SUMMIT ROAD PROTECTION AUTHORITY TE MANA TIAKI I TE ARA AKITU
Joint Meeting of the Summit Road Protection Authority and its Advisory Committee AGENDA
Notice of Meeting: A joint meeting of the Summit Road Protection Authority and its Advisory Committee will be held on:
Date: Monday 26 March 2018 Time: 5pm Venue: Committee Room 1, Level 2, Civic Offices, 53 Hereford Street, Christchurch
Authority Membership Advisory Committee Membership Chair Councillor Grant Miller Chair Paul Loughton - Summit Road Society Inc nominee (Selwyn District Council) Members Christchurch City Councillor Tim Scandrett Selwyn District Councillor Grant Miller Members Councillor Tim Scandrett Banks Peninsula Community Board Member Jed O'Donoghue (Christchurch City Council) Douglas Couch - Rūnanga nominee Dr Christine Dann - nominee of the Minister of Conservation Jed O'Donoghue Peter Graham - Landowner nominee (Banks Peninsula Denis Aldridge - Landowner nominee Community Board) Kelvin McMillan - Senior Policy Planner Environment Canterbury nominee (Vacant)
If you require access to the Civic Offices after 5pm, please phone the Executive Secretary ahead of the meeting date on the number below 19 March 2018
Executive Secretary Mark Saunders 941 6436 [email protected] www.ccc.govt.nz The Summit Road (Canterbury) Protection Act 2001 is the statutory basis of the Summity Road Protection Authority and its Advisory Committee, and states that the Summit Road Protection Authority is a Joint Committee of:
Note: The reports contained within this agenda are for consideration and should not be construed as policy unless and until adopted. If you require further information relating to any reports, please contact the Executive Secretary.
To view copies of Agendas and Minutes, visit: https://www.ccc.govt.nz/the-council/meetings-agendas-and-minutes/
SUMMIT ROAD PROTECTION AUTHORITY TE MANA TIAKI I TE ARA AKITU
26 March 2018
TABLE OF CONTENTS
1. Apologies ...... 3 2. Declarations of Interest ...... 3 3. Confirmation of Previous Minutes ...... 3 4. Public Forum ...... 3 5. Deputations by Appointment ...... 3 6. Petitions ...... 3
7. Update on the Proposed Summit Road Prohibited Times on Road Restrictions ...... 10 8. Administrative Matters ...... 17 9. Christchurch City Council Long Term Plan ...... 12 10. Proposed Temporary Logging Road over Marleys Hill Screnic Reserve ...... 12 11. Annual Report for the Year Ending 30 June 2017 ...... 14 12. Draft Annual Plan and Budget for 2018-19 ...... 14 13. Summit Road Entrance Signs ...... 15 14. Port Hill Fires ...... 15 15. Members’ Information Exchange ...... 17
Attachment A - Summit Road Hearings Panel Report ...... 18 Attachment B - Marleys Hill Logging Road Report to Community Board ...... 36 Attachment C - Annual Report for the Year Ending 30 June 2017 ...... 47 Attachment D - Draft Annual Plan and Budget for 2018-19 ...... 57
Page 2
SUMMIT ROAD PROTECTION AUTHORITY TE MANA TIAKI I TE ARA AKITU
26 March 2018
1. Apologies At the close of the agenda no apologies had been received.
2. Declarations of Interest Members are reminded of the need to be vigilant and 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. Confirmation of Previous Minutes For the confirmation of the Summit Road Protection Authority: That the minutes of the Summit Road Protection Authority meeting held on Wednesday, 12 April 2017 be confirmed (refer page 4). For the confirmation of the Advisory Committee: That the minutes of the Advisory Committee meeting held on Wednesday, 12 April 2017 be confirmed (refer page 7).
3. Public Forum A period of up to 30 minutes may be available for people to speak for up to five minutes on any issue that is not the subject of a separate hearings process.
4. Deputations by Appointment There were no deputations by appointment at the time the agenda was prepared.
5. Petitions There were no petitions received at the time the agenda was prepared.
Page 3
SUMMIT ROAD PROTECTION AUTHORITY TE MANA TIAKI I TE ARA AKITU
REPORT OF A MEETING OF THE
SUMMIT ROAD PROTECTION AUTHORITY
HELD ON WEDNESDAY 12 APRIL 2017 BECKENHAM SERVICE CENTRE 66 COLOMBO STREET, CHRISTCHURCH COMMENCING AT 5.30PM
PRESENT: Chair Councillor Grant Miller (Selwyn District Council) Members Councillor Tim Scandrett (Christchurch City Council) Mr Jed O’Donoghue (Christchurch City Council)
IN ATTENDANCE: Mr Kelvin McMillan (Acting Executive Secretary)
1. AFFIRMATION OF ADVISORY COMMITTEE MEMBER NOMINATIONS
Comment: The continuing members and new nominations for membership of the Advisory Committee pursuant to section 9(1) of the Summit Road (Canterbury) Protection Act 2001 are:
3 members nominated by the contributory local bodies: Cr Grant Miller (Selwyn District Council), Cr Tim Scandrett (Christchurch City Council), and Mr Jed O’Donoghue (Christchurch City Council)
Minutes of Previous Meeting 12/4/2017 Meeting Previous of Minutes
– 2 landowners: Mr Peter Graham and Mr Denis Aldridge
1 member nominated by the Minister of Conservation: Dr Christine Dann
1 member nominated by the Summit Road Society Inc: Mr Paul Loughton (Chair) 3 Item
1 member nominated by either te Papatipu Runanga o Rapaki or Runanga o Ngai Tahu: Mr Douglas Couch
1 member who has a knowledge of open space management and park management: Mr Kelvin McMillan
1 member nominated by Environment Canterbury: vacant and awaiting nomination
Page 4
SUMMIT ROAD PROTECTION AUTHORITY TE MANA TIAKI I TE ARA AKITU
Resolved: That the Authority confirm the appointment of all current Advisory Committee members and new nominations to the Summit Road Protection Authority Advisory Committee.
Councillor Miller/Member O’Donoghue Carried
Meeting adjourned at 5:37pm to the conclusion of Advisory Committee meeting commencing at 5:40pm. Meeting reconvened at 6:53pm.
2. APOLOGIES
Nil
3. APPOINTMENT OF CHAIR
It was resolved on the motion of Councillor Tim Scandrett, seconded by Mr Jed O’Donoghue, that Councillor Grant Miller be appointed Chairperson of the Summit Road Protection Authority.
4. CONFIRMATION OF MINUTES
It was resolved that the report of the meeting held on 25 July 2016 be confirmed as a true and accurate record of that meeting.
Councillor Miller/Councillor Scandrett Carried
5. ADOPTION OF THE ANNUAL REPORT
Resolved: That the annual report for the year ending June 2016 be adopted.
Minutes of Previous Meeting 12/4/2017 Meeting Previous of Minutes
Member O’Donoghue/Councillor Scandrett Carried
–
6. ADOPTION OF THE ANNUAL PLAN AND BUDGET 2017-2018
Resolved: That the Annual Plan and Budget for 1 July 2017 – 30 June 2018 be adopted.
Councillor Miller/Councillor Scandrett Carried 3 Item
7. SUMMIT ROAD PARTIAL CLOSURE UPDATE
Comment: The Advisory Committee endorsed the closure at night and recommended that the Authority convey to the Council its endorsement.
Resolved: That the information be received and the Authority endorses the closure at night and convey to the Council its endorsement.
Member O’Donoghue/Councillor Scandrett Carried
Page 5
SUMMIT ROAD PROTECTION AUTHORITY TE MANA TIAKI I TE ARA AKITU
8. SUMMIT ROAD PROTECTION AUTHORITY ADMINSITRATION
Resolved: That the information be received.
Councillor Miller/Councillor Scandrett Carried
9. GENERAL BUSINESS
The Authority welcomed Jed O’Donoghue as a new appointee to the Authority.
10. NEXT MEETING
Date to be confirmed.
The meeting closed at 6:55pm
CONFIRMED THIS 26TH DAY OF MARCH 2018
COUNCILLOR GRANT MILLER CHAIRPERSON
Minutes of Previous Meeting 12/4/2017 Meeting Previous of Minutes
–
3 Item
Page 6
SUMMIT ROAD PROTECTION AUTHORITY TE MANA TIAKI I TE ARA AKITU
REPORT OF A MEETING OF THE
SUMMIT ROAD PROTECTION AUTHORITY
ADVISORY COMMITTEE
HELD ON WEDNESDAY, 12 APRIL 2017
BECKENHAM SERVICE CENTRE 66 COLOMBO STREET, CHRISTCHURCH COMMENCING AT 5.40 PM
PRESENT: Chair Mr Paul Loughton Members Mr Jed O’Donoghue Councillor Grant Miller Councillor Tim Scandrett Mr Kelvin McMillan Mr Douglas Couch Mr Peter Graham Mr Denis Aldridge Dr Christine Dann
IN ATTENDANCE: Mr James Tricker (Environment Canterbury)
Minutes of Previous Meeting 12/4/2017 Meeting Previous of Minutes
–
1. APOLOGIES
Nil
2. CONFIRMATION OF MINUTES 3 Item
It was resolved that the report of the meeting of the Advisory Committee held on 25 July 2016 be confirmed as a true and accurate record of that meeting subject to amending Item 1 relating to apologies to note that there were apologies as noted in the attendance section at the beginning of the report.
Chair Loughton/Councillor Scandrett Carried
Page 7
SUMMIT ROAD PROTECTION AUTHORITY TE MANA TIAKI I TE ARA AKITU
3. ANNUAL REPORT
Comment: The Acting Executive Secretary noted two typographical errors within Appendix 3
of the Annual Report: - the Opening Balance should be as at 01/07/2015 (not 2013) - the Closing Balance should be as at 30/06/2016 (not 2015)
Resolved: That the Advisory Committee approve the Annual Report and forward it to the Authority for adoption.
Chair Loughton/Councillor Scandrett Carried
4. PORT HILLS FIRE
Recommendation: For discussion.
Comment: The Advisory Committee left this item to lie on the table deferring discussion until the Fire Recovery Plan is available or opportunity to contribute to the plan presents and it appears that the Advisory Committee’s concerns (principally around the management of long grass) are not already addressed.
5. DRAFT ANNUAL PLAN AND BUDGET
Comment: The Advisory Committee discussed the entrance signs it had previously discussed installing at strategic entranceway locations on the Summit Road, noting that intended design- style for these would likely prove expensive.
Resolved: That costings be obtained for the entrance signs.
Minutes of Previous Meeting 12/4/2017 Meeting Previous of Minutes
–
Member Dann/Member Aldridge Carried
Resolved: That the Advisory Committee approve the draft Annual Plan and Budget and forward it to the Authority for adoption.
Chair Loughton/Member McMillan Carried 3 Item
6. SUMMIT ROAD PROPOSED NIGHT CLOSURE
Resolved: That the information be received and the Advisory Committee endorses the closure at night and recommends that the Authority convey to the Council its endorsement.
Chair Loughton/Member McMillan Carried
Page 8
SUMMIT ROAD PROTECTION AUTHORITY TE MANA TIAKI I TE ARA AKITU
7. ADMINSITRATION OF THE SUMMIT ROAD PROTECTION AUTHORITY
Resolved: That the information be received.
Chair Loughton/Councillor Scandrett Carried
8. GENERAL BUSINESS
Discussion was had with Mr James Tricker of Environment Canterbury, who was in attendance, as to who might be Environment Canterbury’s next nominee to the Advisory Committee, so that Mr Tricker was able to report back to Environment Canterbury with regard to them putting forward a suitable nominee.
9. NEXT MEETING
Date to be confirmed.
The meeting closed at 6:48pm
CONFIRMED THIS 26TH DAY OF MARCH 2018
PAUL LOUGHTON CHAIRPERSON
Minutes of Previous Meeting 12/4/2017 Meeting Previous of Minutes
–
Item 3 Item
Page 9
SUMMIT ROAD PROTECTION AUTHORITY TE MANA TIAKI I TE ARA AKITU
26 March 2018
7. Update on the Proposed Summit Road Prohibited Times on Road Restrictions
15 15 7.1 The Christchurch City Council’s Hearing Panel on 15 February 2018 considered the submissions -
7 received through the public consultation on the Proposal. The Authority made the following written submission in response to the consultation: s SUMMIT ROAD PROTECTION AUTHORITY SUBMISSION ON THE Summit Road proposed prohibited times on road restrictions Item The Summit Road Authority is a statutory body authorised by the Summit Road (Canterbury) Protection Act 2001 to administer the scenic amenity of the Summit Road and adjoining land.
The Authority’s statutory purpose is;
(a) to provide for the preservation and protection of the scenic amenity associated with the Summit Road and other roads, walkways, paths, and public open spaces within the protected land: (b) to provide for the preservation and protection of natural amenities associated with land within the protected area: (c) to provide for the improvement of facilities for the public enjoyment of the scenic amenity and the natural amenities.
For a number of years the Authority and its supporting advisory committee have been extremely concerned about damage to the scenic amenity and public facilities of the Summit Road corridor caused by inappropriate activities mostly occurring at night. Burnouts, damage to the road surface, signs, and structures such as the Sign of the Bellbird, has seriously diminished the value of this important Port Hills recreation and environmental asset and reduced its potential for greater public use and enjoyment.
The Authority considers that closing the road to night traffic will reduce damage and allow for more effective enforcement, thereby safeguarding existing facilities and potential for further investment that will enhance the Summit Road recreation and environmental experience. For example the Authority has funds that it can use to enhance signage and interpretation of the Summit Road corridor however is currently reluctant to do so given the high potential risk of damage due to vandalism and or fire. Better enforcement will also improve public and landowner safety along the Summit Road.
In its meeting resolution of 12 April 2017 the Summit Road Authority resolved that the proposal to close the Summit Road at night be endorsed and that the Council be informed of that endorsement
Therefore the Summit Road Authority fully supports the City Councils proposal for night closing of the Summit Road as outlined in the proposal
7.2 Councillor Scandrett attended the hearings on 15 February 2018 and spoke to the Hearings Panel on behalf of the Authority as reported in the Hearings Panel Report, which is appended as Attachment A for information. Page 10
SUMMIT ROAD PROTECTION AUTHORITY TE MANA TIAKI I TE ARA AKITU
26 March 2018
7.3 Through its deliberations, the Hearings Panel decided upon its recommendations to the Council in respect of the Proposal as set out and discussed in the Hearings Panel Report.
15 7.4 The Christchurch City Council will on 22 March 2018 consider the Hearings Panel Report, -
meaning that at the time of writing the final decision of the Christchurch City Council on the 7
Proposal is unknown, though it should be known by the time the Authority and Advisory s Committee meet. 7.5 The Selwyn District Council is expected to be likely to follow the lead of the City Council in
respect of its stance on the Proposal. Item
7.6 Though the Hearings Panel recommended that the Council not approve the Proposal, the Panel also made other recommendations aimed at seeking alternative solutions to the concerns underlying the Proposal that the Authority may wish to comment on or be involved with when opportunity arises.
7.7 Recommendation to Advisory Committee That the Advisory Committee: 1. Receives and considers the information in this report.
7.8 Recommendation to Authority That the Summit Road Protection Authority: 1. Receives and considers the information in this report.
8. Administrative Matters 8.1 Senior Policy Planner, Kelvin McMillan, had been acting as the Authority’s Executive Secretary to ensure continuity of knowledge and service in the role, but being also a member of the Advisory Committee as the contributory Councils’ nominee with a knowledge of open space management and park management, he has been desiring to extract himself to avoid the possibility of any perception of a conflict of interest arising. 8.2 Accordingly, the role has been transitioned to Christchurch City Council Committee and Hearings Advisor, Mark Saunders. 8.3 Administrative and procedural matters will continue to be reviewed as time allows. The gradual integration of agendas and minutes into the City Council’s “Infocouncil” system may be noticed from the new format, which should assist with appropriate record-keeping and compliance with the Local Government Official Information and Meetings Act, which sets out statutory requirements the Authority must comply with as a joint committee of the Christchurch City and Selwyn District Councils. 8.4 Recommendation to Advisory Committee That the Advisory Committee: 1. Receives the information in this report.
Page 11
SUMMIT ROAD PROTECTION AUTHORITY TE MANA TIAKI I TE ARA AKITU
26 March 2018
8.5 Recommendation to Authority That the Summit Road Protection Authority:
15 15
1. Receives the information in this report and thanks Mr McMillan for his service as Acting -
7
Executive Secretary.
s 9. Christchurch City Council Long Term Plan 9.1 The consultation on the City Council’s draft Long Term Plan for 2018-28 is open for feedback
Item from 8 March 2018 to 13 April 2018. The Authority may consider whether it wishes to make a submission, but might wish to clarify the implications of submitting for the City Councillor on the Authority in terms of whether any perceived conflict could be satisfactory managed. The consultation webpage on the Long Term Plan can be found here: https://www.ccc.govt.nz/the- council/consultations-and-submissions/haveyoursay/show/125
9.2 Recommendation to Advisory Committee That the Advisory Committee: 1. Receives the information in this report.
9.3 Recommendation to Authority That the Summit Road Protection Authority: 1. Receives the information in this report.
10. Proposed Temporary Logging Road over Marleys Hill Scenic Reserve 10.1 In the later part of last year an application for consent was received by the Authority for a logging road over part of Marleys Hill Scenic Reserve to drop down from the Summit Road.
10.2 The application contained inadequate information to the extent of not complying with the information requirements or clarifying the extent of proposed actions requiring approval so the application was not accepted. Furthermore, the application to the Authority was for the road to remain in place permanently in contradiction to the permission granted by the Spreydon-Cashmere Community Board in respect of the road crossing Marleys Hill Scenic Reserve, which was assessed and granted as an application for a temporary road with the land to be fully reinstated and actively restored at the termination of the easement.
10.3 The applicant was accordingly invited to update their application and advised that their application was not compliant with the statutory requirements for applications (in respect of not including required/adequate information). Staff corresponded with the applicant and attended a site visit with them to assist them in understanding the requirements for an application; the application has some connection with supporting the Christchurch Adventure Park following the effect of the Port Hills fires on them last year, since it directs logging away from the Adventure Park.
10.4 The applicant is yet to progress amendments to their application, though it appears this has not prevented the Adventure Park reopening. For the information of the Authority, the Spreydon- Cashmere Community Board on 3 October 2017 gave the applicant its permission for a temporary right of way easement over part of Marleys Hill Scenic Reserve in the below form:
Page 12
SUMMIT ROAD PROTECTION AUTHORITY TE MANA TIAKI I TE ARA AKITU
26 March 2018
Board Consideration:
15 15 The Board considered the proposal and noted that while there is potential for the track to have -
7
adverse effects on the reserve and reserve users, use will be temporary and remediation will be required. The Board discussed the need for the easement to include conditions limiting the s vehicular use and ensuring that remediation is timely and comprehensive. The Board further noted staff advice that in addition to approval under the Reserves Act 1977
Item approval will also be required under other relevant statutory provisions. Community Board Resolved SCCB/2017/00001
Part C
That the Spreydon-Cashmere Community Board resolved: 1. To approve, pursuant to Section 48(1)(f) of the Reserves Act 1977, the granting of a right of way easement to McVicar Holdings Limited for the purpose of a logging road between Cashmere Forest and the Summit Road over the parts of the Marleys Hill Scenic Reserve as shown on the plan submitted at Attachment A, subject to: 1.1 The Easement being limited to a period of time not exceeding six (6) months from the date of consent and subject to the following conditions: 1.1.1 Full reinstatement and active restoration of the land to be effected as soon as practicable after the date of the termination of the easement. Remediation to be determined according to a photograph dilapidation survey. 1.1.2 That the easement will only be used by vehicles between the hours of 6am to 5pm weekdays. 1.1.3 The speed of vehicles using the right of way to be limited to a maximum of 30 kilometres per hour. 1.2 The consent of the Minister of Conservation, exercised by staff delegation, as set out in 2. Below. 1.3 All necessary statutory consents under, but not limited to, the Resource Management Act, Building Control Act and Summit Road (Canterbury) Protection Act being obtained. 2. To recommend that the Chief Executive, exercising on behalf of the Council delegated authority from the Minister of Conservation, consents to the granting of the easement to McVicar Holdings Limited for the purpose of a temporary logging road as outlined in 1. Above. 3. Provided that consent on behalf of the Minister of Conservation is given to authorise the Property Consultancy Manager to finalise documentation to implement the easement. Tim Scandrett/Helene Mautner Carried unanimously
Page 13
SUMMIT ROAD PROTECTION AUTHORITY TE MANA TIAKI I TE ARA AKITU
26 March 2018
10.5 A copy of the relevant staff report to the Community Board is appended as Attachment B for information.
15 15
10.6 Recommendation to Advisory Committee -
7 That the Advisory Committee:
s 1. Receive the information in this report, noting it should avoid pre-determining the matter. 2. Notes that sole discretion remains with the Authority pursuant to section 17 of the Summit Road (Canterbury) Protection Act, if the effects of the application on the amenities are minor, to decide Item the application does not require notification or approval.
10.7 Recommendation to Authority That the Summit Road Protection Authority: 1. Receive the information in this report, noting it should avoid pre-determining the matter.
11. Annual Report for the Year Ending 30 June 2017
11.1 The Authority’s Annual Report for the year ending 30 June 2017 is appended as Attachment C for approval. Upon adoption by the Authority the report will be forwarded to the contributory Councils.
11.2 Recommendation to Advisory Committee That the Advisory Committee: 1. Approve the Annual Report for the year ending 30 June 2017 appended as Attachment C and recommend it to the Authority for adoption.
11.3 Recommendation to Authority That the Summit Road Protection Authority: 1. Adopt the Annual Report for the year ending 30 June 2017 appended as Attachment C.
12. Draft Annual Plan and Budget for 2018-19
12.1 The Summit Road (Canterbury) Protection Act requires the Authority to prepare an estimate of expenditure for the year ahead, in this case for the period 1 July 2018 - 30 June 2019, and submit it to the two contributory Councils. In furtherance of this requirement, a draft Annual Plan and Budget for the relevant period is appended as Attachment D for approval.
12.2 It is recommended to continue to levy the two contributory Councils $14,500 per year for the present. This is less than the sum historically levied but sufficient to anticipate the opportunities potentially arising from having now accumulated a sum adequate to more substantive undertakings. It also anticipates the prospect of contributing to such alternatives to the proposed prohibited times on road restrictions as the advancement of the Port Hills Management Plan.
Page 14
SUMMIT ROAD PROTECTION AUTHORITY TE MANA TIAKI I TE ARA AKITU
26 March 2018
12.3 Recommendation to Advisory Committee
15 That the Advisory Committee: -
7
1. Consider and approve the draft Annual Plan and Budget for 1 July 2018 – 30 June 2019 appended s as Attachment D and recommend it to the Authority for adoption.
12.4 Recommendation to Authority
Item That the Summit Road Protection Authority: 1. Adopt the Annual Plan and Budget for 1 July 2018 – 30 June 2019 appended as Attachment D and approve levying $14,500 from the contributory Councils for the year.
13. Summit Road Entrance Signs 13.1 The Advisory Committee at its last meeting discussed the entrance signs it had previously discussed installing at strategic entranceway locations on the Summit Road, noting that intended design-style for these would likely prove expensive, and resolved that costings be obtained for the entrance signs. 13.2 Mr McMillan sought costings from a stonemason, but ultimately no costings were returned to him, suggesting the work might not be attractive to a contractor at a reasonable cost, and in light of the lack of resolution to date in respect of the vandalism and anti-social road use Summit Road is vulnerable to, it was anticipated that the Authority may wish to first consider opportunities that may arise out of the Hearings Panel’s recommended possible alternatives to the Proposed Summit Road Prohibited Times on Road Restrictions.
13.3 Recommendation to Advisory Committee
That the Advisory Committee: 1. Receive the information in this report.
13.4 Recommendation to Authority That the Summit Road Protection Authority: 1. Receive the information in this report.
14. Port Hills Fire 14.1 The Advisory Committee left this item to lie on the table at its last meeting deferring discussion until the Fire Recovery Plan was available or opportunity to contribute to the plan presents and it appears that the Advisory Committee’s concerns (principally around the management of long grass) are not already addressed. 14.2 This item is accordingly still on the table for this meeting. The original report is copied immediately below for information. The original recommendation was merely that the matter was for discussion. At the present time the recommendation would be that the Authority’s focus and funds may be better considered for a direction tying into, and awaiting clarity around, the possible alternative solutions to the Proposed Summit Road Prohibited Times on Road Restrictions, such
Page 15
SUMMIT ROAD PROTECTION AUTHORITY TE MANA TIAKI I TE ARA AKITU
26 March 2018
those that may emerge from the Port Hills Management Plan that the Hearings Panel recommended for advancement as soon as possible.
15 15
-
The recent Port Hills fires has caused significant damage to property and the natural amenity of the 7
Summit Road corridor. s
Fire damage is readily apparent along upper Dyers Pass Road (City side) and along the Summit Road between and around Marleys Hill and Cass Peak. Within the Summit Road area planted areas in
Item Victoria Park, Kennedys Bush and Marleys Hill were severely affected. Other areas such as Mt Ada / Ohinetahi, Hoon, Hay and Cashmere Valleys visible from the road were severely burnt. However the bulk of bush in Kennedys Bush and Cass Peak Reserves was spared. The City and Selwyn District Councils are currently preparing a fire recovery plan pursuant to the Civil Defence and Emergency Management Act 2002. A number of other organisations are preparing to undertake recovery measures of their own. The Banks Peninsula Conservation Trust has a fund set up for fire recovery donations.
Above: Fire damage Summit Road Corridor above Hoon Hay Valley
Above: Fire damage Mt Ada (Kennedys Bush Scenic Reserve) and Ohinetahi
In light of the public desire to repair the damage the Summit Road Protection Authority’s statutory responsibilities and the Authority’s current $97,000 reserve fund it may be appropriate for the Authority to contribute a portion of its reserve fund toward fire recovery actions such as planting that would enhance the scenic amenity of the summit Road. This would be in keeping with the Authority’s statutory purposes. I.e.
To provide for the preservation and protection of the scenic amenity associated with the Summit Road and other roads, walkways, paths and public open spaces within the protection area; To provide for the preservation and protection of natural amenities of land within the protected area;
Page 16
SUMMIT ROAD PROTECTION AUTHORITY TE MANA TIAKI I TE ARA AKITU
26 March 2018
To provide for the improvement of facilities for the public enjoyment of the scenic amenity and the natural amenities.
15 15
If the Advisory committee considers that a fire recovery grant be made available it is desirable that -
in be incorporated into the Draft Annual Plan & Budget – see agenda item 5. 7
s Recommendation: For discussion.
14.3 Recommendation to Advisory Committee
Item That the Advisory Committee: 1. Receive the information in this report.
14.4 Recommendation to Authority That the Summit Road Protection Authority: 1. Receive the information in this report.
15. Members’ Information Exchange This item provides an opportunity for Members to update each other on recent events and/or issues of relevance and interest to the Authority and its Advisory Committee.
Page 17
Council 22 March 2018
27. Hearings Panel Report on the Proposed Summit Road (Rapaki Road - Gebbies Pass Road) and Worsleys Road (Summit Road - start of the Track) Prohibited Times on Road Restrictions Reference: 18/247706 Presenter(s): Councillor David East - Chairman of the Hearings Panel
1. Purpose of Report 1.1 The purpose of this report is to present the Hearings Panel’s recommendations following the consultation and hearings process on the Proposal to restrict night-time road access to Summit Road (between Rapaki Road and Gebbies Pass Road) and Worsleys Road (from Summit Road to the start of the Track) under the Cruising and Prohibited Times on Roads Bylaw 2014 as depicted in Attachment A (“the Proposal”). 1.2 The purpose of consulting on the Proposal was to investigate and consider it as a possible solution to concerns raised regarding safety on, and damage to, Summit Road relating to anti- social road use, vandalism, fire, and littering. Summit Road is a popular recreational area with ecological significance that is vulnerable to fire and evidently frequented by anti-social road users. 1.3 The Summit Road runs through the districts of both Christchurch City Council (“the Council”) and the Selwyn District Council. Staff have been working with the Selwyn District Council, the Police, and the Summit Road Protection Authority to investigate and consider possible solutions to the concerns for the safety and protection of Summit Road as a significant recreational and ecological asset of the greater Christchurch area. 1.4 The Proposal was staff generated in response to requests to address concerns for Summit Road from residents, the community and other interest groups, particularly the Summit Road Protection Authority, which exists by virtue of the Summit Road (Canterbury) Protection Act 2001.1 The Police were also supportive of the Proposal progressing to consultation.
2. Key Points
Summit Road Hearings Panel Report Report Panel Hearings Road Summit
2.1 The Proposal is for time restrictions prohibiting vehicles under 3500kg from being on Summit - Road (between Rapaki Road and Gebbies Pass Road) and Worsleys Road (from Summit Road to the start of the Track) from 10pm to 5am on Thursday through Monday every week and also on public holidays.2 Overnight access would be unrestricted on Mondays, Tuesdays and Wednesdays, and car parking opposite the Sign of the Kiwi would be unaffected. 2.2 After receiving and considering the written submissions through the consultation process on the Proposal, staff came to recommend that the Proposal not be approved. Staff assessed that the submitting public and intervening investigations and discussions, particularly with the Police, had demonstrated that the Proposal is not the right solution for addressing the concerns for the safety and protection of Summit Road.
Attachment A A Attachment
1 The Act states that the Summit Road Protection Authority is a joint committee of the Selwyn District Council, Christchurch City Council, and Banks Peninsula District Council (the latter two councils having since been amalgamated). 2 The Bylaw would allow for exceptions to the prohibition, including: Maintaining access to Summit Road properties for owners, occupiers and their bona fide visitors. Continued access for vehicles over 3500kg, cyclists and pedestrians. Page 18
Council 22 March 2018
2.3 The Hearings Panel, after considering the written and heard submissions received during the consultation and hearings process, has come to agree with the staff recommendation, and so is recommending that the Council, among other things, not approve the Proposal. The Panel, however, did not doubt that the concerns underlying the Proposal are valid and serious; the Panel has other reasons for not supporting the Proposal as discussed in this report. The Panel’s other recommendations set out and discussed reflect its desire to prompt other, better solutions to be developed to address the concerns for the protection of Summit Road. 2.4 The Council can accept or reject the Hearings Panel’s recommendations, bearing in mind that
the Panel has heard and considered the submissions received concerning the Proposal to assist the Council in fulfilling its consultation obligations. Noting that the Local Government Act 2002 requires, as one of the principles of consultation, that “the views presented to the local authority should be received by the local authority with an open mind and should be given by the local authority, in making a decision, due consideration” (section 82(1)(e)). 2.5 The Council, as the final decision-maker, should put itself in as good a position as the Hearings Panel having considered all the submissions. The written submissions received by the Panel can be found here: http://christchurch.infocouncil.biz/ (within the agenda for the meeting of the Hearings Panel on 15 February 2018). The heard submissions that were presented to the Panel and the Panel’s consideration of all submissions and its deliberations are discussed below to assist the Council in understanding how and why the Panel has come to its recommendations.
3. Hearings Panel Recommendations That the Council: 1. Does not approve the installation of a Prohibited Times on Road Restriction on Summit Road (Rapaki Road - Gebbies Pass Road) and Worsleys Road (Summit Road - start of the Track). 2. Requests that the Port Hills Management Plan be advanced as soon as possible recognising that the outcomes and objectives of that Plan may assist in achieving positive outcomes for the Summit Road and other affected roads in the area covered by that Plan. 3. Requests that a joint briefing on these matters be provided as soon as possible to the affected Community Boards.
Summit Road Hearings Panel Report Report Panel Hearings Road Summit
4. Considers a lowering of the speed limit on the Summit Road.
- 5. Considers a mechanism that would potentially identify users of the Summit Road for crime prevention purposes. 6. Notes that the Police are agreeable to assisting with measures to curb anti-social behaviour on the Summit Road. 4. Context/Background 4.1 On 25 January 2018 the Council resolved to appoint a Hearings Panel to receive deputations, consider public submissions, and make a recommendation to the Council on the Proposal.
4.2 The Hearings Panel came to be comprised of Councillor David East (as Chairperson), Deputy A Attachment Mayor Andrew Turner, and Community Board members from the four Community Boards that Summit Road runs into: Tim Lindley (Central-Heathcote-Linwood), Karolin Potter (Spreydon- Cashmere), Tori Peden (Banks Peninsula) and Ross McFarlane (Halswell-Hornby-Riccarton). 4.3 The Hearings Panel convened on 15 February 2018 to hear submitters wishing to be heard in person, consider all the submissions received on the Proposal along with the staff report and answers offered by the Police to the Panel’s questions, and ultimately to deliberate on the Proposal with a view to deciding upon recommendations to the Council. Page 19
Council 22 March 2018
4.4 Staff, after receiving and considering the written submissions through the consultation process, came to recommend in their report to the Hearings Panel that it recommend to the Council that the Proposal not be approved. Staff regarding that the submitting public and intervening investigations and discussions, particularly with the Police, had demonstrated that the Proposal is not the right solution for addressing the concerns for the safety and protection of Summit Road. 4.5 As noted in the staff report to the Hearings Panel, Summit Road is a popular recreation area with ecological and city-wide significance. It is utilised by pedestrians, cyclists and motor
vehicles, primarily for leisure activities. These leisure activities are reported to occur mainly during day-time, but there is known to be some demand for night-time access to Summit Road. 4.6 The majority of Summit Road between Rapaki Road and Gebbies Pass Road is within the Christchurch City Council territorial boundary, but it also crosses that boundary with Selwyn District Council. On the Christchurch City Council side of the boundary, the stretches of Summit Road and Worsleys Road included in the Proposal cross through, or are close to, the boundaries of four Community Boards: Banks Peninsula, Halswell-Hornby-Riccarton, Spreydon-Cashmere, and Central-Heathcote-Linwood. Though Summit Road could be said to be of significance to the wider area it overlooks encompassing the whole city and its visitors as a prime vantage point and scenic landscape. 4.7 The concerns raised regarding safety on, and damage to, the Summit Road relating to anti- social road use, vandalism, fire, and littering/rubbish were demonstrated in the consultation leaflet for the Proposal with reference to the following photographs of examples of anti-social road use and damage:
Summit Road Hearings Panel Report Report Panel Hearings Road Summit
-
Attachment A A Attachment
Page 20
Council 22 March 2018
4.8 Staff reported that such anti-social road use and damage as that here depicted occurs primarily at night-time. 4.9 Staff further reported that as a result of ongoing concerns regarding such anti-social road use on, and damage to, Summit Road, they have been working with the Police, the Summit Road Protection Authority, and the Selwyn District Council to investigate possible solutions. These are in addition to existing enforcement tools that the Police have at present. Possible solutions include:
Prohibited Times on Road Restrictions under the Cruising and Prohibited Times on Roads Bylaw 2014 This being the Proposal that has been consulted on and is the subject of this report. Locked Gates to support Prohibited Times on Road Restrictions Staff reported that this possible solution was not progressed due to: - the cost of installing the barriers - the ongoing costs of operating the gates in terms of a contractor locking and unlocking them each day - the cost of maintaining the gates - safety concerns - the inconvenience for owners, occupiers and their bona fide visitors - the risk of the key or code being shared with others. No Cruising Restrictions Staff reported that this possible solution was not progressed due to anti-social road users not being considered to be cruising by the definition within the Cruising and Prohibited Times on Roads Bylaw 2014. Speed Humps Staff reported that this possible solution was not progressed due to: - Summit Road being a collector road
Summit Road Hearings Panel Report Report Panel Hearings Road Summit
- its effect on the cycling and driving experience for road users - - it would not necessarily address issues occurring in roadside layby areas - it would require speed humps to be installed at approximately 100m intervals to be effective - the visual appearance of the permanent warning signage as two combination signs and posts would be required for each speed hump - the cost of implementation. Crime Prevention or Traffic Cameras at the Sign of the Kiwi
Attachment A A Attachment Staff reported that this possible solution was not progressed at this stage because: - the location is not a priority location for either a crime prevention camera or a traffic camera - the cost of installation
Page 21
Council 22 March 2018
- the limited benefits to enforcement from the type of information obtained from cameras. Night-Time Parking Restrictions Staff reported that this possible solution was not progressed because: - parking is not considered to be a significant issue along Summit Road - there are many opportunities to park in different locations along it - the cost and visual effects of no-parking signage. Night-Time Parking Restrictions at the Sign of the Kiwi Staff reported that this possible solution was not progressed because this location is important both to Sign of the Kiwi patrons and also as a sightseeing location and place to stop a vehicle along the Dyers Pass Road route. 4.10 Staff reported that the Police have been involved in discussing these possible solutions, and also noted that if traffic treatments were implemented along Summit Road, Selwyn District Council would need to also resolve and implement these for their section of Summit Road. Though staff conveyed that Selwyn District Council traffic staff are agreeable to Christchurch City Council leading the investigations.
5. Consultation Process and Submissions 5.1 Community consultation on the Proposal to restrict night-time road access to Summit Road (between Rapaki Road and Gebbies Pass Road) and Worsleys Road (from Summit Road to the start of the Track) under the Cruising and Prohibited Times on Roads Bylaw 2014 was undertaken from Monday 10 July to Friday 25 August 2017. 5.2 A total of 70 consultation leaflets were hand-delivered to properties on Summit Road, sections of Hoon Hay Valley Road, Huntsbury Avenue and Worsleys Road. An additional 90 leaflets were delivered in late July 2017 to Gebbies Pass Road, Millers Road, McQueens Valley Road and Christchurch Akaroa Road. 5.3 The consultation leaflet was also sent to 239 key stakeholders and 110 absentee owners. 5.4 Additional consultation leaflets were made available at the Council’s Civic Offices, Akaroa
Summit Road Hearings Panel Report Report Panel Hearings Road Summit Service Centre, Beckenham Service Centre, Linwood Service Centre, Little River Service
- Centre, Lyttelton Service Centre, Riccarton Service Centre, Hornby Service Centre, Te Hapua: Halswell Centre, Aranui Library, Bishopdale Community Library, Central Library (Peterborough), Central Library (Manchester Street), Diamond Harbour Library, Lyttelton Library, New Brighton Community Library, Parklands Community Library, Redwood Community Library, South Library, Spreydon Library, Upper Riccarton Community and School Library, Pioneer Recreation and Sport Centre, Graham Condon Recreation and Sport Centre, Jellie Park Recreation and Sport Centre, QEII Fitness at Parklands, Lyttelton Recreation and Sports Centre and Cowles Stadium. 5.5 The content of the consultation leaflet was also displayed on the Council’s ‘Have Your Say’ website. A Attachment 5.6 During the course of the engagement, the Council received 865 written submissions in response to the Proposal. 5.7 Of the 865 submitters, 221 submitters were in support, 99 were in support but had some concerns, and 545 did not support the Proposal.
Page 22
Council 22 March 2018
Consultation Analysis 5.8 Staff provided the following analysis in respect of the consultation results: Interest groups 5.9 Of the 865 submitters, 16 identified as being affiliated with an organisation. Environmental/advocacy 5.9.1 Submissions were received from the Summit Road Protection Authority, Summit Road
Society, Port Hills Park Trust Board, Mt Vernon Management Committee, and Friends of the Bellbird. Three were in support of the Proposal, one was in support with concerns, and one did not support the Proposal. Societal concerns 5.9.2 One submission was affiliated with the Governors Bay Road Safety Working Group, and another was affiliated with the Governors Bay Anti-Social Behaviour Group. Both were in support with concerns. Recreation 5.9.3 Four submissions were affiliated with the following recreational groups: Valley of Peace Cricket Club, Port Hills Athletic Club, Christchurch Adventure Park, and a walking group. All were in support of the Proposal. 5.9.4 Three were affiliated with photography groups; all of those did not support the Proposal. 5.9.5 One was affiliated with Chch Dwnunda, which is a car enthusiast group; this did not support the Proposal. Residents Association 5.9.6 Of all of the affected ward areas, only one submission was received from a Residents Association (the Cashmere Residents Association). They were in support with concerns. Ward Area 5.10 Of the 865 submissions, 521 submitters recorded their address within one of the four ward
Summit Road Hearings Panel Report Report Panel Hearings Road Summit
areas that Summit Road runs through. Of these, three submitters reside on Summit Road and three live on Worsleys Track, which are within the area of the Proposal. Submissions were - received from 11 Gebbies Pass residents, three of which own land around the intersection with Summit Road. And submissions were received from 35 submitters with addresses in Governors Bay. 5.11 337 submitters live outside the four wards areas. Of these 215 live in other areas of Christchurch. The remaining 122 submitters are from a range of places: 53 from Selwyn District, 35 from Waimakariri District, 22 from other areas in the South Island, eight from the North Island, two did not supply their addresses but stated they were from Christchurch, one was from Australia, and one was from the United States of America.
5.12 Of the remaining seven submitters, five were anonymous and two supplied PO Boxes so it is A Attachment unclear whether they fall into one of the four ward areas or not. Breakdown of support by ward areas 5.13 Of the 221 submitters in support of the Proposal, 170 live in one of the four ward areas that Summit Road runs through, 48 submitters live outside the ward area, and of the remaining three supporters, two provided a PO Box address and one did not supply their address.
Page 23
Council 22 March 2018
5.14 Of the 99 submitters in support with concerns, 68 live in one of the four ward areas and 31 live outside the ward area. 5.15 Of the 545 submitters against the Proposal, 283 live in one of the four ward areas that Summit Road runs through, 258 submitters live outside the ward areas, and the remaining four submitters provided false details. Local communities Worsleys/Summit Road residents
5.16 Of the 12 submitters with a Worsleys Road/Summit Road address, eight were in support, two were in support with concerns and two did not support the Proposal. 5.17 Of these 12 submitters, six had a property within the area of the Proposal. Four were in support, one was in support with concerns and one did not support the Proposal. Gebbies Pass residents 5.18 Of the 11 submitters with a Gebbies Pass Road address, five were in support, four were in support with concerns and two were against the Proposal. Of these, three owned land around the junction with Summit Road (one in support and two in support with concerns). Governors Bay 5.19 Of the 35 submitters from Governors Bay, ten were in support, six were in support with concerns and 19 did not support the Proposal. Selwyn District 5.20 Of the 53 submitters from the Selwyn District, eight were in support, three were in support with concerns and 41 did not support the Proposal. Feedback Themes 5.21 Staff reported that the main themes of the feedback received in the written submissions were: Concerns about the Proposal Restricting freedom of movement
Summit Road Hearings Panel Report Report Panel Hearings Road Summit
A minority ruining it for the majority Restricts photographers, in particular astronomy and landscape photographers - Restricts visitors to the city seeing the view That it could drive the problem elsewhere That it would not be enforced by the Police.
Safety Restricted access would make it safer for cyclists It is a safer place for boy racers to use rather than in the city where it is more heavily populated
Concerns about the Police not enforcing against anti-social behaviour. A Attachment
Access Comments on bona fide users and visitors Access for enjoyment of the view Access for stargazing It is a recreation space. Page 24
Council 22 March 2018
Environment Need to keep the hills beautiful It is a precious environment The Port Hills belong to the people.
Alternative solutions Add cameras Increase policing Install gates/speed bumps/barriers Increase the restricted hours Adjust the hours of restricted access by season Provide permits for bona fide visitors Add more roads to the restriction, including Gebbies Pass Road and Dyers Pass Road Educate on safe driving Provide an alternative space for car enthusiasts.
5.22 Noting their recommendation to the Hearings Panel that it recommend that the Council does not approve the Proposal, staff advised that their recommendation is consistent with the majority of community feedback received during the consultation process, and that the Police and Selwyn District Council staff are agreeable to the Proposal not being advanced. 5.23 Staff also advised that their recommendation is consistent with the Council’s Prohibited Times on Road Policy. The process set out by the Policy, they advised, does not support night-time access restrictions on collector or arterial roads, noting that Summit Road is a collector road. Staff did, however, acknowledge that the traffic volumes utilising Summit Road are low, and are consistent with that of a local road. 5.24 In summary, staff listed the advantages and disadvantages of the Proposal as follows: 5.25 The advantages include: Provides access to Summit Road and Worsleys Road owners, occupiers and bona fide visitors. Retains the Sign of the Kiwi parking area for ongoing usage by Sign of the Kiwi patrons,
Summit Road Hearings Panel Report Report Panel Hearings Road Summit sightseers, cyclists and runners/walkers who may wish to park their vehicle before
- accessing the area. Removes the option for a short circuit to be undertaken by anti-social road users on Summit Road between Dyers Pass Road and Gebbies Pass Road. May result in the general area being less attractive to anti-social road users. Assists with the protection (from fire, for example) of the natural environment, amenities and facilities, and with reducing rubbish. Possible benefits to road safety by reducing night-time traffic and conflict situations. Provides Police with an additional tool to address anti-social road user activity on these roads.
5.26 The disadvantages include: A Attachment May result in displacement of anti-social road user issues elsewhere on the road network – some concerns have been raised regarding a possible displacement to Governors Bay. Restricts access at night to the general public to only walking, cycling, and vehicles over 3500kg. Further distance for some motorists to travel. Costs of signage and ongoing maintenance to enable enforcement. Page 25
Council 22 March 2018
Summit Road is classified as a collector road in the roading hierarchy and on that basis the Council’s Prohibited Times on Road Policy does not support night-time access restrictions on it, however usage of Summit Road is low and consistent with that of a local road.
6. The Hearing 6.1 At the hearing, ahead of the presentations from submitters wishing to be heard, staff presented their report containing the advice summarised above to the Hearings Panel. Additional photographs of examples of anti-social road use and damage to the road presented by staff are
copied here:
Summit Road Hearings Panel Report Report Panel Hearings Road Summit
-
Attachment A A Attachment
Page 26
Council 22 March 2018
6.2 Staff noted that their investigations of the concerns raised for the protection of Summit Road from anti-social road use and damage have included: Meetings with the Summit Road Protection Authority Working with Police, including a night-time site visit Elected Member workshops Discussions with Selwyn District Council Discussions with Christchurch City Council staff Site visits Traffic volume counts 6.3 Staff also noted the long list of stakeholders with an interest in the Proposal, which reflects the large number of written submissions received. The list of stakeholders presented to the Panel is copied here as giving some appreciation in itself of the balance of concerns and considerations relevant to the Proposal: General Public Selwyn District Council Community Boards, Councillors, Mayor Summit Road Protection Authority
Summit Road Society Report Panel Hearings Road Summit
Police - Adjoining Property Owners and Occupiers Cashmere Residents Association Governors Bay Residents Association Westmorland Residents Association Kennedys Bush Residents Association Rural Fire Service Park Rangers Car enthusiast groups Recreational Users A Attachment Walking groups Cyclist groups Mountain bike groups/clubs/networks Christchurch Adventure Park Sign of the Kiwi Café Photographic Societies Astronomer Groups Page 27
Council 22 March 2018
Christchurch & Canterbury Tourism Transport stakeholder groups 6.4 Staff also answered questions directed to them by the Hearings Panel, including regarding traffic volumes; the traffic data presented is set out here in its detail along with some crash data: Eastern Section (Dyers Pass - Rapaki Road Closure)
9 - 16 March 20163 Approximately 3500 vehicle movements per week4 338 vehicle movements during proposed restricted time period
20 May - 2 June 2016 2384 vehicle movements per week 237 vehicle movements during the proposed restricted time
Southern Section (Dyers Pass Road - Gebbies Pass Rd)
9 - 16 March 20165 Approximately 2300 vehicle movements per week. 230 vehicle movements during the proposed restricted time
20 May 2016 - 2 June 2016 1544 vehicle movements per week 125 vehicle movements during the proposed restricted time
6.5 Following the staff presentation, four submitters were heard in person by the Hearing Panel: Summit Road Protection Authority Mark Jarrett Lawrence Hill Summit Road Society (Inc.)
6.6 The Summit Road Protection Authority (“the Authority”) made its written submission in
Summit Road Hearings Panel Report Report Panel Hearings Road Summit
support of the Proposal.
- 6.7 At the hearing, the Authority’s representative pointed to the Port Hills Fires of last year as a reminder of the need to protect the Summit Road area, and noted that the interest of groups and governing bodies, like the Authority, in investing in enhancing the Summit Road through the addition of improvements, such as heritage signage, is undermined by their expectation of vandalism. He also noted the amount of Park Ranger time regularly lost to picking up rubbish in the area. 6.8 The Authority’s representative floated suggestions that, if the Proposal was implemented, law-abiding night-time users of the Summit Road, such as astro-photographers, could be exempted from the restrictions on occasions they apply for through a permit system for night-
Attachment A A Attachment
3 This is tube count data, and it is to be noted that there was an error on 1 weekday in this period so it is an estimated figure used for this day. Tube count data is vehicle movements, and it is to be noted that 1 vehicle may have multiple movements, and each vehicle may have multiple occupants. 4 As the road is closed, this is vehicles entering and exiting and likely to be the same vehicle being counted twice. This note applies to all figures given here. 5 This again is tube count data, and it is to be noted that there was an error on 2 weekdays in this period so it is an estimated figure used for this day. Page 28
Council 22 March 2018
time access at the prohibited times, and that the Proposal could in the first instance be trialled for 12 months, with Park Rangers tasked with measuring any improvements. 6.9 The Authority’s representative concluded with the observation that the Summit Road could be a heritage pathway, and in reply to a question about whether the Proposal could simply displace the anti-social behaviour, he indicated that he had not investigated the possibility but other areas are not as isolated and it is the isolation of the Summit Road that supports the anti-social behaviour.
6.10 The Summit Road Society (Inc.) (“the Society”) made its written submission in support of the Proposal but with some concerns. 6.11 At the hearing, the Society’s representative usefully confirmed as another organisation centrally concerned with the protection of the Summit Road and Port Hills, that there are issues in the area with rubbish, burnt-out cars, vandalism, graffiti, fire, and other such risks. 6.12 The Society’s key message coming through at the hearing was that if the Council decides to not proceed with the Proposal, something still needs to be done about the situation, and suggestions were floated in respect of a visitor pass system that may be a mere online registration for access system, even if it was just one tool, that might be complemented by preventative environmental design, a speed limit review, and working with the Police. 6.13 In reply to a question from the Panel, the Society’s representative indicated that the Society has 341 members including individuals and groups, with each group registered counted only as a single member as part of that number. 6.14 The Society’s representative also suggested that there should be a promotion of the aspiration that the Summit Road become a heritage pathway. She further added to this in conclusion that there is need for an integrated Port Hills Management Plan. 6.15 The individual submitters heard in person by the Hearings Panel helpfully presented some of the perspectives of the majority of written submissions that did not support the Proposal and focused on important themes arising from the consultation. 6.16 One of the individual submitters heard who made their written submission not in support of the Proposal was an astro-/landscape photographer essentially defending the freedom to enjoy the night sky from Summit Road when and as astrological events arise, with variable 6
viewing conditions making flexibility of viewing time desirable. Report Panel Hearings Road Summit
-
6 A number of submitters submitted scenic photographs of the night sky as seen from Summit Road with their written submissions, which demonstrated their interest in night-time vehicular access and Summit Road’s night- time amenity. The below example (copied from page 94 of the Hearings Panel agenda) from submitter, James Williamson, who was not in support of the Proposal, usefully shows astro-photographers utilising the currently unrestricted night-time vehicular access:
Attachment A A Attachment
Page 29
Council 22 March 2018
6.17 The other individual submitter heard who made their written submission not in support of the Proposal added, among other things, a perspective related to the concern for nearby areas that might suffer from displaced anti-social behaviour as a result of the Proposal and concern at the limitations of the Proposal in its response to the anti-social behaviour that is problematic in the wider area. In reply to a question from the Panel about alternative solutions, the submitter suggested video surveillance, street lighting, and developing good public areas. 6.18 After hearing from submitters, the Hearings Panel had an opportunity to clarify the issues with a representative of the New Zealand Police, Inspector Al Stewart, as the agency that would
enforce the Proposed Prohibited Times on Road Restrictions. Inspector Stewart discussed the dedicated team the Police have for dealing with anti-social road users and their work and prioritisation rationale. He disclosed that in the past twelve months 253 notices have been issued by Police for anti-social road user (colloquially referred to as ‘boy racer’) offences, 232 anti-social road user jobs had been attended by Police, and 1953 vehicles had been impounded.7 6.19 Inspector Stewart also discussed the challenges there would be to enforcing the Proposal, leaving the Hearings Panel with some impression that additional Police resourcing would be necessary for the Proposal to be effective, but clear that the implementation of the Proposal would not in itself lead to additional resources being dedicated to the area. 6.20 As the Hearings Panel started to deliberate on the Proposal, staff, in order to assist the Panel to form well-informed recommendations to the Council, offered further advice as below around the issues with possible alternative solutions to the anti-social road user activity and damage Summit Road is suffering: Camera Best possible location considered to be Dyers Pass Rd / Summit Rd intersection. Little value as a traffic camera due to this location being of low overall significance to the network. The Council has a budget for crime prevention cameras with the Police prioritising sites, and the Police have advised that there are other sites of priority from a crime prevention perspective. The cost of cameras would be approximately $15,000 for camera, pole,
Summit Road Hearings Panel Report Report Panel Hearings Road Summit transmission/internet connection, installation. This is unbudgeted.
- Transmissions could be monitored by Christchurch Traffic Operations Centre (CTOC) or the Police. Limited use for enforcement purposes as it just shows a vehicle or vehicles passing a point, or an illegal activity at the intersection.
Speed Humps Summit Rd – approximate length in this case: 18.4km. Usually spaced between 80 -120 metres to provide an effective traffic restraint (operating A Attachment speed circa 50km/h).
7 These figures relating to the whole Police District (from Timaru up to the Hurunui), though the majority would relate to Christchurch, and the figure for vehicles impounded includes those taken from disqualified and suspended drivers also (who may or may not have been engaged in anti-social road user behaviour leading up to disqualification or suspension, since other transgressions such as drink driving convictions or excess demerit points could have led them to that point). Page 30
Council 22 March 2018
Would also need speed limit reduced to 50km/h to support this. Estimate of number speed humps at 100m intervals equates to 180. Cost per speed hump (excluding possible additional costs of road construction, design, traffic management, etc.) would be approximately $2,500. Cost of line marking each speed hump would be approximately $100. Cost of permanent warning signage per speed hump would be approximately $900.
180 speed humps at $3500 each would equate to $630,000. No budget at present for traffic calming in this situation. Unsuitable location for the installation of speed humps. Doesn’t deal with situation of parking/layby areas, which would also require treatment. Some may see speed bumps as a challenge to negotiate. Noise from braking and accelerating over the speed humps. Speed humps not recommended on a collector due to the mix of traffic it carriers including heavy vehicles. Effect on cyclists, motorcyclists, and general driving experience. Visual impact of speed humps, markings and permanent warning signage.
Vehicle Barriers / Locked Gates Would need a prohibited times on road restriction. Cost to install, operate, maintain, repair. Issues of keys/codes getting into wrong hands. Inconvenient for owners, occupiers and bona-fide visitors. Safety concerns with people having to get out of cars to lock and unlock. Gates could be left open and others enter behind them.
Summit Road Hearings Panel Report Report Panel Hearings Road Summit
- Speed Limits Currently 70km/h and 100km/h. Actual operating speeds are currently 40-44km/h (based on bluetooth data). Unlikely to have a significant impact on anti-social road user activity.
No Overtaking Lines Unlikely to have a significant impact on anti-social road user activity.
Cost of line-marking. A Attachment Covered by existing road rules.
No-Parking Sign of the Kiwi and Summit Rd/Gebbies Pass Rd areas are useful as parking or layby areas. No-parking, stopping, standing restrictions not desirable.
Page 31
Council 22 March 2018
No obvious congregation places which would benefit from No-Parking. Enforcement needed to be effective.
Increase Hours/Days of Operation of Proposed Prohibited Times on Road Hours have been targeted to cover the largest period of when issues occur, while still maintaining access on other occasions.
Visitor Permit This was considered, but discontinued due to likely administration costs and time taken, including vetting who was an appropriate visitor.
Add Roads to Restricted Roads List Dyers Pass Road and Gebbies Pass Road are not suitable for addition given the arterial function of these roads.
7. Consideration and Deliberation of Submissions 7.1 The Hearings Panel considered all the information and written and heard submissions received during the consultation and hearings process and proceeded to deliberate on what its recommendations to the Council would be in regard to the Proposal. 7.2 Through its consideration of the submissions and information received, the Hearings Panel decided to recommend that the Council does not approve the Proposal, i.e. that it: Does not approve the installation of a Prohibited Times on Road Restriction on Summit Road (Rapaki Road - Gebbies Pass Road) and Worsleys Road (Summit Road - start of the Track). 7.3 The Hearings Panel’s reasons for not supporting the Proposal (and in so doing, accepting the staff recommendation) may in accordance with their deliberations be summarised as follows: 7.3.1 The indication is that the installation of the Proposed Prohibited Times on Road Restrictions would not be accompanied by increased enforcement contributing to the first of the Panel’s reasons for not supporting the Proposal, being that Panel considered it would be effectively unenforceable and ineffective.
Summit Road Hearings Panel Report Report Panel Hearings Road Summit
7.3.2 The Panel’s second reason for not supporting the Proposal related to the concern that - the Proposal would simply displace the anti-social road use to other areas, and, worse than that, displace it to nearby roads with more bona fide users where anti-social road use would be a greater risk to the safety and property of the local community and law- abiding road users. The Panel were concerned at the lack of assurance the Proposal would not increase the risk to the public in this way. 7.3.3 The Panel’s third reason for not supporting the Proposal related to its consideration for respectful, law-abiding visiting night-time users of the stretches of Summit Road and Worsleys Road that the Proposal would exclude them from. The Panel regarded that the interests of the likes of the more regular visitors such as astro-photographers, and
Attachment A A Attachment the freedom of all residents of, and visitors to, the greater Christchurch area (the majority being law-abiding) to spontaneously enjoy the night-time scenic (sometimes romantic) views and isolation of the Summit Road, should not be undermined because of the actions of the anti-social minority. 7.4 The Hearings Panel, however, regarded that not supporting the Proposal cannot be the end of the road for seeking to protect the Summit Road from anti-social road use and damage. They also regarded that local residents and their right to the quiet and safe enjoyment of their Page 32
Council 22 March 2018
properties in the area are deserving of protection, and felt a duty of care to make recommendations that would require and expedite addressing the concerns underlying the Proposal though other means. 7.5 Though they disagreed with the Proposal as a solution, the Panel regarded that they and the public have a strong interest in something being done to protect the Summit Road and so they proceeded to agree to recommend that the Council: Requests that the Port Hills Management Plan be advanced as soon as possible recognising that
the outcomes and objectives of that Plan may assist in achieving positive outcomes for the Summit Road and other affected roads in the area covered by that Plan. The Panel noted the costs and consequences of the anti-social road use and damage occurring on the Summit Road, regarding that even just the economic cost to the Council justifies the expeditious advancement of the Port Hills Management Plan. 7.6 The Hearings Panel recognised that staff had carefully considered the possible alternatives to the Proposal and had acted reasonably and diligently in putting the Proposal out to consultation, having done so with the support of the Police, Summit Road Protection Authority and other concerned groups and residents, and having done so after conducting elected member workshops, discussions with Selwyn District Council, and a sensible range of investigations. 7.7 Being satisfied that the concerns underlying the Proposal are real and justified, and that the solution to them will not be simple or singular, but will require a comprehensive, integrated plan, the Hearings Panel conceived to advocate the expeditious advancement of the Port Hills Management Plan in their hope that it may assist in addressing the relevant concerns for the Summit Road. 7.8 The concern expressed in some submissions on the Proposal that it would simply displace the anti-social road use to other areas, and that the Proposal is too limited in not addressing road safety on nearby roads, could be taken to reflect a fear in the wider Port Hills area in regard to unsafe and damaging behaviour on their roads, and the advancement of the more comprehensive Port Hills Management Plan was expected to be more satisfactory to submitters not supportive of what some considered a limited focus on the Summit Road. 7.9 To further prompt and expedite the advancement of alternative solutions to the concerns
Summit Road Hearings Panel Report Report Panel Hearings Road Summit
underlying the Proposal, particularly the advancement of the Port Hills Management Plan, the Hearings Panel recommended that the Council: - Requests that a joint briefing on these matters be provided as soon as possible to the affected Community Boards. Given the city-wide significance of Summit Road and the Port Hills Management Plan, the Chairman of the Hearings Panel supports the interpretation of this recommendation that all Community Boards are affected by these matters and accordingly should all be invited to the joint briefing, which should focus on the advancement of the Port Hills Management Plan, particularly in respect of how it may assist in addressing the concerns for Summit Road discussed in this report. The Chairman also supports the interpretation that the matters to be covered at the joint briefing should include the Panel’s further recommendations (discussed A Attachment below) if accepted by the Council as matters for consideration. 7.10 The Hearings Panel were keen to see that other tools and options for the Summit Road continue to be considered. Perceiving that a safe driving speed on the Summit Road would be less than the current speed limit, though recognising the possible limits to enforceability and that lowering the speed limit on the Summit Road might not do much to solve the concerns underlying the Proposal, the Hearing Panel recommended that the Council: Page 33
Council 22 March 2018
Considers a lowering of the speed limit on the Summit Road. 7.11 Conceiving that being able to identify those committing criminal acts on Summit Road and gather evidence sufficient for prosecution would be ideal, as would discouraging criminal acts before they occur through video surveillance, the Hearings Panel had an inclination from that perspective to advocate for an alternative to the Proposal involving some form of crime prevention cameras. However, anticipating that straightforward cameras may perform meagrely at a realistic cost point, the Hearing Panel offered a more open-ended recommendation that the Council:
Considers a mechanism that would potentially identify users of the Summit Road for crime prevention purposes. The discussion on this point included reference to the possibility that the relevant mechanism could be a form of number plate recognition technology, even if this was primarily useful for statistical purposes with only a limited usefulness for evidential purposes. 7.12 Whether the mechanism might be cameras of some sort or some other mechanism that would potentially identify users for crime prevention purposes is deliberately not specified by the Hearings Panel to encourage broad investigation of the options, contemplating that an identification mechanism might not itself solve the concerns, but may nonetheless be a useful tool that combined with other tools (including those discussed and others that might be investigated such as interventions to the road surface) might start to appropriately reflect the desire to better enable the Police to assist with the protection of the Summit Road, and in this connection the Hearings Panel recommended that the Council: Notes that the Police are agreeable to assisting with measures to curb anti-social behaviour on the Summit Road. 7.13 Staff had noted that lowering the speed limit or implementing crime prevention technologies would require working with the Police. The Hearings Panel thus gratefully noted the agreeableness of the Police to assist with the anti-social behaviour and hoped to see further engagement with the Police, Selwyn District Council and the Community Boards in respect of the concerns for the Summit Road. The Panel also raised whether the local community could be involved and assist; this being a possibility that could be entertained in the context of the advancement of the Port Hills Management Plan.
Summit Road Hearings Panel Report Report Panel Hearings Road Summit
7.14 The Hearings Panel concluded there after delegating authority to the Chairman of the Hearings Panel to approve this Hearings Panel Report. -
Signatories
Author Mark Saunders - Hearings Advisor
Approved By Councillor David East - Chairman of the Hearings Panel
Attachment A A Attachment Attachments No. Title Page A Proposed Prohibited Times of Summit Rd (Rapaki Rd - Gebbies Pass Rd) & Worsleys Rd (Summit Rd - start of the Track)
Page 34
Council 22 March 2018
Summit Road Hearings Panel Report Report Panel Hearings Road Summit
-
Attachment A A Attachment
Page 35
Spreydon-Cashmere Community Board 3 October 2017
. 7 Marleys Hill - Proposed Temporary Right of Way Easement Reference: 17/889748 Contact: Derek Roozen [email protected] 941-8798
1. Purpose and Origin of Report Purpose of Report 1.1 The purpose of this report is for the Spreydon-Cashmere Community Board to consider approving the granting of a temporary right of way easement to McVicar Holdings Limited (McVicars) over part of the Marleys Hill scenic reserve (refer Attachment A). 1.2 The Board is also requested, should it approve the granting of the easement, to recommend to the Chief Executive that she exercise her authority as delegate of the Minister of Conservation to consent to the easement. The Minister of Conservation has delegated her authority to the Council, which has subsequently sub-delegated that authority to the Chief Executive. Origin of Report 1.3 This report is staff generated and is being submitted to the Spreydon-Cashmere Community Board in response to a request from McVicars for short term access through Marleys Hill by way of development and operation of a temporary logging road to extract milled timber from its neighbouring land (Cashmere Forest) out to the Summit Road. This is to enable the part of Cashmere Forest occupied by the Christchurch Adventure Park (Adventure Park) to be repaired to the point it can reopen later this year, which would be jeopardised if logs were instead transported elsewhere through the Adventure Park. The proposed temporary road access through Marleys Hill will ensure separation of the logging and recreational mountain-biking activities in the Adventure Park area so both may co-exist without additional safety risks until logging is completed. 1.4 Marleys Hill is a Regional Park located alongside the north-western side of the Summit Road on the Christchurch Port Hills. It is a scenic reserve subject to the Reserves Act 1977. The Spreydon- Cashmere Community Board has the delegated authority as the administering body to make a decision on the granting of the proposed easement. 1.5 Under the Reserves Act, the administering body’s consent is subject to the consent of the Minister of Conservation. The Minister has delegated this power to the Council. The delegation from the Minister raised an expectation that the roles of the administering body will be kept separate from the role as the Minister’s delegate. The Council has addressed this by way of making the Community Board the administering body and the Chief Executive the Minister’s delegate.
Marleys Hill Logging Road Report to Community Board Board Community to Report Road Logging Hill Marleys
2. Significance - 2.1 The decision in this report is of low to medium significance in relation to the Christchurch City Council’s Significance and Engagement Policy. 2.1.1 The level of significance was determined by a significance and engagement assessment worksheet. 2.1.2 The community engagement and consultation outlined in this report reflects the assessment in addition to the statutory requirement. 3. Staff Recommendations
Attachment B B Attachment That the Spreydon-Cashmere Community Board resolves to:
Page 36
Spreydon-Cashmere Community Board 3 October 2017
1. Approve, pursuant to Section 48(1)(f) of the Reserves Act 1977, the granting of a right of way easement to McVicar Holdings Limited for the purpose of a logging road between Cashmere Forest and the Summit Road over the parts of the Marleys Hill scenic reserve as shown on the plan submitted at Attachment A, subject to: a. The Easement being limited to a period of time not exceeding six (6) months from the date of consent, with full reinstatement of the land to be effected upon termination. b. The consent of the Minister of Conservation, exercised by staff delegation, as set out in 2. below. c. All necessary statutory consents under, yet not limited to, the Resource Management Act, Building Control Act and Summit Road (Canterbury) Protection Act being obtained. 2. Recommend that the Chief Executive, using the Council’s delegated authority from the Minister of Conservation, consents to the granting of the easement to McVicar Holdings Limited for the purpose of a temporary logging road as outlined in 1. above. 3. Authorise the Property Consultancy Manager, should the easement be granted along with the consent of the Minister of Conservation, to finalise documentation to implement the easement.
4. Key Points 4.1 This report supports the Council's Long Term Plan (2015 - 2025): 4.1.1 Activity: Regional Parks Level of Service: 6.3.5 Provide, develop and maintain facilities to the satisfaction of park users 4.2 The following feasible options have been considered: Option 1 – Grant the easement (preferred option). Option 2 – Decline to grant the easement. 4.3 Option Summary - Advantages and Disadvantages (Preferred Option) 4.3.1 The advantages of this option include: Complies with the appropriate statutory and legal process to authorise the temporary activity. Logs are able to be removed from Cashmere Forest without impacting on the Adventure Park being able to reopen to the public this year. The proposed temporary road will mostly utilise the alignment of an existing vehicle
Marleys Hill Logging Road Report to Community Board Board Community to Report Road Logging Hill Marleys
track, which limits new ground being affected. - Able to manage potential impacts and provide for full site reinstatement to its present state and condition through easement conditions. 4.3.2 The disadvantages of this option include: Potential physical impact on the reserve (road earthworks), restriction of reserve use (crossing recreational tracks) and heavy vehicle traffic on the Summit Road, although these can be mitigated by the proposed activity being temporary and manageable.
Attachment B B Attachment
Page 37
Spreydon-Cashmere Community Board 3 October 2017
5. Context/Background
Background 5.1 The proposed activity to be covered by the right of way easement is the development and operation of an unsealed logging road on Marleys Hill (regional park) connecting with a logging road in the pine plantation area on adjoining private land to the north-west (known as Cashmere Forest) owned by McVicar Holdings Limited (McVicars). This will allow operations to commence over the coming summer to extract timber from Cashmere Forest (the Forest). An issue with developing and using any possible alternative extraction routes, such as to, and then up or down, Worsleys Road, is, in addition to involving increased distance and works including on legal road, likely to impact on the reopening of the Christchurch Adventure Park (Adventure Park) that occupies the Forest area and which the mountain biking community has a strong interest in. Logging out the proposed way via Marleys Hill will enable the Adventure Park to repair damaged tracks and attempt to get the chair lift, some MTB tracks and the zip line open this year, and to be fully open this season (2017/18 summer). The proposed route will shorten the logging time across the Adventure Park assets and, without this, the ability of the Adventure Park to reopen (if at all) will be severely compromised. It will also allow separation of the two activities in the Forest (logging and recreational mountain-biking) so both may co-exist until logging is completed. 5.2 The proposed road will follow the alignment of an existing vehicle track in the regional park but will require this to be upgraded in terms of width, level and surface. It will cut across the popular and well used Marleys Hill / Flying Nun Mountain Biking Trail as well as the Crater Rim Walkway running alongside the Summit Road. 5.3 The proposed road will be constructed to New Zealand Forest Road Engineering Manual guidelines for ‘Spur’ roads; that is, in this case it will be designed: for traffic that is less than 20 heavy vehicles per day; and traveling at a maximum speed of 40 km/hr; and will be to a metalled maximum width of 4.3 metres; and length of approximately 340 metres; and have a maximum grade of 18-20%. 5.4 Subgrade and top course material will be quarried within the Forest area where possible. Better quality top course, however, may be brought in from other sources (not the park) if rock quarried in the Forest is not suitable. 5.5 The existing vehicle track mentioned above is used by Orion New Zealand Limited (Orion) to access its power line running alongside. McVicars, through its agent, will liaise directly with Orion
over the development and use of this road alignment before proceeding with any construction, Board Community to Report Road Logging Hill Marleys
including with respect to the anticipated moving or bracing of up to four existing power poles. - 5.6 Council officers, at this time, note that there appears to be no easement currently in place for this existing vehicle track and power line across Marleys Hill. 5.7 It is expected that the road, if approved, will be required for the purpose of a logging road for a period of time not likely to exceed six months. The applicant has estimated a period of time the proposed road access would be used by logging trucks to be three months. However, Council officers believe the greater term for the easement is warranted to cover road construction time and any potential disruption to the logging production, such as the consequence of bad weather. At the end of that time the site will be fully reinstated to its present state and condition.
Attachment B B Attachment
Page 38
Spreydon-Cashmere Community Board 3 October 2017
5.8 Any easement granted will need to be negotiated to reflect the proposed temporary occupation
and activity, and will include appropriate terms and conditions for managing impacts, including those on the recreational tracks, and reinstatement of the site. 5.9 Use of the proposed access for log cartage will be on weekdays from 6 am until 5 pm. No trucking movements will be permitted on weekends. Mountain bikers using the Marleys Hill / Flying Nun Mountain Biking Trail, and walkers using the Crater Rim Walkway, will be informed through prominent signage, as a minimum, of the proposed activity, and their use of these tracks will be accommodated as much as possible during the activity in a way that provides for the safe crossing of the proposed logging road. Council officers recommend that the foot and cycling traffic can be managed by having gated crossing points for both tracks across the access road, with signage erected both before and at the gates to warn cyclists and walkers to give way to harvesting traffic at the gated crossing points. Marleys Hill 5.10 The proposed easement will run through reserve land that is held in title CB48C/718. The legal description is Lot 1 DP 83864. The land parcel area is 19.7628 ha. The land parcel is held in fee simple title by the Council and is vested in the Council as a Scenic Reserve subject to Section 19 of the Reserves Act 1977. 5.11 In addition, the proposed easement will cross the part of the reserve land that is deemed Protected Land under the Summit Road (Canterbury) Protection Act 2001. The implications of this are summarised in 5.22 to 5.26 of this report below. 5.12 The proposed easement does not impact on any other registered rights over the Council’s title. 5.13 Marleys Hill is categorised as a Regional Park by the Council, such parks being part of a network of parks of regional significance, including the Port Hill reserves of which Marleys Hill is one, and may include natural areas, visitor information centres and recreation facilities such as walking tracks and bike trails. This category of parks contributes to the range of distinct recreation experiences and settings across Christchurch’s network of parks. The regional parks provide services such as information, volunteer events, track networks and biodiversity support. 5.14 The park is largely a modified one in terms of vegetation present; however it is identified as an area for native species regeneration. 5.15 There is no management plan covering Marleys Hill. Easement 5.16 Section 48 of the Reserves Act 1977 (the Act) provides for the administering body of a reserve vested in it, with the consent of the Minister of Conservation, to grant easements for rights of way and other easements over any part of the reserve. In this case, Section 48(1)(f) covers
“providing or facilitating access … to … any other land not forming part of the reserve or for any Board Community to Report Road Logging Hill Marleys
other purpose connected with any such land”. - 5.17 Section 48(2) of the Act requires that there be public notification of any intention to grant an easement under Section 48(1). However, Section 48(3) provides for an exemption from this where the reserve is unlikely to be materially altered or permanently damaged, and the rights of the public in respect of the reserve are unlikely to be permanently affected. In this instance, public notification is not required because: the proposed road follows the line of an existing vehicle track; it will be a temporary use;
the installation and operation will be undertaken in as disruption-free manner as possible; B Attachment there will be full reinstatement of the area so affected to its present state and condition; and Page 39
Spreydon-Cashmere Community Board 3 October 2017
mountain bikers using the Marleys Hill / Flying Nun Mountain Biking Trail, and walkers using the Crater Rim Walkway, will be informed through signage, as a minimum, of the proposed activity, and their use of these tracks will be accommodated as much as possible during the activity in a way that provides for their safe crossing of the proposed logging road. 5.18 Attachment A shows the easement area required. This comprises Area A shown marked in red: A is a five metre wide easement for the proposed logging road, covering a length of approximately 340 metres, and equating to an area of approximately 1,700 square metres. 5.19 It is anticipated that the proposed easement is granted contractually by way of deed or agreement without the need to have a survey plan prepared or to have an easement instrument registered against the land title – thus, costs of meeting these are not incurred. Consequently, and in order to support measures taken to assist the timely reopening of the Adventure Park, the normal one-off compensation fee is proposed to be waived. Consent of the Minister of Conservation 5.20 In exercising the consent of the Minister of Conservation, the Council should be satisfied that due procedure has been followed, and in this respect the Council should have regard to the following matters: 5.20.1 The land affected by the application is a reserve subject to the provisions of the Reserves Act 1977. 5.20.2 The easement being applied for falls within the purposes specified in Section 48(1) of the Reserves Act. 5.20.3 The provisions of Section 48(2) (public notification) have been complied with or a waiver can be given to this requirement under Section 48(3), the second of which has been recommended by Council officers. 5.20.4 Section 4 of the Conservation Act 1987 (that this Act shall be interpreted and administered as to give effect to the principles of the Treaty of Waitangi), meaning that, in consenting to transactions under the Reserves Act, consideration is given to the requirement or otherwise to consult with iwi. 5.21 Specific consultation with iwi is not considered necessary in this case as the site affected does not feature in the City Plan as having any significance to tangata whenua, and the proposal development and use is believed to not be inconsistent with the framework of the Mahaanui Iwi Management Plan (MIMP) as it will take place over an already relatively modified site, be temporary and involve the site being fully reinstated to its present state and condition at the end of the use for logging trucks.
Summit Road (Canterbury) Protection Act 2001 Board Community to Report Road Logging Hill Marleys
5.22 The land making up most of the park, in particular that adjoining and parallel to the Summit Road, - is Protected Land as defined in Section 4, described in Schedule 2 and shown on the plans set out in Schedule 3 of the Summit Road (Canterbury) Protection Act 2001. Attachment B shows the extent of the Protected Land in relation to Marleys Hill. 5.23 The purposes of the Summit Road (Canterbury) Protection Act are to provide for the: (a) preservation and protection of the scenic amenity associated with the Summit Road and other roads, walkways, paths, and public open spaces within the protected land; (b) preservation and protection of natural amenities associated with land within the protected area; and
Attachment B B Attachment
Page 40
Spreydon-Cashmere Community Board 3 October 2017
(c) the improvement of facilities for the public enjoyment of the scenic amenity and the natural
amenities. 5.24 The Summit Road Protection Authority administers the Summit Road (Canterbury) Protection Act and has the function to work to preserve the scenic amenity of the Summit Road. 5.25 McVicars needs to apply to the Summit Road Protection Authority for consent in writing to use the Protected Land specified in the Summit Road (Canterbury) Protection Act. Advice was received by Council officers on 12 September 2017 that a submission was being made to the Authority. 5.26 The Authority may require notification of the proposal (inviting submissions over 20 working days). District Plan 5.27 Marleys Hill sits in the Open Space Natural zone (ON) of the Christchurch District Plan. This zone encompasses extensive natural, ecological, scenic and outdoor recreation areas, which enable: conservation and protection of areas of significant biodiversity, landscape, cultural and historic heritage values; people to experience the natural open space environment through a range of compatible recreation and tourist activities; and compatible rural activities and buildings appropriate to the location and proposed use. 5.28 The proposed logging road activity is potentially a Discretionary activity for the zone due to it, arguably, being an intrinsic part of the Plantation forestry (D3) discretionary activity for the ON zone (use of land and buildings for planting, maintenance and harvesting of timber tree species for commercial wood production); however, as the actual commercial wood production, other than some of the transport of that timber, will be wholly happening on the adjacent private land, it is more likely be considered to be a Non-complying activity, in which case resource consent is required. 5.29 McVicars will need to confirm the requirement with a District Planner and make the according application.
6. Option 1 – Grant the easement (preferred) Option Description 6.1 Adopt the staff recommendation (to grant the right of way easement on the conditions stipulated). Significance
Marleys Hill Logging Road Report to Community Board Board Community to Report Road Logging Hill Marleys
6.2 The level of significance of this option is low to medium consistent with section 2 of this report. - 6.3 Engagement requirements for this level of significance are appropriate. Impact on Mana Whenua 6.4 This option does not involve a significant decision in relation to ancestral land or a body of water or other elements of intrinsic value, therefore this decision does not specifically impact Ngāi Tahu, their culture and traditions. Community Views and Preferences 6.5 Mountain bikers are specifically potentially affected by this option due to the proposed road crossing their trail. However, there is already an existing vehicle track crossing at around the B Attachment same point the proposed road will cross the trail, the proposed road and activity will be
Page 41
Spreydon-Cashmere Community Board 3 October 2017
temporary, and any potential adverse effects when it is active should be able to be managed
appropriately. Also, the site will be fully reinstated to its present state and condition upon cessation of the proposed activity. Alignment with Council Plans and Policies 6.6 This option is consistent with Council’s Plans and Policies. Financial Implications 6.7 Cost of Implementation – negligible, staff time. 6.8 Maintenance / Ongoing Costs - responsibility of McVicar Holdings Limited. 6.9 Funding source – not applicable. Legal Implications 6.10 Section 48(1)(f) of the Reserves Act 1977 enables the Council to grant rights of way and other easements over any part of a reserve for providing or facilitating access to any other land or for any other purpose connected with any such land, in this case for transport of timber milled on that land. Risks and Mitigations 6.11 The proposal is either a Discretionary or Non-complying activity under the Christchurch District Plan rules, requiring a resource consent to be applied for if it is considered the latter. 6.12 There is a risk the easement is not able to be utilised due to the resource consent not being granted. This will result in a potential delay in the re-opening of the Christchurch Adventure Park, with the proposed logging road needing to be re-routed. 6.12.1 Treatment: Resource consent application is prepared so that it appropriately and effectively addresses measures to minimise or remove all adverse effects; thereby increasing the likelihood it is granted. 6.12.2 Residual risk rating: the rating of the risk is High. Implementation 6.13 Implementation dependencies - consent of the Summit Road Protection Authority to use the Protected Land, and potentially resource consent needing to be granted. 6.14 Implementation timeframe – up to 6 months. The formation of the proposed road is proposed to commence in October 2017, subject to easement document preparation / signing and regulatory approval. The logging activity is likely to be completed well within the 6 months. Option Summary - Advantages and Disadvantages
6.15 The advantages of this option include: Board Community to Report Road Logging Hill Marleys
- Complies with the appropriate statutory and legal process to authorise such a temporary activity. Logs are able to be removed from Cashmere Forest without impacting on the Christchurch Adventure Park being able to reopen to the public, at least in part, later this year. Able to manage potential impacts and provide for the site to be fully reinstated to its present state and condition through easement conditions. 6.16 The disadvantages of this option include:
Potential impact on the reserve (road earthworks), restriction of reserve use (crossing of B Attachment recreational tracks) and heavy vehicles traffic on the Summit Road, although these can be mitigated by the proposed activity being temporary and manageable. Page 42
Spreydon-Cashmere Community Board 3 October 2017
7. Option 2 – Decline to grant the easement
Option Description 7.1 Decline the application – that is, do not approve the granting of a right of way easement as requested. Significance 7.2 The level of significance of this option is low, which differs slightly from section 2 of this report due to the status quo applying - that is, no development generating impacts occurring that will raise the degree of significance. 7.3 Engagement requirements for this level of significance are appropriate (that is, none). Impact on Mana Whenua 7.4 This option does not involve a significant decision in relation to ancestral land or a body of water or other elements of intrinsic value, therefore this decision does not specifically impact Ngāi Tahu, their culture and traditions. Community Views and Preferences 7.5 Clients of the Christchurch Adventure Park are potentially indirectly affected by this option due to the logging route not able to be diverted from the Adventure Park area to allow it to be repaired for re-opening later this year. This option may be supported by the users of the Marleys Hill / Flying Nun Mountain Biking Trail, in that it will not be affected by any logging road development and use. Alignment with Council Plans and Policies 7.6 This option is consistent with Council’s Plans and Policies. Although not a favourable outcome in terms of the granting of an easement, the proposal is appropriately evaluated in accordance with due process – it is just that grounds for an unfavourable decision is weighted on the public benefits / impacts in relation to Marleys Hill and not those relating to the activities in the privately owned Cashmere Forest / Christchurch Adventure Park area. Financial Implications 7.7 Cost of Implementation – not applicable. 7.8 Maintenance / Ongoing Costs – no change for Marleys Hill. 7.9 Funding source – not applicable. Legal Implications 7.10 Not applicable.
Marleys Hill Logging Road Report to Community Board Board Community to Report Road Logging Hill Marleys
Risks and Mitigations
- 7.11 There are no risks to the values, or users, of Marleys Hill if the easement is not approved. 7.12 However, there is arguably a wider risk to the public benefit derived from both public and private outdoor recreational space provision if the Christchurch Adventure Park is not able to reopen in a timely fashion. 7.12.1 Treatment: Alternative strategies employed by McVicars on its own land to address both the logging of Cashmere Forest and the reopening of the Christchurch Adventure Park. 7.12.2 Residual risk rating: the rating of the risk for Marleys Hill is low. Implementation
Attachment B B Attachment 7.13 Implementation dependencies - Not applicable.
Page 43
Spreydon-Cashmere Community Board 3 October 2017
7.14 Implementation timeframe – Not applicable.
Option Summary - Advantages and Disadvantages 7.15 The advantages of this option include: Complies with the appropriate due process to adequately and properly assess the effects of the proposed activity on the Council administered regional park. There will not be earthworks within (to develop the proposed logging road) nor temporary restrictions to public access to part of Marleys Hill for recreation. 7.16 The disadvantages of this option include: Logs are not able to be removed from Cashmere Forest via a route that permits safe co- existence of the logging and recreational mountain-biking activities in the forest, thereby potentially impacting on the Christchurch Adventure Park being able to reopen to the public this coming summer season.
Attachments No. Title Page A Marleys Hill - McVicars Easement Plan B Marleys Hill and Protected Land
Confirmation of Statutory Compliance Compliance with Statutory Decision-making Requirements (ss 76 - 81 Local Government Act 2002). (a) This report contains: (i) sufficient information about all reasonably practicable options identified and assessed in terms of their advantages and disadvantages; and (ii) adequate consideration of the views and preferences of affected and interested persons bearing in mind any proposed or previous community engagement. (b) The information reflects the level of significance of the matters covered by the report, as determined in accordance with the Council's significance and engagement policy.
Signatories Author Derek Roozen - Senior Network Planner Parks Approved Andrew Rutledge - Head of Parks By Mary Richardson - General Manager Citizen and Community
Marleys Hill Logging Road Report to Community Board Board Community to Report Road Logging Hill Marleys
-
Attachment B B Attachment
Page 44
Spreydon-Cashmere Community Board 3 October 2017
Marleys Hill Logging Road Report to Community Board Board Community to Report Road Logging Hill Marleys
-
Attachment B B Attachment
Page 45
Spreydon-Cashmere Community Board 3 October 2017
Marleys Hill Logging Road Report to Community Board Board Community to Report Road Logging Hill Marleys
-
Attachment B B Attachment
Page 46
SUMMIT ROAD PROTECTION AUTHORITY TE MANA TIAKI I TE ARA AKITU
SUMMIT ROAD PROTECTION AUTHORITY
Report Annual
-
ANNUAL REPORT For the year ending 30 June 2017
C Attachment
Kelvin McMillan, Senior Policy Planner Christchurch City Council Address for Service: Beckenham Service Centre Telephone: (03) 942-8692 66 Colombo Street Email: [email protected] PO Box 73021 Christchurch 8154
Page 47
1. INTRODUCTION
This is the 22nd Annual Report of the Summit Road Protection Authority and relates to the period 1 July 2016 to 30 June 2017.
The Authority is required to prepare a report each year on its activities for the preceding year. Copies of the Annual Report, together with copies of the Annual Plan and Budget for the forthcoming year, are required to be forwarded to the two contributory local bodies, the Christchurch City Council and the Selwyn District Council.
In 1963 Parliament enacted the Summit Road (Canterbury) Protection Act. This Act was originally administered by the Christchurch Regional Planning Authority, then by the Canterbury United Council and, between 1989 and 1992, by the Canterbury Regional Council. In 1992 Parliament amended the 1963 Act to
provide for the establishment of the Summit Road Protection Authority as a joint standing committee of Report Annual
the Christchurch City Council, the Banks Peninsula District Council and the Selwyn District Council. -
The Summit Road Protection Authority was established on 1 July 1993.
In 2001 a revised Summit Road (Canterbury) Protection Act was passed. In 2006 the Banks Peninsula District Council was amalgamated with the Christchurch City Council.
2. FUNCTIONS OF THE AUTHORITY
The function of the Authority is to carry out its responsibilities under the Summit Road (Canterbury) Protection Act 2001. The purposes of this Act are as follows: C Attachment
To provide for the preservation and protection of the scenic amenity associated with the Summit Road and other roads, walkways, paths and public open spaces within the protection area; To provide for the preservation and protection of natural amenities of land within the protected area; To provide for the improvement of facilities for the public enjoyment of the scenic amenity and the natural amenities.
Scenic amenity includes the extensive views from the Summit Road and other roads, paths and parks within the protected land, to the Port Hills, Christchurch, the Plains and the Harbour. Natural amenities means the natural or physical coherence qualities of an area that contribute to peoples appreciation of its pleasantness, coherence and cultural and recreation attributes.
The area protected by the Act runs along the summit of the Port Hills from Evans Pass to Gebbies Pass and is generally the land between a line running about 30 metres vertically below the Summit Road and the ridgeline, as shown in Appendix 2.
Governance Support
In 2016 the Chair of the Authority raised the issue of governance support for the Authority and Advisory Committee. This matter was investigated and there are a number of areas where the respective responsibilities of the Authority (a Joint Committee of Selwyn and Christchurch Councils), and the two Council’s overlap or where there is ambiguity over who is responsible for administrative functions. Legal advice was sought to clarify the issues and responsibilities pursuant to the Summit Road (Canterbury) Protection Act and Local Government Act.
In essence the following matters need further consideration and resolution by the Authority and the Council. Protocols to ensure proper record keeping is adhered to (LGOIMA Issue)
Page 50
Councils potentially charging for any services to the Authority - secretarial, meeting administration, mapping, etc. Provision of professional planning support for the Authority - who does it and how it is administered. Preparation of a joint committee agreement between the Council(s) and Authority
Application of standing orders to the Authority.
Significant Activities of the Summit Road Protection Authority
In carrying out its functions, the Authority has identified four areas of significant activity: regulation advice and advocacy provision of interpretive facilities General administration.
Annual Report Report Annual
In each area of activity, performance measures and outputs provide the basis by which the Authority will measure its performance throughout the year. (Appendix 4). -
3. MEMBERSHIP OF THE AUTHORITY AND ADVISORY COMMITTEE
Up until March 2006, the Authority consisted of one member appointed by each of three contributory Councils but with the amalgamation of the Banks Peninsula District and Christchurch City Councils, membership now consists of two members appointed by the Christchurch City Council and one member by the Selwyn District Council.
The Authority is a joint standing committee of the Christchurch City Council and the Selwyn District Council.
Attachment C C Attachment The current Chairperson of the Authority is the member by the Selwyn District Council, Councillor Grant Miller. All expenses and liabilities of the Authority are apportioned between the Councils in accordance with the rateable capital value of each of the districts.
The Authority is required to appoint an Advisory Committee. The function of the Committee is to advise the Authority on matters relating to the preservation and protection of scenic and natural amenities associated with the Summit Road and other land within the protected area, and the improvement of facilities for the public enjoyment of those amenities.
The Advisory Committee comprises one member from each of the contributory local bodies, two members nominated by the owners of land in the area to which the Act applies, one member appointed on the nomination of the Minister of Conservation, one member appointed on the nomination of the Summit Road Society, one member having a knowledge of open space and park management appointed on the nomination of the contributory local bodies, one member appointed on the nomination of either Te Papatipu Runanga o Rapaki or te Rununga o Ngai Tahu, and one member appointed on the nomination of Canterbury Regional Council (Environment Canterbury).
The Chairperson of the Advisory Committee is Mr Paul Loughton.
Following the local body elections in 2016 Appendix 1 sets out the membership of the Authority and Committee as of 30 June 2017.
4. SIGNIFICANT ACTIVITIES OF THE AUTHORITY
The business of the Authority is limited to those activities that are necessary to achieve the purposes of the Summit Road (Canterbury) Protection Act 2001.
Page 51
(a) Regulation
Implementation of the regulatory provisions of the Act is the primary responsibility of the Authority. The Act requires that applications for specified activities on protected land must be made to the Authority. The Act also provides for applications for the addition or removal of land from the protected area.
The Authority also provides comments and makes submissions on district plan reviews, variations and plan changes where appropriate. The purpose of doing this is to promote greater harmony between the requirements of the Summit Road (Canterbury) Protection Act and provisions in district plans where these affect the control of structures and other activities within the protected area, and to avoid unnecessary duplication of regulatory processes.
Submissions were made on the Christchurch Replacement District Plan Stage lll and approved in
August 2015 and 23 November 2015. Report Annual
- (b) Advice, Advocacy and Facilities
The second important function of the Authority is to provide for the improvement of facilities for the public enjoyment of the scenic and natural amenities of the area. As part of the exercise of this function, the Authority has carried out a number of studies in the past aimed at identifying the needs of the public and methods by which these can be met in a manner consistent with the other purposes of the Act. While the implementation of this strategy is primarily the responsibility of the constituent local bodies, the Authority can perform a useful function in promoting the adoption of the proposals by these bodies, for example by submissions on annual plans. C Attachment Facilities Improvement Over the last few years the Authority has been involved in advocating for better recognition of the scenic historic, amenity and utility function of the Summit Road and Port Hills experience and helping in the detailed planning and design of facilities. The money available to the Authority to support this work had grown to $111,298.45 by the year end. Planning was initiated six years ago for the erection of gateway signs at Evans Pass and Gebbies Pass but further work has been interrupted by the Canterbury earthquakes. The intent was to contribute to the installation of stone plinths and signs, inspired by the Sign of the Kiwi sign design, at up to four locations at the entrances to the Summit Road. However the potential high cost of using stone may now necessitate a review of the design.
Summit Road Management Arising out of concerns about inappropriate behaviour along the Summit Road and damage to the road and facilities along it, the Authority initiated further discussions with the City Council’s Parks and Traffic Operations Teams to provide solutions for better traffic and user management of the Summit Road. A presentation was made to the Authority and options around potential road stopping were discussed. In May 2016 a seminar was run by the Authority including representatives from the various Community Boards and affected parties such as the New Zealand Police. Mr Andrew Hensley from the City Council’s Traffic Operations Team outlined options for introduction of a bylaw that could introduce closure of the Summit Road to unauthorised night traffic.
The City Council in July 2017 initiated public consultation on a proposal to impose Prohibited Times on Road Restrictions under the Cruising and Prohibited Times on Roads Bylaw 2014 prohibiting vehicles under 3500kg from being on Summit Road (between Rapaki Road and Gebbies Pass Road) and Worsleys Road (from Summit Road to the start of the Track) from 10pm to 5am on Thursday through Monday every week and also on public holidays. Reporting on the results of the consultation falls in to the period of the next Annual Report.
Page 52
Promoting Public Awareness In addition, the Authority has from time to time provided information or participated in programmes led by other organisations aimed at promoting public awareness of issues relating to the Port Hills. The Authority will continue to do this where programmes are consistent with the purposes of the Act.
(c) General administration
One meeting of the Advisory Committee and the Authority was held during the year. The attendance fee for non-elected members is $120.00.
A small number of enquiries from the press, public and landowners within or near the protected area, continue to be dealt with.
Report Annual
5. FINANCIAL REPORT -
Income for the year ending 30 June 2017 was $14,500.00 being the total levy on the two contributing Councils.
Direct expenditure was $853.76. The balance of $13,646.24 was carried forward.
The Summit Road Protection Authority has accumulated the sum $111,298.45 (as at 30 June 2017) as a contingency to cover unforeseen planning related matters and to spend on improving the amenity and facilities of the Summit Road. Any expenditure on facilities will probably need to be combined with capital expenditure by the Council(s) to be most effective. C Attachment
Details of expenditure and income during the year are set out below:
Activity Actual Expenditure1 Actual Income1 2016/17 increase in (from annual levy) accumulated funds1 $ (transferred to Summit Road Protection Authority accumulated fund) General administration 853.76 $853.76 $14,500.00 $13,646.24 1 Excludes GST
K McMillan Senior Policy Planner Christchurch City Council March 2017
Page 53
APPENDIX 1
MEMBERSHIP
As at 30 June 2017
Summit Road Protection Authority
Christchurch City Council Cr T Scandrett
Christchurch City Council Mr Jed O’Donoghue
Selwyn District Council Cr G Miller (Chair) Report Annual
-
Summit Road Advisory Committee
Christchurch City Council Cr T Scandrett Mr Jed O’Donoghue
Selwyn District Council Cr G Miller
Landowner nominees Mr D Aldridge
Mr P Graham C Attachment
Minister of Conservation nominee Dr C Dann
Summit Road Society Inc. nominee Mr P Loughton (Chair)
Te Papatipu Runanga o Rapaki/ Mr D Couch Te Runanga o Ngai Tahu nominee
Environment Canterbury nominee Vacant (Mr J Tricker TBC)
Contributory councils' nominee having a Mr K McMillan Knowledge of open space and park management
Executive Secretary Mr John Dryden (until January 2016) Mr Ivan Thomson (in attendance March meeting 2016) Mr Kelvin McMillan (acting since March 2016) Mr Mark Saunders (assisting since March 2017, acting from March 2018)
Page 54
APPENDIX 2
Annual Report Report Annual
-
Attachment C C Attachment
Page 55
APPENDIX 3
Summit Road Protection Authority
Receipts and Payments Account
01/07/2016 to 30/06/2017
Opening Balance as at 01/07/2016 $97,652.21
Receipts Report Annual
- Levies PRJ 906/105/2 14,500.00
Payments
General Expenses PRJ 906/105/1 853.76
Closing Balance as at 30/06/2017 $111,298.45 credit C Attachment
Page 56
SUMMIT ROAD PROTECTION AUTHORITY
TE MANA TIAKI I TE ARA AKITU
19 19
-
SUMMIT ROAD PROTECTION AUTHORITY
Annual Plan and Budget
2018 / 2019
Draft Annual Plan and Budget for 2018 for Budget and Plan Annual Draft
-
D Attachment
Mark Saunders, Committee and Hearings Advisor, Christchurch City Council Address for Service: Civic Offices Telephone: (03) 941 6436 53 Hereford Street Email: [email protected] PO Box 73016 Christchurch 8154
Page 57
CONTENTS Page 1. The Authority and Advisory Committee 2 2. Introduction 3 3. Functions of the Authority 3
4. Membership 4 19 4. Significant Activities of the Authority 4 - 5. Work programme 2018-2019 5 6. Proposed Budget for 2018-2019 7 7. Local Body Levy 2018/19 8
Appendices A. Protected Area Map
1. SUMMIT ROAD PROTECTION AUTHORITY AND ADVISORY COMMITTEE
Summit Road Authority
Selwyn District Council Cr Grant Miller
Christchurch City Council Cr Tim Scandrett
Christchurch City Council Mr Jed O'Donoghue
Summit Road Advisory Committee
Summit Road Society Inc. nominee Mr Paul Loughton (Chair)
Christchurch City Council Cr Tim Scandrett
Christchurch City Council (Banks Peninsula Mr Jed O'Donoghue Community Board)
Draft Annual Plan and Budget for 2018 for Budget and Plan Annual Draft
Selwyn District Council Cr Grant Miller -
Landowner nominee Mr Denis Aldridge
Landowner nominee Mr Peter Graham
Minister of Conservation nominee Dr Christine Dann
Te Papatipu Runanga o Rapaki / Te Runanga o Ngai Mr Douglas Couch Tahu nominee
Attachment D Attachment Environment Canterbury nominee To be confirmed
Contributory Councils’ nominee having a knowledge Mr Kelvin McMillan of open space and park management.
Executive Secretary Mark Saunders
Page 58
2. INTRODUCTION
The Summit Road Protection Authority's Annual Plan and Budget for 2018/19 describes the work to be undertaken during the year, shows how much it will cost, and sets out the objectives in each area of significant activity. The Annual Plan relates to the period 1 July 2018 - 30 June 2019, the financial year for the Authority.
19 In 1963 Parliament enacted the Summit Road (Canterbury) Protection Act. This Act was - originally administered by the Christchurch Regional Planning Authority, then by the Canterbury United Council and between 1989 and 1992, by the Canterbury Regional Council. In 1992 Parliament amended the 1963 Act to provide for the establishment of the Summit Road Protection Authority as a joint standing committee of the Christchurch City Council, the Banks Peninsula District Council and the Selwyn District Council.
The Summit Road Protection Authority was established on 1 July 1993.
In 2001 a revised Summit Road (Canterbury) Protection Act was passed. In 2006 the Banks Peninsula District Council was amalgamated with the Christchurch City Council.
2. THE FUNCTIONS OF THE AUTHORITY
The function of the Authority is to carry out its responsibilities under the Summit Road (Canterbury) Protection Act 2001. The purposes of this Act are as follows:
To provide for the preservation and protection of the scenic amenity associated with the Summit Road and other roads, walkways, paths and public open spaces within the protected land; To provide for the preservation and protection of natural amenities of land within the protected area. To provide for the improvement of facilities for the public enjoyment of the scenic amenity and the natural amenities.
Draft Annual Plan and Budget for 2018 for Budget and Plan Annual Draft Scenic amenity includes the extensive views from the Summit Road and other roads, paths and
- parks within the protected land, to the Port Hills, Christchurch, the Plains and the Harbour. Natural amenities means the natural or physical qualities of an area that contribute to people’s appreciation of its pleasantness, coherence and cultural and recreation attributes.
The area protected by the Act runs along the summit of the Port Hills from Evans Pass to Gebbies Pass and is generally the land between a line running about 30 metres vertically below the Summit Road and the ridgeline, as shown in Appendix 1.
In carrying out its functions, the Authority has identified four areas of significant activity:
D Attachment regulation advice and advocacy provision of interpretative facilities general administration.
The 2017 Annual Report was approved by the Authority in March 2018.
Page 59
3. MEMBERSHIP
In March 2006, Banks Peninsular District Council joined with the Christchurch City Council. As a result, membership of the Authority changed to include two representatives of the Christchurch City Council and one of Selwyn District Council.
Following the Local Body elections in October 2016 Councillor Grant Miller (Selwyn District 19 Council), Councillor Tim Scandrett (Christchurch City Council) and Mr Jed O'Donoghue (a - member of the City Council’s Banks Peninsula Community Board) were appointed to the Authority.
The Authority is advised by an Advisory Committee that includes representatives of the land owners, the Department of Conservation, the Summit Road Society Inc, Ngāi Tahu, Environment Canterbury and an open space expert.
4. SIGNIFICANT ACTIVITIES OF THE AUTHORITY
The business of the Authority is limited to those activities that are necessary to achieve the purposes of the Summit Road (Canterbury) Protection Act 2001.
(a) Regulation
Implementation of the regulatory provisions of the Act is the primary responsibility of the Authority. The Act requires that applications for specified activities on protected land must be made to the Authority. The Act also provides for applications for the amendment or removal of land from the protected area.
The hearing and determination of applications for consent to carry out activities on protected land (except those determined under Section 17 of the Act) has been delegated to the Advisory Committee. However, applications for the amendment or removal of land from the protected area are determined by the Authority.
Draft Annual Plan and Budget for 2018 for Budget and Plan Annual Draft
The Authority also provides comments and makes submissions on district plan reviews, variations and plan changes, where appropriate. The purpose of doing this is to promote - greater harmony between the requirements of the Summit Road (Canterbury) Protection Act and provisions in district plans where these affect the control of structures and other activities within the protected area, and to avoid unnecessary duplication of regulatory processes.
(b) Advice and advocacy
The second important function of the Authority is to promote the improvement of facilities for the public enjoyment of scenic and natural amenities. As part of the exercise of this function, the Authority has carried out a number of studies in the past aimed at D Attachment identifying the needs of the public and methods by which these can be met in a manner consistent with the other purposes of the Act.
During 2002 the Authority undertook a review of facilities and formulated a strategy to meet the needs of visitors and recreational users of the Summit Road. While the implementation of this strategy is primarily the responsibility of the constituent local
Page 60
bodies, the Authority can perform a useful function in promoting the adoption of the proposals by these bodies, for example by submissions on annual plans, and by making financial contributions within the constraints of its limited budget, towards the planning of such facilities.
In addition, the Authority has from time to time provided information or participated in
programmes led by other organisations aimed at promoting public awareness of issues 19 relating to the Port Hills. The Authority should continue to do this where programmes are - consistent with the purposes of the Act.
(c) Provision of Interpretation Facilities
The Authority considers that, in particular through its Advisory Committee, it can make a useful contribution to the detailed planning and design of additional public facilities along the Summit Road. In addition, within its limited budget, it could help with some of the costs associated with this work.
(d) General administration
General administration is the main item of expenditure for the Authority and includes activities associated with servicing the Authority, including meetings and members allowances; the preparation of agendas; the Annual Plan and Budget and Annual Report; budget, revenue and expenditure reports; and dealing with correspondence, servicing member, media and public enquiries, and maintaining files and information base. The Authority meets as required up to six times a year. Administrative services are provided Christchurch City Council that acts as the principal council (responsible for administration and servicing of the Authority).
5. WORK PROGRAMME 2018/19
The following projects comprise the Authority's proposed work programme for 2018/19.
Draft Annual Plan and Budget for 2018 for Budget and Plan Annual Draft
(a) Exercise of regulatory functions - The likely level of expenditure by the Authority in processing applications cannot be forecast with accuracy because it is dependent on the nature and timing of applications over the next 12 months. Moreover, in certain circumstances, part of the cost is recoverable from applicants. Nevertheless, the Authority must bear the majority of cost of overall administration of the process including determination of whether or not the approval of the Authority is required, the adequacy of information provided with the application and the nature of investigations required, and assessment and reporting on applications together with monitoring compliance with any conditions imposed by the Authority. To enable this work to be carried out, it is proposed that the Authority make budget provision for an expenditure of $2,000 against this item. D Attachment
Selwyn District Council is currently reviewing their District Plan therefore $1500 has been allowed in the event that any involvement by the Authority may be required.
Page 61
(b) Advice and advocacy
The Authority has been active in promoting the use and enjoyment of the Summit Road area in a healthy safe environment. Arising in part, out of concerns about undesirable behaviour along the Summit Road, the Authority is considering the long term future for the administration of the Summit Road itself and adjoining public lands. Advocacy for
introduction of measures to improve management of Summit Road night time behaviour 19 will be progressed through advocacy and support for Council management initiatives. For - this work $600 is set aside.
(c) Protection of natural amenities of land within the protected area and improvement of facilities
As part of the strategic review undertaken during 2002, the Authority identified several areas where the Advisory Committee could make a useful contribution towards detailed planning of facilities for recreation users and other visitors along the Summit Road.
The Authority is committed to building up a modest capital fund in order that it can make a contribution towards the planning of such key facilities. This fund had built up to $111,298.45 by 30 June 2017. The total available funds for the 2018/19 financial year will be $125,798.45 inclusive of the Local Authority Levy of $14,500.
During the 2018/19 year, the Authority intends to support the Council in its review of solutions to protect the road corridor and ancillary facilities and management of the Summit Road. If feasible solutions can be determined the Authority is prepared to contribute up to $50,000 toward capital works and $10,000 in design fees.
(d) General administration
A summary of the proposed programme of work for the year 2018/19, together with performance measures, follows:
WORK PROGRAMME 2018 / 19
Draft Annual Plan and Budget for 2018 for Budget and Plan Annual Draft
Project Objective Performance Public Output Completion - Measure Consultation Date Regulation Process and Decisions made Applications Decision on Ongoing Applications determine all and communicated publicly notified applications with applications in a to the applicant and except where reasons timely and cost other affected exempt under the effective manner parties within Act specified time limit.
D Attachment Regulation Ensure harmonisation Submissions made Consultation with Preparation of Ongoing in District Plans and avoid duplication within the time limits interest groups as submissions, accordance (Selwyn District between provisions of specified in the plan appropriate presentation of with district Plan review) the Summit Road Act evidence in plan and district plans support of timetables submissions
Page 62
Advice and Public enjoyment of Good quality display As required Updated As required advocacy scenic and natural material promotional amenities material
Continue to develop vision Summit Road Increased protection Increased As required Design & cost of Ongoing
19 19 facilities provided for facilities protection of the works that - for the public interpretative increase enjoyment of scenic facilities and protection of the and natural response to fire As required Summit Road amenities recovery plan corridor and its initiatives as facilities. required General Provide timely advice Forward meeting Consultation with Meeting agendas Ongoing Administration to the Authority and agendas, two clear Councils and and reports, service to the public. working days prior other interest Annual Report, to meetings. groups as Annual Plan and To ensure that the Respond to appropriate Budget, financial administration of the correspondence, reports, Authority conforms to and member and correspondence, public administration public enquiries in a service member requirements. timely manner, and public enquiries. Current Authority operating protocols and Council servicing of the Authority reviewed.
6. PROPOSED BUDGET FOR 2018/19
Draft Annual Plan and Budget for 2018 for Budget and Plan Annual Draft The proposed expenditure for the coming year for each of the significant activity areas is as
- follows:
Project Expenditure 1
Regulation Applications / legal advice $ 2,500
Selwyn District Plan $ 1,500 D Attachment Review
Advice and advocacy (including Vision $ 600 development)
Page 63
Design fees for works that increase 10,000 protection of public facilities and enhance the use of the Summit Road and ancillary facilities.
Capital works that protect and or $50,000
enhance Summit Road facilities and 19 use. -
General administration $2,000
Total Proposed Expenditure $66,600
The proposed source of funding for the expenditure is as follows:
Source Funding 1
Local body levy (2018 /19, $14,500) $14,500 Reserve funds ($111,298.45) $52,100
Total Proposed Expenditure $66,600
1 Excluding GST Note: Residual Funds in reserve = $59,198.45
Draft Annual Plan and Budget for 2018 for Budget and Plan Annual Draft
7. LOCAL BODY LEVY 2018/19 -
It is proposed that the Authority levy for 2018/19 be set at $14,500, the same as the amount raised in annual budgets overs the past seven years and continuing a significant reduction on the $17,500 levy set in earlier years.
The levy will be made on the two contributory local bodies in accordance with section 25 of the Summit Road (Canterbury) Protection Act 2001, the apportionment being made on rateable capital values.
D Attachment
Mark Saunders Committee and Hearings Advisor Christchurch City Council March 2018
Page 64
SUMMIT ROAD PROTECTION AUTHORITY TE MANA TIAKI I TE ARA AKITU
APPENDIX 1
19 19
-
Draft Annual Plan and Budget for 2018 for Budget and Plan Annual Draft
-
Attachment D Attachment
Page 65