participation in a range of entertainment, cultural, recreational and sporting activities (all cultural recovery).
Working in a changing environment The Plan has a planning horizon of 2025. However, regular reviews timed for the LTCCP planning process will be required to accommodate any changes in the condition of assets, leisure preferences and the needs within the city and surrounding areas.
Regular reviews of the Plan will be undertaken each six years. These will examine the actual growth and revised projections to ensure the location and timing of new facilities accommodate any changes in forecasted growth patterns. Reviews will inform the development of business cases for individual projects and their prioritisation, as part of relevant LTCCPs. The Plan will also continue to be informed and updated by the UDS’s development and in particular by its triennial reviews.
2014 Update Facilities Rebuild Plan
The impact of the earthquakes on several of the library’s network’s facilities, along with changes to some residential areas where land and homes have been red-zoned have necessitated an earlier review of the 2025 Plan.
A Council-wide Facilities Rebuild Plan was developed in July 2012. The plan provides a framework to assess, options, prioritise and schedule repairs and rebuilds of all of Council’s 1,600 facilities The principles, tactics and criteria for provision detailed in the original 2008 Libraries 2025 Facilities Plan continue to provide a sound framework on which to review the library network post-earthquakes.
6 http://shapingeducation.govt.nz/wp-content/uploads/2012/09/RenewalPlanAug2012.pdf 12 COUNCIL 11. 12. 2014 ATTACHMENT 2 TO CLAUSE 33 269
Decisions from the Council-wide review of facilities will feed into the 2013-2016 Three Year Plan and subsequent long term plans.
Fit with city growth The Plan has been informed by UDS research and planning. It takes into account current and projected growth to the north, west and southwest of the city. It integrates forecasted site redevelopments in the city. The Plan also integrates the concept of urban villages and activity centres in the selection of areas and potential locations of new library facilities.
In addition to areas already identified for facility development, reviews of the Plan may need to consider the following: Monitoring impact of and changes to projected household growth in areas undergoing future significant growth through intensification or greenfield development (e.g. Wigram). Identifying changed need for a local library facility, as a result of, for example, increased socio-economic need. Investigating opportunities to improve central city library provision that may arise from the development of a new inner city transport exchange or in recognition of the increased emphasis on the Central library role as a community library for inner city residents. Revised pattern for urban development and allowed residential densities, as identified in chapter 12A of the 1998 Canterbury Regional Policy Statement, inserted on 18 October 2011. Land Use Recovery Plan (LURP)7 by Environment Canterbury in collaboration with strategic partners which was endorsed by Council in December 2013. Suburban Masterplans as they are developed and completed.
7 http://cera.govt.nz/recovery-strategy/built-environment/land-use-recovery-plan 13 COUNCIL 11. 12. 2014 ATTACHMENT 2 TO CLAUSE 33 270
Table 1: Forecast population in key areas, 2006-2026
Growth Area Forecast growth in households between 2006 and 2026
Halswell (within 2km radius of current library) Belfast (within 2km radius of SupaCentre, not necessarily site of a library) Central City (Four Avenues) UDS area Christchurch City area
Table 1.2: Forecast population in key areas 2006-2041 Growth Area Forecast growth in household between 2006 to 2041 2 2006 and 2041
Total 2006 Total 2013 Total 2028 Total 2041 Numeric % Growth increase Belfast (within 2km radius of Supa Centre) 3,900 4,600 7,200 8,500 4,600 117%
Four Avenues 3,800 3,100 5,400 10,400 6,600 174%
Halswell 4,100 4,600 8,700 11,900 7,800 192% (within 2km radius of current library) Hornby 6,100 6,900 9,700 10,600 4,500 74% (within 2km radius of current library) Christchurch 144,100 144,700 168,400 190,200 46,100 32%
UDS 164,100 169,500 204,700 236,300 72,200 44% Source :Market Economics, Christchurch Household Growth Model, March 2014
2014 Population and demographics
Post earthquake revised population and demographic projections will inform recovery and development planning for libraries.
Initial estimates indicate a decrease of 2.4% (8,900 people) from Christchurch in the 12 months up to June 2011. This is a fairly typical response in cities struck by natural disaster.
Greater Christchurch Urban Development Strategy (UDS) Area Unit Population Change between 2006 and 2013 Statistics New Zealand released usually resident population counts for census area units13. Generally the areas with the greatest losses of population are those associated with the residential red zone along the Avon River in Christchurch with the greatest loss of population in Avondale, Burwood, Dallington, Bexley and Avonside. Other areas of Christchurch also experienced loss including Mt Pleasant, Opawa, the central city and Merivale. Highest areas of growth were in Belfast, Aidenfield, Travis Wetland and Wigram reflecting development of Greenfield areas.
Growth in Selwyn and Waimakariri towns in the Greater Christchurch area has been rapid with Rolleston growing by almost 7000 additional people, three times greater than in the 2001 to 2006 period. It was followed by Rangiora (4000), Lincoln (1700) and Pegasus/Woodend (1500). Lifestyle areas such as West Melton and Mandeville each grew by 2500 additional people.
8 Source: Christchurch City Council LTCCP Growth model, 7 March 2008 (2006 base) 9 Source: Christchurch City Council LTCCP Growth model, 7 March 2008 (2006 base) 10 Source: Christchurch City Council LTCCP Growth model, 7 March 2008 (2006 base) 11 Source: Greater Christchurch Urban Development Strategy, 2007 (Preferred option, 2001 base) 12 Source: Christchurch City Council LTCCP Growth model, 7 March 2008 (2006 base) 13 A map showing the boundaries of the census area units and street information is available on the councils website at: http://resources.ccc.govt.nz/files/CityLeisure/statsfacts/statistics/2013AreaUnitMapA3.pdf 14 COUNCIL 11. 12. 2014 ATTACHMENT 2 TO CLAUSE 33 271
This compares with population growth of around 6000 in the South West of Christchurch and around 5500 in the North West of Christchurch. There are currently 11,000 sections zoned for residential development with an additional 11, 000 sections that will be available in the future. Appendix 1 map shows these areas.
Land Use Recovery Plan– December 2013
Projected growth and maps included in the LURP reflect that growth patterns and priority Greenfield developments are on plan.
Halswell, Belfast, New Brighton and Shirley suburbs are indentified a key activity centres for business and community which aligns with the planning for new and retention of libraries in these areas.
Conclusion The decrease in population in the Avon River red zone areas are offset by the developments in adjacent areas of Waimiari Beach, Preston’s and Highfield and Mairehau, suburbs that are serviced by New Brighton, Shirley and Parklands libraries. The areas of growth in Belfast, Wigram and Halswell are supported by the development options identified in this Plan. Growth in the neighbouring districts, although rapid, is in keeping with planned activity in the original UDS and the more recent LURP.
Note Further census information will be provided as it comes available. The next release of census information will available in late 2013, with ward information available by the end of March 2014. A special “Quick Stats about Greater Christchurch” will be released in mid February 2014 which will provide information about how the population and housing have changed since the Canterbury earthquakes.
15 COUNCIL 11. 12. 2014 ATTACHMENT 2 TO CLAUSE 33 272
Location Choosing the right location is essential for the success of major community facilities. Library facilities need to be ‘where the people go’. Many users, particularly casual leisure users, are attracted to libraries in a similar way to retail and entertainment activities. Therefore, library facilities are best located either close to a major destination within the city, such as a mall and/or a major transport junction, or at sites sufficiently attractive to draw visitors to them as standalone ‘destination locations’. Suitable sites could be part of or close to a planned future retail and/or transport junction. School and tertiary libraries may also be considered as possible partners in future planning of libraries and services.
Though land costs are not included in the Plan, it must be emphasised that if identified Council-owned or potential partner-owned sites are deemed unsuitable or needed for other purposes, then Council may need to purchase private land. Given the recognised need to purchase in the immediate area of a major destination (with high market value), the capital costs could be substantial.
Criteria for assessing potential sites and location options were developed.
Land banking and land costs The Plan has a long timeframe and proposed staged development of library facilities. Future land requirements will be considered as part of Council’s strategic land purchases.
A framework for decision-making The Plan is a long-term framework to guide and inform Council’s decision-making over time. Council will make decisions on specific actions listed in the Plan based on detailed business cases developed at the time, not automatically as a result of adopting this Plan.
Capital funding Any major development of existing or new library facilities will require capital funding. It is anticipated that significant Development Contributions will be used to fund projects driven by growth demand i.e. Belfast, Halswell and Central. These three areas are clearly signalled in the UDS as areas for considerable population growth.
Possible use of existing Council-owned or partner-owned sites may also reduce capital expenditure (e.g. Aranui) along with possible conversion to capital from the sale of no longer required library sites (e.g. if Bishopdale Library is relocated to another site in the local area).
16 COUNCIL 11. 12. 2014 ATTACHMENT 2 TO CLAUSE 33 273
4. Council’s principles for library provision
The following principles and key statements underpinned the development of the Libraries 2025 Facilities Plan. Council’s acceptance of the principles (August 2007) ensures subsequent decision making will reflect common understanding and shared values.
These were developed in consultation with the Strong Communities Portfolio Group and feedback from a Council seminar. The agreed principles confirm Council’s commitment in the 2006-2016 LTCCP to provide cultural and learning activities through its network of library facilities. The principles and key statements are not in order of importance and must be read as a whole.
Library facilities/services are consistent with Council’s strategic directions and strategies Strong Communities, Healthy Environment, Liveable City and Prosperous Economy. Other strategies include: Greater Christchurch Urban Development Strategy, Strengthening Communities Strategy, aquatic Facilities Plan, Equity and Access for People with Disabilities Policy and Ageing Together Policy. The Plan will fulfil the vision of inclusive education and lifelong learning opportunities in formal and informal settings through life-supporting social inclusion, access to digital opportunities; achieved in collaboration with other providers. (Library’s 2003 Lifelong Learning Strategy).
Libraries’ planning is responsive to current and future community needs including partnership opportunities Libraries will be adaptable to support changing demographic trends, lifestyle needs and expectations and attract new customers. Priority will be given to opportunities for collocation or adjacency with other community and Council facilities, e.g. retail, schools, leisure facilities.
Libraries are important community hubs and help strengthen communities The Plan will recognise the need to provide relevant services and community space. Libraries will foster local communities’ wellbeing by providing accessible meeting places and focal points for the community, learning and leisure activities. Library facilities will be safe buildings that can be utilised as local hubs and in particular enable access to information and Council and related services during emergencies. 14 Library facilities will embrace the cultural diversity of local communities. The Plan will reflect Council’s commitment to the Treaty of Waitangi by reflecting an understanding of and respect for the needs of the Tangata Whenua. Architecturally designed buildings will generate community pride and reflect the diversity of local cultures and lifestyles.
Library facilities and services increase leisure and learning opportunities and community participation Libraries will contribute to people’s economic and social well being by providing opportunities for lifelong learning. Facilities will combine space for traditional roles of recreational reading and provision of information, along with access to multi-media resources, emerging technology and learning and leisure.
Libraries form a citywide network The Plan will enhance ready access to library services across the city. Council planning priorities will be reflected and support the development of metropolitan, suburban and neighbourhood activity centres.
Libraries will adhere to sustainable, long-lasting design and ensure good return on investment The Plan’s recommendations will align efficiency measures, industry best practice and cost effectiveness of new and existing buildings. The Plan will ensure principles of sustainability and universal design are included in planning new facilities and redesigning existing ones. Library buildings will foster a sense of civic pride. New library buildings will be constructed to meet the new building standards; and existing buildings that do not the new building standard will be either repaired to code or replaced. 15
The Council is committed to maintaining and enhancing the city’s investment in the network of libraries
14 New item added as a result of the review 15 Ibid 17 COUNCIL 11. 12. 2014 ATTACHMENT 2 TO CLAUSE 33 274
The Plan will prioritise maintenance and development of library facilities to meet the criteria of equity of access and effectiveness of location. Seeking opportunities for co-location and partnership will be a priority in planning new or relocated facilities as a means of maximising cost-benefits. All planning will maximise the potential capacity of existing facilities and will take in to consideration life cycle cost of new and existing buildings.
18 COUNCIL 11. 12. 2014 ATTACHMENT 2 TO CLAUSE 33 275
5. Criteria for prioritising proposed library facility developments
The Working Party developed the following criteria (in no particular order) for prioritising proposed library facility development. It should be noted that if an outstanding opportunity for partnership arises and, once tested against the criteria, it is believed to be of significant benefit to the Council, the weighting of the criteria could change (specifically with reference to criterion #4).
1. The degree to which proposed developments can complement future growth and changing demographics as outlined in the Greater Christchurch Urban Development Strategy (GCUDS). 2. The degree to which proposed developments use/impact/complement existing library facilities and the network as a whole. 3. The degree to which identified gaps in provision can only be met through additional facility provision. 4. The degree to which land, capital and/or operational costs can be met or shared by others16; and the ownership of the asset and control (and care) of its condition will be held by Council. 5. The degree to which the locations of proposed developments have good connectivity with identified activity centres and/or major destinations17; and public transport, walking and cycling routes. 6. The degree to which proposed developments display design innovation, best industry practice and:
Will be economically sustainable. Are built to a high safety standard. 18 Can co-locate with other community facilities. Have capability to accommodate changing demands (library and social trends). Have capability to accommodate foreseeable technology trends. Are located on a site with capacity for further expansion.
7. The degree to which the proposed developments support the principles and key statements agreed to by Council for the Libraries 2025 Facilities Plan.
2014 Update Criteria (as above)
Post-earthquake, these criteria will continue to underpin library facility development. However, it is noted that the population trends and pattern of settlement outlined in the GCUDS may now have altered, affecting the sequencing of library facilities’ planning.
16 This could be through partnering with neighbouring territorial authorities, Ministry of Education, iwi, other providers and/or other Council facilities (indoor sport and recreation centres, aquatic facilities, Council service centres and community centres)
17 Major destinations such as malls and transport interchanges 18 New Criteria added as a result of the review 19 COUNCIL 11. 12. 2014 ATTACHMENT 2 TO CLAUSE 33 276
6. Trends in library and information provision
The Da Vinci Institute, an influential American non-profit futurist think tank, points to key trends that will affect public libraries in the next generation: Communication systems are continually changing the way people access information. Search technologies are becoming increasingly complicated. Time compression is changing the lifestyle of library users. Over time, we will transition to a verbal society. Demand for global information is growing exponentially. We are transitioning from a product-based economy to an experience based economy. Libraries will transition from a centre of information to a centre of culture19.
Not surprisingly the growing use of technology is a major trend. The New Zealand government’s Digital Strategy envisages a digital future for all New Zealanders, using the power of Information and Communications Technology (ICT) to enhance all aspects of our lives; provide seamless, easy access to information for work, leisure and cultural identity. Its goals are to:
Enable communities to use technology to realise their social, cultural and economic aspirations. Enhance the contribution ICT makes to New Zealand’s overall business productivity. Provide all New Zealanders with the digital skills and confidence to find and use the information they need. Public libraries, as primary providers of information in Christchurch, must embrace key goals of the Strategy in future planning.
The technology is the enabler; the content provides the value. The importance of content is a major trend for the future: the demand for content in a variety of formats; digitisation of local material; community repositories of local histories and stories; and the need for relevant content to cater for increasingly diverse populations. Libraries are key to generating, storing, protecting and making available a huge range of information content.
Libraries have a vital role in bridging the “digital divide” well into the foreseeable future: they will provide computers for those unable to afford their own and support people in the development of their digital literacy.
Despite today and tomorrow’s young people growing up ‘digital natives’, there will be a continued need for public libraries to provide access to and assistance in the use of contemporary digital information and new technologies. The paradox of the digital age is that the increasing availability of information on the World Wide Web and other technologies is not directly related to the ability of people to access the information. Libraries and librarians do, and will increasingly, play a vital role in enhancing people’s access to web-based information. Information is easily buried in the depths of ‘the web’ and there is a need for libraries and librarians to provide the essential link.
“The challenge for public libraries is to integrate their physical collections of books, magazines, CDs, DVDs and other media with electronic collections and content available on the internet. Sometimes referred to as the hybrid library, this will be the model for the next 10 years and beyond.”
(Local Government New Zealand, LIANZA, National Library of New Zealand (2006) Public Libraries of New Zealand: a strategic framework 2006 to 2016. Wellington: Local Government New Zealand, LIANZA, National Library of New Zealand).
19 Ibid, quoted 20 COUNCIL 11. 12. 2014 ATTACHMENT 2 TO CLAUSE 33 277
2014 Update Trends
As predicted, the growth in online and digital information and technologies continues at a rapid rate. The continued fast nature of the change impacts on libraries planning with a greater degree of flexibility in design and delivery being required. Libraries have a key role in providing access, timely delivery and guided access to the vast range of information, proving agile and adept at harnessing new digital technologies.
Popularity of e-books is growing exponentially, with the supporting technology being affordable and easy-to- use and an expanding range of titles readily sourced online. Despite this, print books and traditional media continue to hold appeal.
Library usage patterns display how customers are adept at ‘mixing it up’ by enjoying a rich array of technologies and formats for their leisure reading and information seeking. E-books for leisure on-the-go, hard copy for non-fiction and browsing, paperbacks for quick reads, podcasts and online newspapers for current events, federated search engines for breadth of information, tweeting and blogging for tips and best reads, digital storytelling for sharing life experiences, live-online chat for homework and research assistance, CDs for music and stories and Flickr for images are just a few examples.
In its January 2012 briefing to the incoming Minister responsible for the Department of Internal Affairs (including National Library), the Library and Information Association of New Zealand (LIANZA) described the challenge of constant and rapid change we live in: “The main difference in today’s world, and in the world of the future, is the speed of that change and the fact that we live in a globally connected world which enables new developments to rise – and fall – before we have understood the last new thing that happened.”
“We live in the “Network Society” [which] describes several different phenomena related to the social, political, economic and cultural changes caused by the spread of networked, digital information and communications technologies. It moves beyond the concept of information society, where the manipulation of and access to information is the primary activity, to one where the creation and exchange of content, personalised to an individual’s needs, in an “always on” communication channel, increasingly via mobile technology, is the norm.”20
The just-revised ‘Strategic framework for public libraries’ notes the impact of eBooks on reading habits: “Clearly, eBook publishing is burgeoning. As we move more and more into a world where the predominant mode to read books is in a digital device, libraries are purchasing access to eBooks, just as they do for audio books and databases. For libraries, the eBook is just another format for presenting the written work and one which has some advantages to customers: for vision-impaired customers, the ability to increase text size provides even better readability than a printed large print book. Housebound customers can get the books of their choice delivered straight to their devices. EBooks are beginning to integrate images and other formats to provide a much richer experience for the reader.”21
Added to the vast range of technology and information available through libraries, is the growth in mobile technology which people bring to the library. The knowledgeable staff are able to help people use their devices to access the information. Library buildings are being designed with pervasive technology, power and wifi which increases access and to keep up with the rapid change in the variety of ways people use technology and libraries together.
20 Library and Information Association of New Zealand (LIANZA) (2012). Briefing for the Minister responsible for the National Library of New Zealand. Available at: http://www.lianza.org.nz/sites/lianza.org.nz/files/briefing_for_the_minister_responsible_for_the_national_library_of_new_zealand_jan_201 2_1.pdf. Retrieved from the world wide web 24 April 2012.
21 Local Government New Zealand et al (2012). [Draft] Public libraries of New Zealand: a strategic framework. Local Government of New Zealand, Association of Public Library Managers, National Library of New Zealand. Wellington, New Zealand. Draft version May 2012. 21 COUNCIL 11. 12. 2014 ATTACHMENT 2 TO CLAUSE 33 278
Table 2: Summary of trends in library facilities and services: updated December 201322
CONTINUED IMPORTANCE OF PARTNERSHIPS THE PHYSICAL SPACE The library as a cultural space; a meeting Developing the concept of partnership, wider place; a social centre for the community; as a reach and innovation with businesses and “social, recreational and learning space”; as networking civic and democratic spaces Community partnerships, co-locations The importance of the physical building changing to provide a timely and time limited endures and includes the need to be safe service structures Greater connections with Tangata Whenua Flexibility for the long term to allow for Non-building related partnerships multiple uses of the life of the building Hubbing - mutual interest groups Sustainable eco friendly design National partnerships Flexible use of space to allow for meeting, International partnerships study and businesses. Quiet as well as active Consortia space CUSTOMERS CHANGING DEMOGRAPHICS Reaching the ‘digitally underdeveloped’ and More attention being paid to the population narrowing the “digital divide”. An age-related mix, bicultural ethnicity and age of particular and socio-economic related issue communities A place for lifelong learning – formal and Serving migrant communities by own informal with mediated assistance language and English as a Second Language Inspiring and supporting people in the pursuit materials of knowledge Quicker change of demographic; aging Assisted technologies for people with population disabilities Using tools and agencies to identify emerging Libraries leading learning and service patterns and changes provision through innovation Increased need for branding and service expertise COLLECTIONS AND RESOURCES TECHNOLOGY Continued importance of reading. Communication hub Agility in responding to changing formats. Provide support to access all aspects of E.g. EBook. Quick adoption and digital information and computer use. experimentation Increased complexity of the networked Importance of digitized material especially of environment local materials Social networking as a library communication Need for collections to cater for increasing tool with its customers and increase in variety diversity of population of media use User-generated and involvement in content. Demand for wireless and mobile services Importance of historical and archived Library created ‘apps’ collections, preservation and storage Bring your own technology – provide support Collection proportions will continue to change and space. Balancing need for free Wi-Fi connections with other PC provision Open source non proprietary material Cloud computing and remote server hosting, distributed models of delivery
22 See Appendix 1 for Original 2008 Trends table. Changes in information dissemination and technologies are dynamic and in the five years since the first trends description was completed there have been many changes, which the Libraries network has stayed abreast off and continues to lead in. Local Government New Zealand, LIANZA, National Library of New Zealand (2006) Public Libraries of New Zealand: a strategic framework 2012 to 2017. Wellington: Local Government New Zealand, LIANZA, National Library of New Zealand. 22 COUNCIL 11. 12. 2014 ATTACHMENT 2 TO CLAUSE 33 279
MANAGEMENT STAFF Benchmarking with other public library Need for a wide range qualified and systems experienced staff Measuring and articulating how libraries add Quicker staff development and training to value – social and economic well being and better assist users and increase efficiency outcomes and skills Innovation ideas and risk taking Diversity of professions of staff, agility Obtaining external and alternative funding Technologically astute and comfortable with a sources, lobbying range of technology Collaboration with national projects
23 COUNCIL 11. 12. 2014 ATTACHMENT 2 TO CLAUSE 33 280
Vision for the future
“Public libraries of the future, building on the foundations laid down over many years of service, are the repositories of recorded knowledge and information about our cultural heritage. They encourage the joy of reading for pleasure, recreation, discovery and lifelong learning and develop and supply services and content that meet the needs of information users in the digital age.
As a significant conduit through which information from government and democratic organisations flows to the people of New Zealand, they play a major role in the development of socially cohesive, informed and inclusive communities, in which a sense of partnership between libraries and cultural partners flourishes.
In providing free access to information to all members of their communities, they strengthen the public good, are trusted and well regarded as an essential component of the economic and social infrastructure and provide for the creative replenishment of the human spirit.”23
2014 Update – Vision for the future
As centres for culture, knowledge and learning in the 21st century, libraries are increasingly vibrant, dynamic and people-centred. They are places for meeting, programming, collaboration and civic engagement. Increasingly co-located with other cultural or community services, library spaces need to be flexible and re- configurable to readily accommodate the evolving needs of library users, within an environment of rapid technological and social change. The use of library space is also undergoing a significant shift from predominantly housing printed collections in the traditional model to multifunctional places where people engage with information and ideas through a wide variety of activities.
It is important to monitor and identify emerging social and demographic trends continually, as in our modern world many systems are interrelated and connected. To remain relevant in our ever-changing community, public libraries must have a holistic view and take full advantage of the many opportunities available.24
23 Local Government New Zealand, LIANZA, National Library of New Zealand (2006) Public Libraries of New Zealand: a strategic framework 2006 to 2016. Wellington: Local Government New Zealand, LIANZA, National Library of New Zealand.
24 People Places: A guide for public library buildings in New South Wales, 3rd edition, 2012. Sydney: State Library New South Wales 24 COUNCIL 11. 12. 2014 ATTACHMENT 2 TO CLAUSE 33 281
7. The Plan for library provision
The Plan for library provision is a framework to guide and inform Council's decision making. It reflects Council's agreed principles for provision of library facilities. The Plan's recommendations indicate:
Key attributes of provision. Implementation actions.
Key attributes of the provision plan:
Provision of library facilities that are community focal points and reflect and respond to local needs over time. Accessibility to a mix of library services and facilities across the library network, including non-building provision. Maximum efficiency and effectiveness of facilities across the network. Optimised partnership opportunities with other agencies and/or services.
25 COUNCIL 11. 12. 2014 ATTACHMENT 2 TO CLAUSE 33 282
8. Key attributes of provision
8.1 Provision of library facilities that are community focal points and reflect local needs over time One of Council’s seven principles of the Plan confirms that “libraries are important community hubs and help strengthen communities” and that they will “foster communities’ well being by providing accessible meeting places and focal points for the community, learning and leisure activities”.
The contribution made by Christchurch’s public libraries as vital community focal points has been shown with the success of such facilities as South Library and Learning Centre, New Brighton Library, Parklands Library and Learning Centre and the strength of community endorsement for the retention of neighbourhood libraries such as Spreydon and Redwood. The Plan reflects continued confidence in the role of library facilities as community focal points.
The Plan identifies a critical gap in provision in the Aranui area, where there is high socioeconomic deprivation. As the Ministry of Social Development’s 2007 Social Report noted: “We live in a society where access to information and proficiency with technology are becoming more important. Knowledge and skills relate directly to employment decisions and to career choices […and are] important for gaining access to services and for understanding and exercising civil and political rights.”25
There is a lack of community library and learning facilities in the immediate Aranui vicinity. (It is recognised that the benchmark radius catchment used elsewhere in the city does not match residents’ limited travel options in this area.) A long-held community aspiration to secure a library and/or learning centre to stimulate lifelong learning and leisure activities in the area was reflected in the strong local support for a learning centre to be included in the 2006-2016 LTCCP.
Based on predictions forecast in the UDS, the Plan recognises two key areas of future population growth that will demand either new or enlarged library facilities to enhance and support development of activity centres in local communities.
The UDS’s proposed settlement pattern for the greater Christchurch area identifies a new residential area focused around Belfast, forming the northern gateway to the city and a community services’ focal point as a key feature in the north.26
Similarly, the settlement pattern indicates significant population growth in the Hornby/Halswell areas, with a forecasted additional 10,000 households in southwest Christchurch.27 An increase to the existing service, due to growth, will be required to meet community needs where the current small library facility is already high performing. The Halswell area is anticipated to see more intense growth than Hornby and therefore be in greater need of expanded library facilities.
The projected growth of the Central City of 3,472 households in the period up to 2026 will impact on the current Central Library building’s ability to provide a wide range of customer services to the community. The Plan’s principles recognise that over time library facilities will need to adapt to changing community or lifestyle needs and incorporate emerging information technologies in order to retain existing and attract new customers. This could include changing the use of spaces within libraries or building extensions.
Tactics Build a new local neighbourhood library in Aranui to meet high community needs Build a new library facility at Belfast of an appropriate size to cater for future growth in the area and develop in alignment with the Belfast Area Plan. Consider revised timeframes for Belfast library in alignment with growth in the area post earthquakes. Replace Halswell Library in line with household growth and the development being addressed in the South West Area Plan Continue to maintain and refurbish all community libraries and the Central Library as part of regular asset maintenance programmes and cycles. This includes those identified for possible future development and those expected to continue to fulfil current need i.e. New Brighton, Parklands, South, Spreydon and Upper Riccarton. Retain current Hornby Library but investigate opportunities in line with the UDS/South West Area Plan developments. Monitor effect of residential intensification on the Central library’s role as a community library for the inner city residents
25 Ministry of Social Development (2007) The social report 2007. Wellington. Ministry of Social Development 26 Greater Christchurch Urban Development Strategy Forum (2007) Greater Christchurch Urban Development Strategy and Action Plan 2007. Christchurch: Greater Christchurch Urban Development Strategy Forum, p. 40 27 Ibid, p14 26 COUNCIL 11. 12. 2014 ATTACHMENT 2 TO CLAUSE 33 283
8.2. Accessibility to the mix of library services and facilities across the network, including non- building provision The Council’s network of libraries is structured to ensure a diverse range of library services is delivered across the city. The framework for provision across this network defines the level of service and size of buildings. This includes non-building provision through outreach and mobile library services. The network framework includes consideration of geographical spread across the city, radii of customer catchments, differentiated service levels and building size. The tiered levels of facility provision ensure access by walking or short distance public/private travel within most communities to base level services (neighbourhood libraries), with a wider range of services available (suburban libraries) and metropolitan (Central Library) via short or medium distance public/private travel. Mobile and outreach alternatives provide customised services to meet the needs of discrete population groups.
Tactics Continue Mobile Library Service as a means of filling network gaps where facility provision is not sustainable. Review service provision to Banks Peninsula libraries (Akaroa, Diamond Harbour, Little River and Lyttelton) within the framework of current levels of service for the library network. Scope future and current needs and acknowledging rural community needs Investigate self-help service delivery options, e.g. library kiosks. Align Fendalton Library’s asset with similar sized suburban libraries in the network and investigate development of seven day opening. Consider inclusion of a café following, cafes in libraries feasibility project. Maintain 7 day opening at Papanui as a permanent service. Ensure the facility supports this. Monitor usage of the library and plan space requirements accordingly.28
28 New tactic added as a result of review. See update page 29 27 COUNCIL 11. 12. 2014 ATTACHMENT 2 TO CLAUSE 33 284
8.3. Maximum efficiency and effectiveness of citywide network of facilities Future developments will continue to focus on ensuring best use and enhancement of the city’s current network of libraries. And, over time, current and future gaps in the geographic distribution of facilities will be filled by prioritised developments.29 There may be opportunities to better optimise the value of some Council- owned library facilities by exploring alternative or shared use. As an adjunct, planning for adequate, secure storage of archival, print and non-print resources (e.g. back-up of digitised records, microfilm/fiche) – on and off-site – needs to be considered.
Facilities will be designed and constructed to be safe, durable in appeal and physical attributes, and meet Council requirements of quality, functional construction, environmentally friendly design, operational and energy efficiency and low maintenance.
This includes such design aspects as additional ducting capacity to enable additional features without major retrofitting and taking into account how advances in information technology will impact on services.
The current asset condition of Council-owned library buildings varies considerably. Key issues include:
The asset condition of the buildings housing the 10 voluntary libraries is variable. New Brighton and Sumner Libraries coastal locations require costly maintenance. The condition of the Bishopdale Library building will require major work within five to 10 years. The current necessity to house some of the Central Library’s functions off-site reduces efficiency. Current archival storage facilities in Central Library fall short of international standards.
Also, the Central Library’s effectiveness as a metropolitan library and role as an inner city anchor in the cultural precinct is compromised by its small size, lack of public spaces and inadequate housing of specialist collections - many of which have significant heritage value.
Tactics Explore development options for a new metropolitan Central Library complex in time to inform the 2012-2022 LTCCP process. Identify partnership opportunities and explore linkages with significant civic developments. A new Central Library is one of the key projects in the government’s Christchurch Central City Recovery Plan. The Central Library will be located in the heart of the rebuilt centre, adjacent to the new Convention Centre and the Square. “It will be an integral part of central Christchurch and a gateway to the work via its library collections and digital access. The Recovery Plan endorses the huge role that libraries have in strengthening communities” 30
Our vision is for a vibrant place that reflects the cultural diversity of our city and where everyone, regardless of age or background, feels welcome. As the flagship of our Christchurch libraries, the New Central Library will be an exciting destination providing ready access to a wealth of material including specialist heritage and research collections. The new library aims to feature meeting, performance, exhibition and learning spaces. It will also showcase the latest in interactive technology and multi media innovation. This is a major shift away from the traditional libraries of the past. We’re looking for an inspiring design that fosters lifelong learning, creativity and community involvement. It must also be flexible enough to meet the future needs of Christchurch socially and economically.”31
Retain the library service in Bishopdale and, working with other Council units, review its location in the retail precinct. Continue on-going evaluation of the efficiency and effectiveness of Mobile Library services as a customised delivery option for remote or distinct communities where facility provision is not sustainable. Evaluate the future role of Redwood Library following the opening of a new library facility at Belfast. Retire Redwood Library upon the opening of a new library facility in Belfast. Updated September 2014 Review Council’s contribution to the maintenance of all voluntary library facilities in conjunction with the review of council owned community facilities. Assessment to include current and anticipated customer usage, variable access, volunteer support and efficiency of building use. Assess the need and priority for an alternative, larger building for Sumner, either as a standalone or shared facility.
29 Renewal and refurbishment based on the asset management plan is included in the 2006-16 LTCCP. 30 CERA (2012). Christchurch Central Recovery Plan. CERA, Wellington, 2012. Available at: http://ccdu.govt.nz/ Retrieved 23 March 2013.
31 CCC media release 28 COUNCIL 11. 12. 2014 ATTACHMENT 2 TO CLAUSE 33 285
8.4 Optimised partnership opportunities with other agencies and/or services All future library developments will give priority to improving the use of Council land assets, while still delivering the required facilities. Options will need to be assessed as part of the business case for each development, with particular reference to long-term benefit and ability to meet proven community need. While being responsive to any opportunity, Council should not be tempted to enter into a partnership merely because the possibility of one exists. Any option would be weighed against all the agreed criteria for assessment suitability of sites on a case-by-case basis.
Christchurch City Libraries is committed to ongoing dialogue with other public libraries, schools and tertiary education providers at local and regional level. Potential opportunities for resource sharing and partnerships are, and will continue to be, open for discussion.
Partnership options currently include: Co-location with Council service centres, leisure or community facilities. Partnership with schools, such as land provided by the school to create a joint use facility, as has been successfully implemented at Upper Riccarton. Malls as partners, possibly as operators or financiers. Provision partnerships with neighbouring territorial authorities such as Selwyn and Waimakiriri district councils. External partners provide the facilities (e.g. tertiary education institutions, rest home complexes) with Council and/or shared delivery of services.
Tactics Pursue partnership opportunities for developing a new neighbourhood library in Aranui. Possible partners include other Council services and/or external partners such as the Ministry of Education. Participate in on-going Council/ECan planning with mall owners in Shirley, with a view to possible relocation and upgrade of this library as a suburban library. Explore possible future partnership/collocation of Hornby Library with external partners or Council services, in line with the UDS/South West Area Plan or other Council developments. Develop a plan for the voluntary libraries within the 2025 framework that will maximise the community use of these facilities. This will include Investigating partnership opportunities with external agencies and other Council units. Other Council or community uses could be considered. Respond to favourable opportunities in Linwood and Papanui, with external partners or with other Council community facilities that could offer library enhancement. Consider partnership with a commercial operator for any café development at Fendalton Library if found to be a viable and favourable option. Explore partnership possibilities with educational or community agencies to develop Diamond Harbour Library.
2014 Update Summary of Actions and Achievements
Desktop review of the 2025 plan has confirmed the continuing relevance of the plan and progress has been made on many of the tactics and actions.
Key project achievements New Aranui library completed and opened in September 2012. Two new ‘Library To Go’ mobile vans purchased and launched December 2012. Regular asset renewal and replacement work has been achieved in keeping with library asset management plans. Papanui, Shirley, Hornby, Fendalton have been refurbished. Voluntary library review completed and presented to the Community recreation and Culture Committee in September 2013 and was accepted by the Council in October 2013.
In progress Sumner library planning for new facility as a result of earthquake damage has started. A 21st century Central City library is still needed in the city and is now an anchor project in the rebuilding of the CBD and the whole city post earthquake. The planning is underway in accordance with the Christchurch Central Development Plan. New Halswell library construction got underway in August 2014. Due for opening October 2015. New Archive Storage facility planning is underway and will be included in the 2015-2025 LTP
29 COUNCIL 11. 12. 2014 ATTACHMENT 2 TO CLAUSE 33 286
Earthquake response Four temporary Central library services were delivered between July 2011 and January 2014. Peterborough Library will remain open until the opening of the new Central Library. Tuam Street Library closed October 2013 for to make way for the Justice and Emergency Precinct. A Manchester Street Central Library opened in January 2014. A temporary Linwood Library opened in April 2011 until March 2013. A larger temporary library opened in April 2013 in the Eastgate Mall. Two new ‘Library to Go’ mobile vans have enabled a refreshed timetable to respond to gaps in service as a consequence of closed or demolished libraries. Planning for the new South West Library (previously referred to as Hornby library) to accommodate a Service Centre and community facility as a response. A small transitional library in Bishopdale Mall opened in October 2013 awaiting repair/rebuild planning outcomes on the earthquake damaged Bishopdale library.
What has changed? The impact of the earthquakes has necessitated a planning framework be developed to ensure planning for the replacement of Council facilities is combined and there is financial best value and provision of community facilities. The Facilities Rebuild Plan provides valuable information in support of long term planning, resource allocation and key actions identified in the refresh of this document. Replacement of the Hornby library with a larger facility is now incorporated into the South West Library and Community Centre project, approved in 2012, that will also feature a meeting room for the Community Board and Service Centre. Demolition of some facilities has changed the timing and partnership opportunities of some projects.
Confirmed actions
Growth The predicted growth in the South West and North of the city continues although the timing has changed and plans for new libraries in Halswell and Belfast remain valid.
Asset The need for a new modern community facility in Hornby remains. As a consequence of the earthquakes and needs in the community Linwood library replacement business case is included in 2012-2022 LTP. A storage facility for collection and archives is still required. As a consequence of the earthquakes a new Sumner library facility has been approved.
Service The need for a service in the North West remains. A business case to increase the hours at Papanui library has been included in the 2012-2022 LTP. Public demand for a replacement library and community facility in Bishopdale is included in the Facilities Rebuild Programme.
2014 Update - Voluntary Library Review In September 2013 the review was presented to the Community, Recreation and Cultural committee for comment and will be received by Council in September 2014. With the demolition of three Voluntary Library buildings the principles of the Libraries 2025 Facilities Plan have informed the future planning of the provision of these facilities.
The future position of Voluntary Libraries in Christchurch needs to ensure maximum benefit from facilities by seeking partnership opportunities with other Council facilities, or other agencies, to make best use of funds and available facilities to support the future needs of the community.
The new action from the review is to seek opportunities to combine funding with other Council services to build multipurpose community facilities. Heathcote, Woolston and St Martins are included in this action as well as seeking to combine the Opawa adults and children’s libraries.
2013 Update Archive Storage Project
The immediate impact on existing storage is the consequence of the earthquakes however the long term 30 COUNCIL 11. 12. 2014 ATTACHMENT 2 TO CLAUSE 33 287 storage needs remain. The location of collections and the expected impact of the new central library are important planning factors as well as the unsuitable nature of the current storage buildings. Work is underway to develop:
A functional brief to define requirements to inform the provision of suitable storage A quantified storage needs prediction planning purposes. A business case to support a funding request for the provision of suitable storage to meet current and future needs
Once completed, this project will be incorporated into the next LTP process..
31 COUNCIL 11. 12. 2014 ATTACHMENT 2 TO CLAUSE 33 288
Table 3: Summary of new developments to complete the network of library facilities: Major capital developments Updated September 2014
The following table summarises the major capital developments proposed in the Plan. It is noted that the developments are listed in alphabetical order, not order of priority. Council will decide the priority of projects through the LTCCP decision-making process. Priority driver definitions: Growth: Areas of residential growth and development. Need: Identified areas of deprivation. Asset: Building has reached the end of its useful life or is not able to accommodate the library service in its current form.
Facility Current facility Fit with need Recommended major Priority driver condition/anticipated 2008-2011 and 2013 Actions Growth/need/asset change
Aranui N/A Demographic data, Build new neighbourhood Need. 2008 community need and learning centre/library. High need – high indicators identify a Pursue partnership deprivation in the current gap in service opportunities with other community. delivery to the Aranui Council services and or community. external partners.
Aranui The land the library The library was completed Need. is being built on has 2014 and opened in September The high needs of an EQC rating as 2012. Green Zone, the community still Technical Category remain in Aranui. 2, yellow. Funding was provided to improve foundations to limit any damage from future earthquakes.
32 COUNCIL 11. 12. 2014 ATTACHMENT 2 TO CLAUSE 33 289
Belfast N/A Projected growth in the Build a new library facility in Growth. 2008 Belfast area indicates Belfast – appropriate size to Anticipated an increase of 1820 cater for future growth in the population growth. households by 2026. area. Currently no service Is a UDS Activity Use the Belfast Area Plan in Belfast. Centre. and work with other Council units and planning teams to identify appropriate location.
Belfast N/A Projected growth in the Secure land for the new Growth. 2014 Belfast area indicates suburban-sized Belfast Anticipated an increase of 1820 Library as soon as possible population growth. households by 2026. to ensure availability for Currently no service Is a UDS Activity building the new library as in Belfast. planned 2017-2020. Centre. Development of Consider revised timeframes new library in for Belfast library in line with accordance with the growth in the area post Belfast Area Plan32. earthquakes.
Central Current facility is fair- Central City Explore development Growth and asset. 2008 good in terms of Revitalisation Project. options for a Central Library Anticipated condition. Built Projected growth and complex in time to inform the population growth 1982, major intensification in the 2012-2022 LTCCP process. and facility space refurbishment central city with an Identify partnerships and limitations. carried out in 1996. additional 7000 explore linkage to other civic Long-term facility Infrastructure households by 2026. developments. deterioration. refurbishment will be Main UDS Activity Monitor effect of residential required in the next Centre for the city and intensification on the Central 10 to 15 years due to region. library’s role as a community the architectural library for the inner city nature of the Community library for residents. building. residents in the city.
Inadequate space to house current
collection and the ability to develop and grow services.
Central The Central Library A new Central Library is Planning of the new Central Growth and asset. 2014 is currently closed, one of the key projects library is progressing under The Central City and will be in the government’s the auspices of the Anchor Recovery Plan demolished as part Christchurch Central Projects programme and is includes a New of the Christchurch City Recovery Plan. scheduled for completion in Central Library Central Recovery The Recovery Plan 2017. project, which Plan to allow for endorses the vital role would meet the other developments that libraries have in recognised need for on the site. strengthening additional space communities and the and facilities for a important role it will play twenty-first century in the city’s recovery. library33.
32 Belfast Area Plan http://resources.ccc.govt.nz/files/BelfastAreaPlan.pdf The Christchurch Central Recovery Plan http://ccdu.govt.nz/the-plan 33 33 COUNCIL 11. 12. 2014 ATTACHMENT 2 TO CLAUSE 33 290
Halswell Facility in fair-good Projected growth in the Replace existing library and Growth. 2008 condition and Halswell area indicates increase to new ‘suburban’ Anticipated adequate size for an increase of 1772 library facility in line with population growth. current service households by 2026. growth and the South West Long term levels. Built 1980, Future gap in service if Area Plan. addition completed inadequacy of the current facility is Work with other Council current facility. 1996. retained. units and planning teams to
Tipping point for Is a UDS Activity indentify appropriate major building Centre. location. refurbishment sits in the next 10 to15 years.
Halswell Current facility fails Growth is expected to Continue with design and Growth. 2014 to meet the rapidly be similar to what was development of the new Anticipated growing demand. identified in earlier community library, taking population growth. planning, though some into account any changes or New facility planned Long-term to open 2014. The new subdivisions may improvements identified as proceed earlier than desirable post earthquake. inadequacy of location of the new current facility. library has been originally scheduled. Project completion due late identified and will 2015. enable the Refer: South West 34 development of an Area Plan . enhanced community facility which includes the Halswell Pool and Community Centre.
Bishopdale Current facility Well used library in an Retain library in Bishopdale Asset. 2008 condition poor. Will area of small projected as a suburban library. Asset require major growth. Review current facility and deterioration– will infrastructure Above network average investigate location options indicate timing of refurbishment to activity per square to build or refurbish a new need for bring it up to metres of floor space. facility. replacement or modern building upgrade. standards. Built 1974. Short-term funds have been set aside for heating and ventilation. All major work has been deferred pending the outcome of this plan.
Bishopdale Facility closed Immediate post Retain a library service in Asset. 2014 November 2011 in earthquake use of the Bishopdale on the same site Cost of light of a critical building was immense or adjacent .Investigate replacement. failure identified in due to the closure of options for partnership with the DEE report. Fendalton and Papanui other CCC services. Considered an libraries. Rebuild the facility as Earthquake Prone agreed by Council in Building (EPB). September 2014
34 South West Area Plan http://www.ccc.govt.nz/thecouncil/policiesreportsstrategies/areaplans/southwest/index.aspx 34 COUNCIL 11. 12. 2014 ATTACHMENT 2 TO CLAUSE 33 291
Table 4: Other significant developments and projects
This table lists (in alphabetical order): a) possible projects to achieve improvements or changes beyond those included in regular maintenance cycles and requiring smaller capital investment and planning. Some of the projects will be addressed through the LTP planning or the Annual Plan processes. b) libraries that are expected to continue to fulfil need without any anticipated capital improvements or changes (i.e. New Brighton, Parklands, Spreydon, South, Upper Riccarton)
Priority driver definitions: Growth: Areas of residential growth and development. Need: Identified areas of deprivation. Asset: Building has reached the end of its useful life or is not able to accommodate the library service in its current form.
NOTE: All Council facilities are maintained using regular scheduled maintenance and refurbishment programmes.
Facility Current facility Fit with need Recommended Priority driver condition/anticipated Actions change
Banks Peninsula Variety of facilities rented Variable suitability for Review service Service need/fit Akaroa, Little and owned. current and future provision to all Banks for River, Diamond service development. Peninsula libraries purpose/growth. Harbour, Lyttelton within the framework of service levels for the library network. Include scoping future and current needs and produce an action plan for the ongoing enhancement of services to these communities, acknowledging rural community needs
2014 Banks Facilities meet current and Suitability remains Continue to review Service need. Peninsula future anticipated need. variable. services in the post Changes in this (excluding earthquake area are not Lyttelton) environment. anticipated.
Lyttelton 2014 Facility remains open. Role of the library in the Respond to the Service need – to Building continues to be recovery of a badly opportunities created support recovery monitored. damaged Lyttelton was through earthquake and create a important. The changes to develop long- term Suburban Masterplan for the library on current community hub35. the area identifies the and/or adjacent sites library as important incorporating a recovery place. Service Centre.
Fendalton 2008 Facility in very good Ensuring maximum value Align asset with Asset value.
35 Lyttelton Master Plan http://www.ccc.govt.nz/thecouncil/policiesreportsstrategies/SuburbsRejuvenationProgramme/LytteltonWorkProgramme.a spx 35 COUNCIL 11. 12. 2014 ATTACHMENT 2 TO CLAUSE 33 292
condition. from this large busy network role, Extracting Built 2000. facility. Offering the Undertake project to maximum value community better access explore 7-day from large busy to services through opening. facility. longer opening hours, Consider inclusion of Offering particularly as a local a café following community indoor leisure destination ‘Cafés in libraries’ improved access on Sundays. feasibility project. to service.
Fendalton 2014 Detailed Engineer Resource application to Continue to provide Service need Evaluation reports increase access to the the current level of remains. identified areas of facility/service through service from this strengthening required for providing a 7 day service facility. this building to adhere to was denied by the the New Building Environment Court. Standard, completed in April 2012.
Hornby 2008 Current facility in good Major developments in Retain current library Growth. condition. Hornby area being and investigate Anticipated Major refurbishment addressed with growth in opportunities in line pockets of growth planned for about housing and commercial with UDS and Area and development 2017/2018. property planned for the Plan developments. in the area – Current capacity is next 10 years. Explore partnership Awatea. adequate for service Is a UDS Activity Centre. opportunities with requirements. Council services and/or external partners to enhance service.
Hornby 2014 Facility has performed well The South West Area Proceed with project Growth. in initial post earthquake Plan 36 is the planning in allotted timeframe Anticipated to assessments to date. framework for the working with the continue as development in the area. SWAP, GCUDS, planned. Sockburn Service Centre LURP and relevant closure has impacted on development plans the timing of the planning for the area to of the new library with achieve a co-located Council deciding to library and council combine and relocate service centre. these services in one facility.
Linwood 2008 Facility in very good Current facility well used Respond to Growth/need condition. and future growth favourable Development of Built 1992. indicates an opportunity opportunities with mall and/or other to increase public external partners or Council footprint in the building or other Council developments seek other opportunities community facilities and to grow services to that offer library opportunities. support community enhancement. learning needs.
Linwood 2014 Detailed Engineer There is still a strong Investigate a rebuild Need. Evaluation reports need in the community of the library in the The need for a identified areas for repair for a library at Linwood. Linwood community community hub and strengthening Many Council community using the Facilities remains.
36 South West Area Plan http://www.ccc.govt.nz/thecouncil/policiesreportsstrategies/areaplans/southwest/index.aspx
36 COUNCIL 11. 12. 2014 ATTACHMENT 2 TO CLAUSE 33 293
required for this building to facilities in the area have Rebuild Plan, adhere to the New been damaged. Linwood Masterplan Building Standard. In April and LTP planning 2012 a fire caused processes. significant damage to the library. Both events have impacted on the viability of this building. Due for demolition late 2014
Mobile 2008 Current vehicle adequate Identify isolated Continue service as a Service need/ fit but will require communities and means of filling for purpose. replacement within next network gaps, alternative network gaps where five years. delivery methods to facility provision is Replacement vehicle or support current services. not sustainable.
vehicles will depend on Continue on-going the outcome of the 2025 evaluation of plan and internal planning. efficiency and effectiveness. Customised service delivery.
Mobile 2014 Two new ‘Library to Go’ Smaller vehicles are Service provided Service need/fit vans launched in more able to respond to from the new vehicles for purpose. December 2012. Funding specific needs as they will meet the was received from Rotary change over time and in changing needs of New Zealand and Cotton a time of emergency. the customers. On Foundation for the new Changing demographics vehicles. require a flexible service model.
New Brighton, Currently adequate for Future usage needs will Maintain and refurbish Service need/fit for Parklands, services. be variable and may in accordance with the purpose. Spreydon, South, require attention. Library Asset Upper Riccarton Management plan and 2008 regular scheduled maintenance programmes. New Brighton, Detailed Engineering All communities have Maintain all facilities as Need. Spreydon, South, Evaluations have been valued these libraries as above. Services are still Upper Riccarton completed on all facilities. community hubs and required. 2014 (excluding To varying degrees repairs spaces for meeting post Parklands) are being undertaken. earthquake. Most have recorded significant increase in use. Parklands 2014 Impact of earthquakes on There are some Red Retain library service Need. the land under Parklands Zoned houses in the area. and plan for the Services are still library may have an impact Growth in development to possible outcomes of required. on the building. Detailed the North is expected to the land assessment. Growth. Engineering Evaluation and balance the loss of Supporting the Geotech work is yet to be households in the projected completed. Parklands area. increases in residential growth in the North East.
Outreach and N/A Support the decisions Investigate self-help Service need/ fit alternative service around Mobile planning – service delivery for purpose. provision 2008 support the access to options, e.g. library services across the city. kiosks.
37 COUNCIL 11. 12. 2014 ATTACHMENT 2 TO CLAUSE 33 294
Outreach and Refer to Mobile library alternative service above. provision 2014
Papanui 2008 Facility in very good Growth pressures in the Respond to Growth condition. commercial and retail favourable Development of Built 1995. hub may impact on need opportunities with mall and/or other for land and growth in external partners or Council library business. other Council developments UDS significant Activity community facilities and Centre for north that offer library opportunities. Christchurch. enhancement.
Papanui 2014 Detailed Engineer Due to Bishopdale Accelerate Growth. Evaluation report identified closure and increased earthquake repairs Significant areas of strengthening city west usage post and ensure facility is increase in required for this building to earthquake activity, adequate to support business and use adhere to the New Papanui opening hours seven day opening. of commercial Building Standard. Work were permanently area post to be undertaken. increased from six to earthquake. seven days in 2013.
Redwood 2008 Facility fair. Built 1970. May experience Evaluate role post- Service need/ fit Will need significant significant fall in Belfast facility for purpose. remedial work in next 10 business with the opening. years. opening of Belfast Lack of modern services, library. such as air conditioning and effective heating. Redwood 2014 Detailed Engineering Community has Retire library upon Service need Evaluation report indicates remained stable. Belfast facility no significant damage to opening. this building.
Shirley 2008 Facility very good. Built Growth retail – The Participate in ongoing Growth/need. 1996. Future need for Palms shopping centre. Council/Ecan Retail more service capability. Need – community. planning with mall development Space required to develop owners with the view impacted by service for learning to possible relocation growth. and upgrade of services to support need Opportunity for in the community. library facility as suburban library. service improvement.
Shirley 2014 Detailed Engineering Extensive housing Maintain library Growth/need. Evaluation completed. developments to the service and consider Supporting the Some repairs will be North expected to the future location of projected required. balance the loss of the library in the post increases in households to the east earthquake residential growth due to earthquake environment in line in the North East. damage. with developments in the Shirley and Marshlands.
38 COUNCIL 11. 12. 2014 ATTACHMENT 2 TO CLAUSE 33 295
Storage 2008 Various and variable. Future space Undertake project to Asset requirements to be explore options for Current provision addressed within 10 appropriate and not fit for years. Some current timely storage with purpose, plus needs require action. future needs catered future need for for. growth of storage. Storage 2014 Various. Post earthquake Continue project to Due to the impact planning for new identify future storage of the facility/facilities will take needs, identify the earthquakes and into account disaster best approach for the need for preparedness. short and long term interim storage storage in partnership spaces this has with other Council become an units to inform 2015- urgent 2025 LTP. imperative.
Sumner 2008 Facility good. Built 1975. No current asset needs. Assess need for Asset Harsh seaside larger facility should Performance and environment impacts on opportunities become fit for purpose but maintenance of facility. available. by 2025 will be ready for renewal. Sumner 2014 Building sustained With no facility in Rebuild a new library Need. Impact of considerable damage in Sumner, the ‘Library to co-located with a the earthquakes the 2011 earthquakes and Go’ vans are providing community facility on on the was demolished in service to the the combined current communities in January 2013. community. sites. Use the the geographic Sumner Village area: Library Centre Master Plan37 performed well as a guiding as key part of document. community hub.
Voluntary Variety of facilities with a Issues such as current Investigate Asset condition Libraries 2008 variety of asset conditions. and anticipated usage, partnership and use. One Heritage building volunteer support and opportunities with Efficient use of (Woolston). efficiency of building use external agencies or facilities. need addressing. Council developments.
Develop a plan for Voluntary Libraries within the 2025 framework that will maximize the community use of these facilities. Voluntary Three libraries have been Voluntary library building Work within the Asset. Libraries 2014 demolished post 2011 effectiveness and need Facilities Rebuild earthquakes. to be reviewed on a case Plan and continue to Woolston, St Martins by case basis. seek opportunities to (partial) and Redclifffs. combine funding with other Council Heathcote and Opawa services to ensure libraries currently closed. best use of
37 Sumner Village Centre Masterplan http://www.ccc.govt.nz/thecouncil/policiesreportsstrategies/SuburbsRejuvenationProgramme/sumnervillagemasterplan.as px 39 COUNCIL 11. 12. 2014 ATTACHMENT 2 TO CLAUSE 33 296
Other facilities remain community facilities functional with varying in accordance with degrees of damage. the Voluntary Libraries Report (2014).
40 COUNCIL 11. 12. 2014 ATTACHMENT 2 TO CLAUSE 33 297
9. Implementation
The Plan is a document mapping the future direction for library facilities in the city through to 2025. Regular reviews of the Plan will be carried out to coincide with Council’s LTCCP and Annual Plan cycles to provide for any changes in city growth and priorities. Implementation is dependent on the priority given to the business cases presented for each library development project during LTCCP decision-making process.
Facility actions
Detailed case-by-case planning will be undertaken by Council for each major project as indicated in Table 3: Summary of new developments to complete the network of library facilities: Major capital developments. (Updated March 2013)
Non-building actions
There are two quite separate dimensions to the library’s non-building based services: Remote access to customer details, information services and digital information request via the internet, email and telephone Specialised outreach services to customers unable to visit a physical library.
The former is an increasing and integral component of future library provision. A growing proportion of the library’s information services are available remotely via its website, telephone and email enquiries. However, there is no indication that the need for library buildings - public spaces - and print-based resources will diminish. Also, public libraries will continue to be key places that provide equitable access to computers and digital information.
However, it is with regard to non-building actions - specialised outreach services – that this Facilities Plan focuses: non-building based operations such as home delivery and mobile library services. The ability to deliver services through flexible models can mean greater access for isolated communities and efficient use of Council funds when a physical asset is deemed unsustainable. Some of these actions have been included in the Recommended Actions column in Table 4: Other Significant Developments and Projects.
41 COUNCIL 11. 12. 2014 ATTACHMENT 2 TO CLAUSE 33 298
Glossary
Activity centres – Key commercial/business centres identified in the UDS as focal points for the transport network and suitable for more intensive mixed-use development.
Asset Management Plan – the Council plan that details and forecasts maintenance requirements for a Council facility over time.
Co-location – Shared use by two or more Council service providers from a Council-owned building.
Community library/libraries – All the 18 libraries in the Christchurch City Libraries network that are located in local communities. Excludes the Central Library, mobile library service and voluntary libraries.
Community Outcomes – Identified goals of communities in relation to the present and the future for the social, economic, environmental and cultural well being of the community.
Detailed Engineering Evaluation (DEE) – Comprehensive quantitative and qualitative building assessments being carried out post-earthquakes, which include identification and testing of critical structure weaknesses, Geotech assessment and performance against the new Building Standard requirements.
Facilities (Assets) – The buildings that house libraries, excluding the internal fittings and hardware that are included inside libraries.
Facility condition Poor – requires major upgrade in many areas. Fair – acceptable standard but flagging work to be done in the near future. Good – no work required currently, normal cycles apply. Very good – newly or recently refurbished.
The Greater Christchurch Urban Development Strategy (UDS) ‐ A local authority planning document which is defined by the Ashley River/Rakahuri to the north, the Port Hills and Selwyn River to the south and Pegasus Bay and Lyttelton Harbour/Whakaraupo in the east. The western boundary is Two Chain Road in Waimakariri and Highfield and Stations Roads in Selwyn. It includes Rangiora, Woodend/Pegasus and Kaiapoi in Waimakariri District, and West Melton, Rolleston, Lincoln and Tai tapu in Selwyn district, and all of Lyttleton Harbour including Diamond Harbour and Governors Bay. Note, CERA define Greater Christchurch as all of the three territorial local authority areas.
Land Use Recovery Plan (LURP) -The statutory document which directs the Christchurch City Council, Waimakariri and Selwyn District Councils and Canterbury Regional Council (Environment Canterbury) to make changes to district plans, the Canterbury Regional Policy Statement and other instruments. Some of these changes take effect immediately and others are to be developed by the relevant council within specified timeframes.
Learning centre – Learning space, services and technology that enable carrying out of group learning programmes and activities with a computer focus. Three learning centres have so far been developed – at South, Parklands and Upper Riccarton libraries. In the latter case, the learning centre is a partnership project with Riccarton High School. Learning centres could be standalone facilities.
LTCCP – Long Term Council Community Plan.
LTCCP planning cycles
Long term – The LTCCP planning and capital funding cycle covering the years 2019-2025. Medium term – The LTCCP planning and capital funding cycle covering the years 2013-2018. Short term – The forthcoming LTCCP planning and capital funding cycle covering the years 2009- 2012.
Metropolitan library – Citywide catchment; has regional and national importance; special and unique collections; has civic presence. Offers wide range of spaces for activities; holds and preserves the history of the city.
Mobile library – Specially-fitted bus that currently visits 36 locations each week offering library lending and related services. The Mobile stops at locations where there is either a gap in library facility provision or a 42 COUNCIL 11. 12. 2014 TRIM 2012/314750 September 2014 FINAL ATTACHMENT 2 TO CLAUSE 33 299 recognised demographic need.
Neighbourhood library – Catchment ranges from 1km to 1.5km radius; serves population from 10,000 to 12,000 people. Services could include small, broad-spanning collections and a range of activities.
Network – The 19 libraries that currently comprise Christchurch City Libraries. A framework for provision of variously-sized libraries has been developed to ensure equitable, citywide access to library services – metropolitan, suburban and neighbourhood levels.
Non-building provision – Service provided without the need for a facility, such as the mobile library or on-line ordering and courier delivery of books.
Outreach – Customised library services for users who are unable to visit a library facility to borrow materials or are an identified target group for increasing user usage. Outreach services include volunteers’ deliveries to housebound users, Storyline (talking books delivered to visually impaired people), deliveries to prison and promotional programmes for preschoolers and parents/caregivers.
Partnership – A relationship that enables a combined approach to funding, supplying, managing or supporting aspects of initiatives between residents, communities, organisations and Council.
Remote access – Connection with the Library’s catalogue, digital resources and the internet, via the Library’s website.
Services – The activities that happen within libraries.
Strategic Directions - Four directions that guide Council’s planning and its delivery of services.
Currently these are:
Strong Communities; Healthy Environment; Liveable City; Prosperous Economy.
Suburban library – Catchment ranges from 1.5km to 3km radius; services population range from 15,000 – 40,000. Services could include a variety of activities and flexible spaces. UDS – Greater Christchurch Urban Development Strategy and Action Plan 2007.
Suburban Masterplans - Plans created as part of the Suburban Centres Programme which provide coordinated planning and assistance to help with the rebuild and recovery of suburban commercial centres as focal points for the local community.
Voluntary library/libraries – Ten libraries located in local communities that are staffed and managed by volunteers only. Most voluntary libraries are housed in Council-owned buildings. Council maintains all voluntary library buildings, provides some annual funding (based on usage) for the purchase of lending materials and processing new materials for these libraries. Some community boards make additional contributions to the running costs of some voluntary libraries.
43
300 COUNCIL 11. 12. 2014 ATTACHMENT 2 TO CLAUSE 33 301
Appendix 1. 2008 Map COUNCIL 11. 12. 2014 TRIM 2012/314750 September 2014 FINAL ATTACHMENT 2 TO CLAUSE 33 302
Appendix 1. 2014 updated Map
45
COUNCIL 11. 12. 2014 ATTACHMENT 2 TO CLAUSE 33 303
Appendix 2: Table 2: Summary of trends in library facilities and services: original 2008 edition
CONTINUED IMPORTANCE OF PARTNERSHIPS THE PHYSICAL SPACE The library as a cultural space; a meeting Community partnerships/joint use. place; a social centre for the community; as a National partnerships. “social, recreational and learning space”; as International partnerships. civic and democratic spaces. Consortia. The importance of the physical building endures. Sustainable design. CUSTOMERS CHANGING DEMOGRAPHICS Reaching the less educated and narrowing More attention being paid to the population the “digital divide”. mix, ethnicity and age of particular A place for lifelong learning – formal and communities. informal. Serving migrant communities by own Inspiring and supporting people in the pursuit language and English as a Second Language of knowledge. materials. Assisted technologies for people with disabilities. COLLECTIONS AND RESOURCES TECHNOLOGY Continued importance of reading. Help people access all aspects of digital Also demand for differing formats. information and computer use. Digitisation, especially of local materials. Increased complexity of the networked Need for collections to cater for increasing environment. diversity of population. Social networking. User-generated content. Bandwidth, sufficient PCs. Demand for wireless connectivity – US figures show increase in libraries offering this from 17.9% in 2004 to 36.7% in 2006. MANAGEMENT STAFF Benchmarking with other public library Need for qualified staff. systems. Staff development and training to better assist Return on investment. users and increase efficiency and skills. Collaboration with national projects.
46 304 305 COUNCIL 11. 12. 2014
34. COUNTERPARTY CREDIT RISK – CALCULATION FOR TREASURY INSTRUMENTS
Contact Contact Details Executive Leadership Chief Financial Officer Team Member responsible: Officer responsible: Corporate Finance Manager, Corporate Y Extension 8454 Finance Unit Author: Funds & Financial Policy Manager, Corporate Finance Unit
1. PURPOSE AND ORIGIN OF REPORT
1.1 This paper requests Council approval for proposed changes to the calculation of counterparty credit risk for treasury hedging instruments.
1.2 This request is made separate to a full review of Council’s Liability Management Policy (expected to be presented in February 2015), because the current calculation is inaccurate and is un-necessarily restricting management’s ability to transact with the most competitive counterparty.
2. DISCUSSION
2.1 Large borrowers typically hedge their exposure to rising interest rates by using hedging instruments, analogous to the way a homeowner may divide their mortgage borrowing between a floating rate and several different maturities of fixed rate. The use of such instruments is governed by standard legal documents that define how their on-going cash-flows are to be calculated and paid.
2.2 There is a credit risk associated with the use of these instruments – for example, if we have a hedging instrument that results in us borrowing at a fixed rate of (say) 4% compared with a current market rate of 5%, then a default by the counterparty bank represents a loss to us, as we would need to pay the current market rate of 5% in order to re-establish a fixed interest rate on our borrowing. Our credit exposure to the bank is therefore the difference between the 4% contracted rate and the 5% current market rate (the exact dollar amount will depend on the difference between the two interest rates and the maturity of the hedging instrument).
2.3 The calculation of market values for hedging instruments is complex, and historically borrowers have not had the means to do it. Credit exposure has therefore traditionally been calculated as a simple formula, typically 3% multiplied by the principal amount of the instrument multiplied by the number of years to maturity – so, for example, a $10m 10-year hedge would have an assessed credit risk of [3% * $10m * 10 years] = $3m.
2.4 This formula approach tends to over-state our exposure when interest rates are low. For example, we are currently unable to deal with the most competitive of our three counterparty banks because it has historically won more than 60% of our business and therefore has an assessed credit risk close to the $200 million Policy Limit; in reality, however, our actual market exposure to this bank is close to zero.
2.5 Conversely, the current formula approach does not signal how our actual exposures will increase as market interest rates increase. For example, a hypothetical “shock” that increases market interest rates by a full 2.00% immediately would increase our exposure to our most competitive bank by around $160 million (or around $250 million for all three banks combined). Although it is likely that our exposure to any individual bank would still be within the current Policy Limit even in the event of such a shock, the use of a market- based approach would enable us to respond appropriately (ie. by re-structuring existing hedges, rather than just not dealing any more) if exposures became intolerably large and/or the credit rating of the bank was downgraded.
2.6 Council’s electronic Treasury System does have the ability to calculate current market values, and its accuracy is checked against bank calculations each year for audit purposes. It is therefore proposed that Council recognise its credit risk from hedging instruments based on actual market exposures, rather than the historic formula approach. 306 COUNCIL 11. 12. 2014
34 Cont’d
2.7 Specifically, credit risk on these instruments should be recognised as:
The current market value of each instrument (calculated at each month-end by the Treasury System, based on market interest rates provided by a bank), PLUS If the instrument has 1-5 years to maturity, 1.0% of its notional principal, OR If the instrument has more than 5 years to maturity, 1.5% of its notional principal.
2.8 This proposed change is supported by PwC, Council’s external treasury advisor. A letter confirming this support is attached as Appendix 1.
2.9 Note that the use of market value to measure credit risk increases the risk that Policy Limits will be breached simply because of increases in market interest rates (because rising interest rates tend to increase the value of our hedging instruments, and so increase our credit exposure to banks). This outcome is considered desirable, as the Council is seeking to control its actual credit exposure, not a hypothetical calculation.
2.10 Management will nevertheless seek to minimise the risk of future Policy Limit breach, as follows: When calculating the current credit exposure from hedging instruments, management will also calculate how that exposure would increase in response to a credible increase in market interest rates over the coming year, (using ‘what-if scenarios’). If this credible increase results in an unacceptable risk of credit limits being breached in future, then no more hedging will be undertaken with that counterparty. If necessary, management will: Novate (transfer) some hedging instruments from a high-exposure bank to a low-exposure bank, and/or Re-structure the hedging instrument so that its fixed rate is increased and Council’s credit exposure therefore decreased – this will result in a higher on-going interest cost, off-set by a cash payment received by the bank (ie. lower debt levels). Note that both these responses are standard market practice, and Council’s external treasury advisor (PwC) would be able to assist with pricing to ensure that the net financial impact on Council is negligible.
4. FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS
4.1 None. The only impact is a more transparent reporting and control of the credit risk arising from hedging instruments.
6. STAFF RECOMMENDATION
It is requested that the Council:
6.1 Approve the change to the formula used to calculate the counterparty credit risk exposure arising from hedging instruments, and adopt the following formula:
The market value of each instrument as at each month-end (calculated by Council’s electronic Treasury System, using market interest rates provided by a bank), PLUS
If the instrument has 1-5 years to maturity, 1.0% of its notional principal, OR If the instrument has more than 5 years to maturity, 1.5% of its notional principal.
307 COUNCIL 11. 12. 2014
35. RESIDENTIAL ADVISORY SERVICE: FUNDING REQUEST
Contact Contact Details Executive Leadership Team Director, Office of the Member responsible: Chief Executive Officer responsible: Community Support Transitional Y Lincoln Papali’i Manager Ext 8275 Author: Senior Project Officer, Strategic Y Kevin Bennett Initiatives, Community Support Ext 8576
1. PURPOSE AND ORIGIN OF REPORT
1.1 The purpose of this report is to seek the Council’s approval to:
1.1.1 An amendment to the Memorandum of Understanding, Cooperation between agencies in greater Christchurch involved in providing a residential advisory service being negotiated by the Office of the Chief Executive to reflect the Council’s financial contribution being established at a total of $100,000.00; and
1.1.2 The grant of $100,000.00 being paid upon confirmation that the amendment detailed in 1.1.1 above has been agreed.
2. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
2.1 In December 2013 a report was submitted to the Council, through the Earthquake Recovery Committee Of The Whole regarding:
2.1.1 The signing of the Memorandum of Understanding – Co-operation between agencies in greater Christchurch involved in providing a residential advisory service.
2.1.2 The approval of a grant of $207,000.00 being made from the Christchurch Earthquake Mayoral Relief Fund as its contribution towards the Year One operation of the Residential Advisory Service for the twelve month period, 16 May 2013 to 15 May 2014.
2.1.3 Noting the need for a further report being submitted to the Council at an appropriate time should a Right of Renewal be considered by the parties to continue funding the Residential Advisory Service for a further twelve month period in accordance with the Memorandum of Understanding.
2.2 The Earthquake Recovery Committee Of The Whole recommended that the Report be considered by the Council at its meeting on 12 December 2013.
2.3 The Report was subsequently deferred, pending the release by the Canterbury Earthquake Recovery Authority (CERA) of the Deloitte Evaluation Report and its consideration by the Council.
2.4 A 2014/15 funding request for Year Two operations has also been received from the Residential Advisory Service requesting financial support from the Council for 2014/15 in the amount of $279,285.00.
2.5 The total funding assistance requested for the Residential Advisory Service Programme, from the Christchurch Earthquake Mayoral Relief Fund, amounts to $486,285.00 for the two years 2013/14 and 2014/15. 308 COUNCIL 11. 12. 2014
35 Cont’d
2.6 A total grant of $100,000.00 from the Christchurch Earthquake Mayoral Relief Fund is now proposed as an acknowledgement of the service provided by the Residential Advisory Service to Christchurch property owners in their rebuild and repair processes after the Canterbury Earthquakes, subject to the Memorandum of Understanding being renegotiated to reflect the proposed grant amount.
3. BACKGROUND
3.1 On 13 July 2012 the Christchurch City Council wrote to the Minister for Canterbury Earthquake Recovery requesting that an “insurance tribunal and advocacy service” be set up in Christchurch.
3.2 On 19 April 2013 the Minister for Canterbury Earthquake Authority announced the delivery of the Residential Advisory Service (RAS) and on 16 May 2013 this service was officially launched.
3.3 A Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) was developed, with the parties to this MOU being the Chief Executive of Canterbury Earthquake Recovery Authority (CERA), Earthquake Commission (EQC), Insurance Council of New Zealand (ICNZ) and the Christchurch City Council (CCC). A copy of this MOU, which contains financial implications for the Council, is attached as Appendix 1.
3.4 The MOU provides for the purpose of the RAS as being:
The Parties will establish a service to support property owners through the insurance and repair / rebuild processes associated with the Canterbury earthquakes (Service). The Parties, whilst recognising the integrity and policies of each other, agree to work together in a spirit of cooperation and in accordance with agreed Terms of reference to fund and support the outcomes of the Service in accordance with the funding model. The Participating Insurers’ participation in the Service does not bind them to act outside their contractual and commercial rights and obligations with respect to their respective customers or the operation of their businesses.
3.5 Clause 9 of the MOU provides for the term of this MOU to take effect on the day it is signed by the Parties and to continue for a term of twelve (12) months until it expires. As the MOU had been signed by the other Parties involved, in accordance with Clause 9 of the MOU it became effective on 16 May 2013 and expires on 15 May 2014.
3.6 The Memorandum of Understanding has not been signed by the Council but the Council has been represented on the Residential Advisory Service Governance Group by the Council’s General Manager, Community Services as an interim measure.
3.7 The financial implications for CCC contained within the MOU are able to be funded through the Christchurch Earthquake Mayoral Relief Fund.
3.8 At the Council meeting of 12 May 2011 it was resolved:
That the Christchurch Earthquake Mayoral Relief Fund was established, and will continue to be maintained, by the Council as a “public fund” (as described in section LD 3(2)(d) of the Income Tax Act 2007) exclusively for the purpose of providing money for any one or more charitable, benevolent, philanthropic or cultural purposes related to and in particular to provide relief to the people of Christchurch from the adverse effects of the 4 September 2010 and 22 February 2011 earthquakes, and associated aftershocks, by providing money for any activity or work required as a result of those events that:
(i) contributes to the rebuilding of the social and physical infrastructure of Christchurch, and (ii) assists in: remedying hardship suffered by individuals, groups, community organisations and businesses, and/or 309 COUNCIL 11. 12. 2014
35 Cont’d
protecting, repairing damage to or enhancing the physical fabric of the city. 3.9 The Christchurch Earthquake Mayoral Relief Fund essentially operates as a trust with the Council acting as the trustee. As trustee, the Council is bound to apply the monies only for the purposes specified in the Council resolution above.
3.10 In terms of the activities that can be funded by the Christchurch Earthquake Mayoral Relief, the first requirement is that any grant be used to contribute to the rebuilding of the social and physical infrastructure of Christchurch. The Oxford Dictionary defines the word "infrastructure" generally as "the foundation or basic structure of an undertaking" and specifically as "the installations and services (power stations, sewers, roads, housing etc) regarded as the economic foundation of a country". The word “infrastructure” therefore implies the undertaking of physical works.
3.11 However, paragraph (b) (i) of the resolution refers to "…any activity or work required as a result of those events that contribute to the rebuilding of the social and physical infrastructure of Christchurch…" It is therefore not necessary that the Christchurch Earthquake Mayoral Relief Fund's monies be applied solely to rebuilding actual physical infrastructure, but it is necessary that the monies be applied to any work or activity that contributes to such rebuilding. Therefore, whilst the focus of the Christchurch Earthquake Mayoral Relief Fund is the rebuilding of the social and physical infrastructure ("bricks and mortar"), it can also be used for any activity which contributes to that outcome.
3.12 In addition, any grant from the Christchurch Earthquake Mayoral Relief Fund must also assist in either remedying hardship or protecting, repairing or enhancing the physical fabric of the city.
4. COMMENT
4.1 A copy of the Deloitte’s report reviewing the Residential Advisory Service has now been released to the Council by the Residential Advisory Service. This review evaluated the service against the following criteria, as agreed in the RAS Review Framework:
Has the service delivered on the expected benefits? Is the service operating effectively and efficiently? Are there any issues or risks that need to be resolved? What changes should be made to the service? Have the assumptions relied upon in the original business case proven to be accurate?
4.1.1 The review has found that the Residential Advisory Service is operating a model which is largely achieving its intended objectives for residential property owners of greater Christchurch. The RAS is improving Christchurch property owners’ collective understanding of the rebuild, repair and resettlement processes and is assisting them in making progress with their individual situations. The service incorporates and co-ordinates the provision of advice, guidance and support at zero cost to the property owner. It has become an effective operation since its initial launch, and has improved its value to property owners by adding further capabilities where appropriate.
4.2 Now that a copy of the Deloitte’s report on the review of the Residential Advisory Service has been received, as requested by the Council, it is considered appropriate that the signing of the Memorandum of Understanding and the total funding assistance requested for the Residential Advisory Service Programme, from the Christchurch Earthquake Mayoral Relief Fund, amounting to a total of $486,285.00 for the two years 2013/14 and 2014/15 be considered by the Council. 310 COUNCIL 11. 12. 2014
35 Cont’d
4.3 The Deloitte’s report included four key observations regarding the Residential Advisory Service which are detailed below. There has been a series of activities and actions undertaken by the Residential Advisory Service in response and these activities and actions are noted under each of the key observations.
4.3.1 Key Observation 1.
Deloitte Key Observation Impact Report Not all of those property owners The RAS is not experiencing the Who may benefit from using the number of cases that were RAS are aware of its existence or expected. correctly understand its purpose.
RAS Activities / Actions Communication workshops have been held with stakeholder groups, resulting in a change to RAS messaging and branding. Direct marketing to property owners through insurers messaging and promotion. Targeted letter drops being undertaken to those property owners who are “undecided”. Targeted promotional and marketing activities through radio, newspapers and on-line. Increased engagement with key influential groups and organisations.
4.3.2 Key Observation 2.
Deloitte Key Observation Impact Report The RAS cannot provide its full Property owners currently in level of service to cases that EQC’s complaints system cannot overlap with EQC’s complaints and be provided independent advice mediation processes. from RAS and RAS cannot facilitate Multi-Party Meetings involving EQC.
RAS Activities / Actions There has been an acceptance from EQC that complainants can now access RAS and there is no barrier to this occurring. RAS and EQC continue to further discuss and explore opportunities to work together on resolving this matter in respect of multi-party meetings.
4.3.3 Key Observation 3.
Deloitte Key Observation Impact Report Current reporting mechanisms are Insurers and EQC do not have all restricted by client confidentiality of the information required to issues. understand the progress being achieved for individual property owners via the RAS.
311 COUNCIL 11. 12. 2014
35 Cont’d
RAS Actions / Activities An increased level of information is being provided to insurers / EQC both at a generic and a “one off” basis. Consent forms have been adjusted to allow for a wider use of information provided by the home owner(s) that enables their repair / rebuild to be progressed. We have worked hard on broadening the view of the advisors and their understanding of why this information is important for home owners and other agencies involved. A number of mandatory fields for capturing consistent data have been introduced.
4.3.4 Key Observation 4.
Deloitte Key Observations Impact Report Independent Advisors have at times The service portrays elements of taken on an adversarial approach to advocacy on behalf of the their interactions with the insurer / property owner, which is EQC representatives. inconsistent with the purpose and scope of RAS.
RAS Actions / Activities A lead advisor has been appointed to drive consistency of practice and messaging. Targeted education and training between RAS advisors and insurers has meant that there is greater clarity around their function. Broadening the range of skills within the advisor group and not restricting this to legal skills only. More targeted recruitment of advisors to fit with the overall philosophy of RAS. Refined the Standard Operating Procedures to clearly articulate each organisation’s role within the RAS process. Work continues to progress the understanding between EQC and the advisors.
4.4 In addition to the actions / activities being undertaken by RAS, as detailed above, RAS has provided the following comment :
4.4.1 Shared Property Owners: RAS currently provides impartial advice to owners and where appropriate a multi- party meeting to facilitate resolution of their rebuild or repair issue. Providing neutral advice on property owner’s rights and obligations is an important role for RAS, contributing to the speedy resolution of shared property claims. Where co-owners are in dispute between themselves, we have begun to provide a dedicated facilitation service to assist in resolving these disputes. This will remove barriers to insurance matters being progressed. RAS will also be used as a portal for distributing information sheets on cross lease and unit titles to increase owner’s understanding and awareness of their rights and obligations under these types of property ownership.
4.4.2 Broadening Advisor Skill Base: Following discussions with the community it was agreed that legal skills may not be the only skill set that RAS should provide through its service delivery. We recognise the need for the provision of more practical advice to provide confidence and assurance to home owners, bridging the gap between the legal and the more practical advice that home owners are seeking. 312 COUNCIL 11. 12. 2014
35 Cont’d The Christchurch Earthquake Appeal Trust has initiated support in this area and RAS is conducting a pilot with Property Pathways Limited that provides additional practical, technical support and advice for home owners.
4.4.3 Establishment of a Technical Panel: From 11 August 2014 RAS will have access to a contracted group of engineering firms that will allow the advisors and home owners access to specialist technical expertise. This panel, contracted through the Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment replaces the existing pro-bono technical panel that have up until now been supporting the advisors. They will provide qualified comment and / or a “second opinion” on technical matters to assist progression of home owner’s issues.
4.5 The proposed grant, totalling $100,000.00 is less than the total of $486,285.00 requested by the Residential Advisory Service. The amount requested by the Residential Advisory Service is comprised of 2013/14 $207,000.00 and 2014/15 $279,285.00.
4.6 It is noted that the 2014/15 budget provided by the Residential Advisory Service includes $300,000.00 funding from the Christchurch Earthquake Appeal Trust. It is understood that these funds are to support the provision of additional services and diversify the skills of the independent advisor group. These funds are ring fenced and cannot be utilised for the general use of the Residential Advisory Service activity.
4.7 A grant of $100,000.00 is considered to be reasonable particularly when taking into account:
4.7.1 This grant is to be made from a fund which was established from public donations and is to be used in accordance with the purposes specified in paragraphs 3.8 – 3.12 of this report.
4.7.2 $300,000.00 in funding is now budgeted for in 2014/15 from the Christchurch Earthquake Appeal Trust.
4.7.3 In April 2013 the Council approved a $200,000.00 contribution from the Christchurch Earthquake Mayoral Relief Fund to ‘support the foundation of a Trust to provide “Insurance Advocacy Services”. The Canterbury Insurance Assistance Service (CIAS) was launched in February 2014.
4.7.3.1 CIAS’, targeted to vulnerable clients, works to assist their clients towards a fair resolution with their insurance company.
4.7.3.2 The service provided by CIAS is complementary to that provided by RAS and does not replicate it. It is understood that the two services are working collaboratively to assist those affected by the Canterbury Earthquakes.
4.8 As the grant now proposed from the Council, through the Christchurch Earthquake Mayoral Relief Fund, is less than that proposed in the funding model attached to the Memorandum of Understanding as Schedule Two, it is proposed that the Council renegotiate the Memorandum of Understanding.
5. FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS
5.1 The funding, totalling $100,000.00 comprising $50,000.00 for the twelve month period 16 May 2013 to 15 May 2014 and $50,000.00 for 2014/15 is able to be met through the Christchurch Earthquake Mayoral Relief Fund.
313 COUNCIL 11. 12. 2014
35 Cont’d
6. STAFF RECOMMENDATION
It is recommended that the Council:
6.1 Agree to an amendment to the Memorandum of Understanding, Cooperation between agencies in greater Christchurch involved in providing a residential advisory service being negotiated by the Director of the Office of the Chief Executive to reflect the Council’s financial contribution being established at a total of $100,000.00. : 6.2 Agree to the grant of $100,000.00 referred to above being paid upon confirmation that the amendment to the Memorandum of Understanding detailed in 6.1 above has been agreed.
314 315 COUNCIL 11. 12. 2014
36. REPORT ON SUBMISSION PANEL QUORUM
Contact Contact Details Director responsible: Chief Executive Y Karleen Edwards Officer responsible: Governance and Civic Y Darryl Griffin Services Unit Manager Author: Clare Sullivan, Council Y 941-8533 Secretary
1. PURPOSE AND ORIGIN OF REPORT
1.1 For the Council to alter part of a resolution made on 2 October 2014 regarding the quorum and terms of reference of the Submissions Panel. The Council, on 27 November, requested that a report be prepared to alter the quorum of the Submissions Panel.
2. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
2.1 The Council at the meeting of 2nd October 2014 adopted the “Terms of Reference” for “Committees of Council outlined in Appendix 2 of the report”. The resolutions for the Submissions Panel included that all Councillors were invited to be part of a panel and that the quorum would be half. This meant that 7 members would be required for a Submissions Panel. The terms of reference noted that “The Submissions Panel will be called to consider and approve Council formal and informal submissions to other bodies when the meeting cycle of Council or an appropriate Committee does not allow them to consider the submission or the submission does not fit within the terms of reference of a Council committee. The delegated authority stated that it was to be discussed.
2.2 The Submission Panel has met several times since the Council meeting of 2nd October 2014. A recent scheduled meeting did not reach a quorum. By the nature of what the Panel is required to do it needs to be responsive as submissions are quite often required in a very short time period. Currently the Submissions Panel has a quorum of 7. A quorum of 3 would enable the invitation to be sent to all Councillors but that if other commitments prevent some Councillors from attending the Panel can still meet.
2.4 There is scope for ambiguity in the terms of reference in relation to the authority of the Panel to approve submissions noted in 2.1 above. Because of the often very short timeframe it would be advisable for either the Submissions Panel or the Council to consider submissions rather than them going to a Council committee. As all Councillors are members of the Submissions Panel, members of a particular committee that the submission relates to could form the basis of the quorum required. Where a decision can be made in time by the Council then it will do so. In all other instances, the Submissions Panel would have authority on behalf of the Council to approve the submission.
3. FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS
3.1. The financial implications of the new committee structure were described in the report to the Council meeting of 2nd October 2014. Those implications are not changed by the recommendations in this report.
316 COUNCIL 11. 12. 2014
36 Cont’d
4. STAFF RECOMMENDATION
4.1 It is recommended that the Council alter the resolutions made on 2 October 2014 in relation to the Submissions Panel to be as follows
4.1.1 Chair: Councillor Jones.
4.1.2 Membership: All Councillors invited to be part of a Panel.
4.1.3 Quorum: Three members.
4.1.4 Meeting Cycle: Meetings will be held as required.
4.1.5 Reports to: Council on submissions made under this authority or seek Council approval when there is time to do so.
4.1.6 Terms of Reference: The Submissions Panel has responsibility and authority to:
Consider and approve Council formal and informal submissions to other bodies when the meeting cycle of the Council does not allow them to consider the submission. Refer any proposed submission to the Council for its consideration and approval, where it considers the matter to be of particular significance, or where the panel is unable to confirm the Council’s position on an issue before it. For the avoidance of doubt, the Panel’s authority does not extend to submissions made under the Resource Management Act 1991. 317 COUNCIL 11. 12. 2014
38. NOTICES OF MOTION
Nil.
39. RESOLUTION TO EXCLUDE THE PUBLIC
Attached.
318
THURSDAY 11 DECEMBER 2014
COUNCIL
RESOLUTION TO EXCLUDE THE PUBLIC
Section 48, Local Government Official Information and Meetings Act 1987.
I move that the public be excluded from the following parts of the proceedings of this meeting, namely items listed overleaf.
Reason for passing this resolution: good reason to withhold exists under section 7. Specific grounds under section 48(1) for the passing of this resolution: Section 48(1)(a)
This resolution is made in reliance on Section 48(1)(a) of the Local Government Official Information and Meetings Act 1987 and the particular interest or interests protected by Section 6 or Section 7 of that Act which would be prejudiced by the holding of the whole or relevant part of the proceedings of the meeting in public are as follows:
319 COUNCIL 11. 12. 2014
ITEM GENERAL SUBJECT OF SUBCLAUSE & REASON UNDER ACT SECTION PLAIN ENGLISH REASON WHEN REPORT CAN BE NO. EACH MATTER TO BE RELEASED CONSIDERED
5. CONFIRMATION OF Refer to the previous public excluded reasons in the agendas for MINUTES - COUNCIL these meetings. MEETINGS OF 27 NOVEMBER 2014 AND 5 DECEMBER 2014
40. REPORT OF THE CONTRIBUTION TO PURCHASE LAND FOR AKAROA WATER AKAROA/WAIREWA SUPPLY COMMUNITY BOARD MEETING OF Enable any local authority holding the information to carry on, 7(2)i The property is subject to confidential After settlement on the purchase. 12 NOVEMBER 2014 without prejudice or disadvantage, negotiations (including negotiations with regard to the purchase. commercial and industrial negotiations). Disclosure of the agreed price, if the purchase is not completed, would prejudice the land owners position. 41. REPORT OF THE FACILITIES REBUILD PLAN: REBUILD OF HEATHCOTE HAGLEY/FERRYMEAD COMMUNITY FACILITY COMMUNITY BOARD MEETING OF Protect information where the making available of the information 7(2)(b)(ii) Council is bound by a signed Following execution of contract 5 NOVEMBER 2014 would be likely unreasonably to prejudice the commercial position confidentiality agreement while in with Fusion Homes Limited. It is of the person who supplied or who is the subject of the information. negotiation with Fusion Homes Limited. recommended that this applies to This information is not about to be shared the Board decision also. Maintain legal professional privilege. 7(2)(g) publicly but needs to be addressed in the Board meeting to allow a full informed discussion. 42. REPORT OF THE SUMNER COMMUNITY FACILITY – APPOINTMENT OF THE HAGLEY/FERRYMEAD JOINT WORKING GROUP COMMUNITY BOARD MEETING OF Protection of privacy of natural persons 7(2)(a) Protection of privacy of natural persons. Following Board decision and 19 NOVEMBER 2014 notification to all applicants.
43. REPORT OF THE 250 CRANFORD STREET – PURCHASE OF LAND FOR ROAD SHIRLEY/PAPANUI COMMUNITY BOARD Enable any local authority holding the information to carry on, 7 (2)(i) Property is subject to confidential When settlement is concluded MEETING OF without prejudice or disadvantage, negotiations (including negotiation 5 NOVEMBER 2014 commercial and industrial negotiations). 320 COUNCIL 11. 12. 2014
ITEM GENERAL SUBJECT OF SUBCLAUSE & REASON UNDER ACT SECTION PLAIN ENGLISH REASON WHEN REPORT CAN BE NO. EACH MATTER TO BE RELEASED CONSIDERED 44. REPORT OF THE STRATEGY SALE OF RESERVE LAND 399 MCLEANS ISLAND ROAD AND FINANCE COMMITTEE CHRISTCHURCH MEETING OF 20 NOVEMBER 2014 Enable any local authority holding the information to carry on, 7 (2)(i) The report contains sensitive information Following the completion of a final without prejudice or disadvantage, negotiations (including which, if released, can affect the course of Sale and Purchase Agreement commercial and industrial negotiations). negotiations and should remain and settlement of the site. confidential. OVERDUE DEBTORS OVER $20,000 AS AT 30 SEPTEMBER 2014
Protection of privacy of natural persons. 7(2)(a) Overdue debtors should remain When legal proceedings are confidential to assist in the collection of commenced. INSURANCE CLAIM ENGINEERING ADVISORS these debts.
Conduct of negotiations 7(2)(i) Likely to unreasonably prejudice the Once the claim is settled. Council’s Insurance negotiations. PURCHASE ORDER DELEGATED AUTHORITY LIMIT ON CAPITAL EXPENDITURE
Prejudice commercial position of third party 7(2)(b)(ii) Likely to unreasonably prejudice the Three years. position of the other party. 45. REPORT OF THE GREATER NORTHERN TRANSPORT ACCESS SHORT TERM RESPONSE CHRISTCHURCH URBAN UPDATE DEVELOPMENT STRATEGY IMPLEMENTATION To enable the Council to carry on negotiations without prejudice 7(2) (b)(iii) Prejudice Commercial Position. Once the matters referred to in the COMMITTEE MEETING OF 21 report have been completed and NOVEMBER 2014 all parties with an interest in those matters have agreed to the release. 46. NORTHERN TRANSPORT To enable the Council to carry on negotiations without prejudice 7(2)(i) To keep negotiations with other agencies Once the matters referred to in the ACCESS SHORT TERM confidential until resolved report have been completed and RESPONSE UPDATE all parties with an interest in those matters have agreed to the release. 321 COUNCIL 11. 12. 2014
ITEM GENERAL SUBJECT OF SUBCLAUSE & REASON UNDER ACT SECTION PLAIN ENGLISH REASON WHEN REPORT CAN BE NO. EACH MATTER TO BE RELEASED CONSIDERED 47. REPORT OF THE AUDIT AND QUARTERLY PROCUREMENT REPORT QUARTER 1 – RISK MANAGEMENT 2014/2015 COMMITTEE MEETING OF 25 NOVEMBER 2014 Would be likely to unreasonably prejudice the commercial position 7(2)(b)(ii) Releasing the information would be likely At the expiry of the agreement. of the supplier to unreasonably prejudice the commercial position of the supplier.
Enable Council to carry out commercial activities without prejudice 7(2)(h) Withholding the information is necessary to or disadvantage enable the Council to carry out, without prejudice or disadvantage, commercial activities.
Enable Council to carry on negotiations without prejudice or 7(2)(i) Withholding the information is necessary to disadvantage enable Council to carry on negotiations without prejudice or disadvantage.
INTERNAL AUDIT STATUS REPORT
Prevent improper advantage 7(2)(j) Prevent disclosure or use of information for Three years. improper gain or advantage. Appendix four can be released after approval and being presented to the Council. 322 COUNCIL 11. 12. 2014
ITEM GENERAL SUBJECT OF SUBCLAUSE & REASON UNDER ACT SECTION PLAIN ENGLISH REASON WHEN REPORT CAN BE NO. EACH MATTER TO BE RELEASED CONSIDERED
48. REPORT OF THE RICCARTON PUBLIC TRANSPORT HUB WAITING LOUNGE INFRASTRUCTURE, UPDATE TRANSPORT AND ENVIRONMENT COMMITTEE Protection of Privacy of Natural Persons 7(2)(a) Confidential Commercial Negotiation and Never or upon obtaining Lessor’s MEETING OF 4 DECEMBER Agreement. consent 2014 Trade Secret 7(b)(i)
RED ZONE INFRASTRUCTURE
Enable Council to carry out negotiations without prejudice or 7(2)(i) The Council will need to negotiate with Dependant on CERA timetable for Disadvantage CERA on matters, as discussed in the consultation report. Maintain legal professional privilege 7(2)(g) Legal advice obtained jointly by Christchurch City and Waimakariri District PROVISION OF BANKS PENINSULA MAINTENANCE Councils. At the expiry of the agreement Enable council to carry out commercial activities without 7(2)(h) Witholding the information is necessary to prejudice or disadvantage enable the Council to carry out, without prejudice or disadvantage, commercial WIGRAM-MAGDALA LINK – AWARD OF CONSTRUCTION activities. CONTRACT When the tender process has been completed and tenderers Prejudice of commercial position 7(2)(b)(iii) Commercial negotiations yet to be have been advised of the completed with the preferred tenderers. outcomes 323 COUNCIL 11. 12. 2014
49. REPORT OF THE COMMUNITY FACILITIES REBUILD UNITS SOCIAL HOUSING COMMUNITIES, HOUSING PROGRAMME – BROUGHAM VILLAGE REDEVELOPMENT AND ECONOMIC OPTIONS DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE MEETING OF 4 DECEMBER Prejudice commercial position 7(2) (b)(iii) Commercial negotiations yet to be Outcome of report can be 2014 finalised. released upon completion of the Protection of health or safety of individuals 7(2) (d) Contains 3 permanent tenants who are not RFP process. aware of the current proposed long term Outcome of report can be COMMUNITY FACILITIES REBUILD UNIT: SANDILANDS asset strategy released when staff have SOCIAL HOUSING COMPLEX CLOSED UNITS 15 & 17 communicated with tenants. EARTHQUAKE REPAIRS
Would be likely unreasonably to prejudice the commercial position 3 (ii) Commercial negotiations yet to be Outcome of report can be of the person who supplied or who is the subject of the information Finalised released when final settlement agreed with EQC & Civic FACILITIES REBUILD PROGRAMME SOCIAL HOUSING – Assurance. AIREDALE COURTS SITE OPTIONS
Prejudice commercial position 7(2) (b)(iii) Commercial negotiations yet to be Commercial negotiations yet to be finalised. finalised. Protection of health or safety of individuals 7(2) (d) Block A contains 4 permanent tenants who Outcome of report can be are not aware of the current proposed long released when staff have CITY HOUSING – RANKING AND PRIORITISATION OF term asset strategy. communicated with tenants. COMPLEXES
Protection of health and safety of individuals 7(2) (d) Protection of health and safety of When a full Asset Optimisation Individuals Strategy and Communication Plan FACILITIES REBUILD PLAN – RICCARTON COMMUNITY has been agreed. CENTRE, SERVICE CENTRE AND VOLUNTEER LIBRARY – INVESTIGATION AND RECOMMENDATION FOR A REPLACEMENT FACILITY.
Conduct of negotiations 7.2(i) The report includes details of the value of Following completion of all option the existing site and if publicised could negotiations and subsequent prejudice those negotiations for its sale. approval by council of one of the The report also names robbie’s bar & preferred options bistro as a potential site for development while formal decisions around it’s future have not been made. COMMITTEE RESOLUTION TRACKER Report tracing resolution previously Reason for passing each resolution is the same as that reason passed by Committee in public when the Committee decided on each resolution. excluded. 324 COUNCIL 11. 12. 2014
ITEM GENERAL SUBJECT OF SUBCLAUSE & REASON UNDER ACT SECTION PLAIN ENGLISH REASON WHEN REPORT CAN BE NO. EACH MATTER TO BE RELEASED CONSIDERED
50. SELWYN-WAIHORA ZONE Protection of privacy of natural persons 7(2)(a) The names of nominees are contained in After recommendations have been COMMITTEE COMMUNITY the report. confirmed by Christchurch City MEMBER APPOINTMENTS Council, Environment Canterbury To enable the Council to consider and Selwyn District Council recommendations for community representatives to the Selwyn Waihora Zone Committee 51. REGARDING FUNDING OF Privacy of Natural Persons 7(2)(a) Report contains personal information REMEDIATION WORK FOR 7 relating to individual ratepayers. FINNSARBY PLACE Free and frank discussions S7(2)(f)(i) So Councillors can consider application in confidence.
52. EVENT OPPORTUNITY 2016 Enable the Council to carry on without prejudice or disadvantage 7(2)(i) Christchurch will be competing with other When the hosting rights have AND 2017 negotiations cities in a commercial process to secure been awarded, this will be in May hosting rights to this event. It is not in the 2015. best interests of Council to publically divulge their bid until the hosting rights Commercial information would have been awarded only be released with permission from NZFRU per the contractual arrangement. 53. ELLERSLIE INTERNATIONAL Maintain legal professional privilege 7(2)(g) Legal advice to Council After a final decision on the future FLOWER SHOW of EIFS is made and any Withholding the information is necessary to enable Council to carry 7(2)(h) Protection of Council’s position to commercial negotiations are out, without prejudice or disadvantage, commercial activities. negotiate in relation to the EIFS. concluded.
Withholding the information is necessary to enable Council to carry 7(2)(i) on, without prejudice or disadvantage, commercial negotiations.
54. HOUSING ACCORD: 36 Withholding the information is necessary to enable Council to carry 7(2)(h) To enable the Council to gather Upon completion of all commercial WELLS STREET AND 350 out, without prejudice or disadvantage, commercial activities. information and undertake commercial property negotiations. COLOMBO STREET negotiations. Withholding the information is necessary to enable Council to carry 7(2)(i) on, without prejudice or disadvantage, commercial negotiations.
55. UNDERWRITING OF AN Prejudice commercial position 7(2)(b)(ii) Details of the financial circumstances Once either R+V or the INSURANCE RECEIVABLE of The Music Centre are commercially Council pay the outstanding sensitive receivable 325 COUNCIL 11. 12. 2014
Chairperson’s Recommendation: That the foregoing motion be adopted.
Note
Section 48(4) of the Local Government Official Information and Meetings Act 1987 provides as follows:
“(4) Every resolution to exclude the public shall be put at a time when the meeting is open to the public, and the text of that resolution (or copies thereof):
(a) Shall be available to any member of the public who is present; and (b) Shall form part of the minutes of the local authority.”