CHRISTCHURCH CITY COUNCIL AGENDA
THURSDAY 3 AND FRIDAY 4 OCTOBER 2013
9.30AM
COUNCIL CHAMBER, CIVIC OFFICES, 53 HEREFORD STREET
We’re on the Web! www.ccc.govt.nz/Council/Agendas/
AGENDA - OPEN
CHRISTCHURCH CITY COUNCIL
Thursday 3 and Friday 4 October 2013 at 9.30am in the Council Chamber, Civic Offices, 53 Hereford Street
Council: The Mayor, Bob Parker (Chairperson). Councillors Peter Beck, Helen Broughton, Sally Buck, Ngaire Button, Tim Carter, Jimmy Chen, Barry Corbett, Jamie Gough, Yani Johanson, Aaron Keown, Glenn Livingstone, Claudia Reid and Sue Wells.
ITEM DESCRIPTION PAGE NO. NO.
1. APOLOGIES 1
2. DECLARATION OF INTEREST 1
3. CONFIRMATION OF MINUTES - COUNCIL MEETINGS OF: 1 29 AUGUST 2013 – 2 SEPTEMBER 2013, 6 SEPTEMBER 2013, 12 SEPTEMBER 2013 AND EXTRAORDINARY COUNCIL MEETING OF 19 SEPTEMBER 2013
4. DEPUTATIONS BY APPOINTMENT 1
5. PRESENTATION OF PETITIONS 1
6. REPORT OF A MEETING OF THE BURWOOD/PEGASUS COMMUNITY BOARD: MEETING OF 31 2 SEPTEMBER 2013
7. REPORT OF A MEETING OF THE BURWOOD/PEGASUS COMMUNITY BOARD: MEETING OF 37 16 SEPTEMBER 2013
8. REPORT OF A MEETING OF THE FENDALTON/WAIMAIRI COMMUNITY BOARD: MEETING 45 OF 3 SEPTEMBER 2013
9. REPORT OF A MEETING OF THE FENDALTON/WAIMAIRI COMMUNITY BOARD: MEETING 51 OF 17 SEPTEMBER 2013
10. REPORT OF A MEETING OF THE HAGLEY/FERRYMEAD COMMUNITY BOARD: MEETING OF 63 4 SEPTEMBER 2013
11. REPORT OF A MEETING OF THE HAGLEY/FERRYMEAD COMMUNITY BOARD: MEETING OF 73 18 SEPTEMBER 2013
12. REPORT OF A MEETING OF THE LYTTELTON/ MT HERBERT COMMUNITY BOARD: 109 MEETING OF 22 AUGUST 2013
13. REPORT OF A MEETING OF THE LYTTELTON/ MT HERBERT COMMUNITY BOARD: 117 MEETING OF 19 SEPTEMBER 2013
14. REPORT OF A MEETING OF THE RICCARTON/WIGRAM COMMUNITY BOARD: MEETING OF 123 3 SEPTEMBER 2013
15. REPORT OF A MEETING OF THE RICCARTON/WIGRAM COMMUNITY BOARD: MEETING OF 127 17 SEPTEMBER 2013
16. REPORT OF A MEETING OF THE SHIRLEY/PAPANUI COMMUNITY BOARD: MEETING OF 209 4 SEPTEMBER 2013
17. REPORT OF A MEETING OF THE SHIRLEY/PAPANUI COMMUNITY BOARD: MEETING OF 217 18 SEPTEMBER 2013
18. REPORT OF A MEETING OF THE SPREYDON/HEATHCOTE COMMUNITY BOARD: MEETING 231 OF 3 SEPTEMBER 2013
19. REPORT OF A MEETING OF THE SPREYDON/HEATHCOTE COMMUNITY BOARD: MEETING 237 OF 17 SEPTEMBER 2013
COUNCIL 3. 10. 2013
ITEM DESCRIPTION PAGE NO. NO.
20. REPORT OF A MEETING OF THE AKAROA/WAIREWA COMMUNITY BOARD: MEETING OF 259 21 AUGUST 2013
21. REPORT OF A MEETING OF THE AKAROA/WAIREWA COMMUNITY BOARD’S SMALL 265 GRANTS FUND ASSESSMENT COMMITTEE: MEETING OF 21 AUGUST 2013
22. REPORT OF A MEETING OF THE AKAROA/WAIREWA COMMUNITY BOARD: MEETING OF 267 18 SEPTEMBER 2013
23. REPORT OF A MEETING OF THE ENVIRONMENT AND INFRASTRUCTURE COMMITTEE: 277 MEETING OF 5 SEPTEMBER 2013 (ATTACHMENTS WILL BE SEPARATELY CIRCULATED)
24. REPORT OF A MEETING OF THE PLANNING COMMITTEE: 297 MEETING OF 4 SEPTEMBER 2013 (ATTACHMENTS WILL BE SEPARATELY CIRCULATED)
25. REPORT OF A MEETING OF THE AUDIT AND RISK MANAGEMENT SUBCOMMITTEE: 419 MEETING OF 28 AUGUST 2013
26. REPORT OF A MEETING OF THE AUDIT AND RISK MANAGEMENT SUBCOMMITTEE: 433 MEETING OF 24 SEPTEMBER 2013
27. REPORT OF A MEETING OF THE COMMUNITY, RECREATION AND CULTURE COMMITTEE: 435 MEETING OF 3 SEPTEMBER 2013 (ATTACHMENTS WILL BE SEPARATELY CIRCULATED)
28. REPORT OF A MEETING OF THE CORPORATE AND FINANCIAL COMMITTEE: 465 MEETING OF 6 SEPTEMBER 2013 (ATTACHMENTS WILL BE SEPARATELY CIRCULATED)
29. REPORT OF A MEETING OF THE GREATER CHRISTCHURCH URBAN DEVELOPMENT 477 STRATEGY IMPLEMENTATION COMMITTEE (UDSIC): MEETING OF 13 SEPTEMBER 2013
30. VBASE LIMITED - APPOINTMENT OF NEW DIRECTOR 495
31. RESPONSES TO PREVIOUS PUBLIC FORUM 497
32. CHRISTCHURCH EARTHQUAKE MAYORAL RELIEF FUND: APPLICATIONS FOR GRANTS 501
33. PLAN CHANGE 73: REZONING LAND AT WOOLDRIDGE ROAD AND STANLEYS ROAD – 507 FINAL APPROVAL
34. METROPOLITAN DISCRETIONARY RESPONSE FUND 2013-14 APPLICATION 509
35. METROPOLITAN DISCRETIONARY RESPONSE FUND 2013-14 APPLICATION – HOME AND 511 FAMILY SOCIETY CHRISTCHURCH INC
36. MT PLEASANT MEMORIAL COMMUNITY CENTRE FUNDING 515
37. SURRENDER OF LEASE – CHRISTCHURCH HIGH SCHOOL OLD BOYS’ – OLD COLLEGIANS 519 CRICKET CLUB INCORPORATED AT HAGLEY PARK
38. VALEDICTORY SPEECHES 521
39. NOTICES OF MOTION 521
40. RESOLUTION TO EXCLUDE THE PUBLIC 523
1 COUNCIL 3. 10. 2013
1. APOLOGIES
2. DECLARATION OF INTEREST
Members are reminded of the need to be vigilant to stand aside from decision making when a conflict arises between their role as a member and any private or other external interest they might have.
3. CONFIRMATION OF MINUTES - COUNCIL MEETINGS OF: 29 AUGUST 2013 – 2 SEPTEMBER 2013, 6 SEPTEMBER 2013, 12 SEPTEMBER 2013 AND EXTRAORDINARY COUNCIL MEETING OF 19 SEPTEMBER 2013
Attached.
4. DEPUTATIONS BY APPOINTMENT
4.1 Bronwyn Carruthers of Russell McVeagh who is representing Progressive Enterprises Limited will address the Council regarding item 24 (12) – Plan Change 76.
4.2 Bruce Bellis will address the Council regarding item 39 (39.2) – Right turn from Harper Avenue into Park Terrace.
4.3 Joanne Byrne and residents will address the Council regarding item 16.1.1 Earthquake Recovery Community Advocate.
5. PRESENTATION OF PETITIONS
2 3
MINUTES MINUTES OF A MEETING OF THE CHRISTCHURCH CITY COUNCIL HELD AT 9.30AM ON THURSDAY 29 AUGUST, FRIDAY 30 AUGUST AND MONDAY 2 SEPTEMBER 2013
PRESENT: The Mayor, Bob Parker (Chairperson). Councillors Peter Beck, Helen Broughton, Sally Buck, Ngaire Button, Tim Carter, Jimmy Chen, Barry Corbett, Jamie Gough, Aaron Keown, Glenn Livingstone, Yani Johanson, Claudia Reid and Sue Wells.
1. APOLOGIES
Thursday, 29 August – nil. Friday, 30 August – apologies for lateness were received from the Mayor and Councillor Gough and Keown. Monday, 2 September - apologies for absence were received from Councillors Broughton, Carter and Livingstone.
2. DECLARATION OF INTEREST
Councillor Carter declared an interest in item 23.
3. DEPUTATIONS BY APPOINTMENT
The Council heard the following deputations:
Item 7 Report of the Community Recreation and Culture Committee meeting of 6 August 2013
Mrs Topsy Rule and Mrs Kitty Fenton addressed the Council on item 7.2, the Sumner Community Centre and Library Rebuild.
Roger Turner addressed the Council on item 7.2, the Sumner Community Centre and Library Rebuild.
Jen Crawford (Chair) and Andre Lovatt (CEO) of the Arts Centre addressed the Council on item 7.9, the Chairpersons Report on the Arts Centre Trust Proposed Changes.
Item 13 Hagley Oval Proposed Development Works and Lease
Garth Wilson and Martin Taylor from the Central Riccarton Residents Association.
Drucilla Kingi-Patterson, also addressed the Council on the item relating to the Town Hall Conservation and Overall Performing Arts Precinct.
Dr Michael Gousmett.
Peter Wakeman also addressed the Council on the item relating to the Town Hall Conservation and Overall Performing Arts Precinct.
Martin Meehan, Chairman, Hands off Hagley.
Neil Roberts and Lindsay Carswell, Christchurch Civic Trust.
Lee Germon, Chief Executive Canterbury Cricket.
Item 23 Town Hall Conservation and Overall Performing Arts Precinct.
Barnaby Bennett.
Luke di Somma.
Jessica Halliday.
Neil Cox. 4 COUNCIL 3. 10. 2013 CHRISTCHURCH CITY COUNCIL 29. 8. 2013
3 Cont’d
Gretchen La Roche, Acting General Manager, Christchurch Symphony Orchestra.
Sir Miles Warren and Maurice Mahoney.
The agenda was dealt with in the following order.
23. TOWN HALL CONSERVATION AND OVERALL PERFORMING ARTS PRECINCT
Councillor Carter took no part in this item.
The Mayor moved, seconded by Councillor Johanson, that the Council:
(a) Commence the design development of the Town Hall restoration (based on option 1 for the southern entry) with the intention to achieve further cost certainty through a tender process and greater understanding of functional requirements via user groups. Option 1 has been recommended based on the balance of strong heritage support and limited functionality and commercial benefits of the other options.
(b) Confirm that the option for the Performing Arts Precinct will include the Town Hall restoration (as above), a new Court Theatre, a home for the Music Centre of Christchurch and for the CSO and to continue with the feasibility study for the precinct via stakeholder engagement to achieve a brief and project definition that meets the required Crown/CCC cost sharing agreement budget.
(c) Separate the budgets for the Town Hall restoration project and the other Performing Arts Precinct facilities which will provide assurance through project budgets specific as follows: $127.5 million for the Town Hall restoration and $30 million plus partner contributions for the other facilities.
Councillor Gough moved by way of amendment:
That the Council request that CERA agrees to a variation to the cost sharing agreement to defer a decision on the preferred option for the Town Hall until no later than March 2014.
Note that this will provide the Council with the opportunity to fully consider detailed options and costings for the entire Performing Arts Precinct in conjunction with CERA and key performance, production and technical stakeholders.
The amendment was seconded by Councillor Wells and on being put to the meeting was declared carried on electronic vote No. 1, by 12 votes to 1, the voting being as follows:
For (12): The Mayor and Councillors Beck, Broughton, Buck, Button, Chen, Corbett, Johanson, Keown, Livingstone, Reid and Wells.
Against (1): Councillor Gough.
Councillor Button moved by way of amendment:
(d) That the Council investigate international fundraising opportunities for the Town Hall restoration Project.
The amendment was seconded by Councillor Keown and when put to the meeting was declared carried on electronic vote No. 2 by 12 votes to 1, the voting being as follows:
For (12): The Mayor and Councillors Beck, Broughton, Buck, Button, Chen, Corbett, Gough, Johanson, Keown, Reid and Wells.
Against (1): Councillor Livingstone. 5 COUNCIL 3. 10. 2013 CHRISTCHURCH CITY COUNCIL 29. 8. 2013
23 Cont’d
The amended motion was then put to the meeting as the substantive motion and dealt with as follows:
Clauses a, b and d were declared carried on electronic vote No. 3 by 13 votes to nil.
Clause c was declared carried on electronic vote No. 4 by 9 votes to 4, the voting being as follows:
For (9): The Mayor and Councillors Beck, Broughton, Buck, Corbett, Chen, Johanson, Livingstone and Reid.
Against (4): Councillors Button, Gough, Keown and Wells.
The Council adjourned at 12.40 pm and resumed at 1.30pm.
13. HAGLEY OVAL - PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT WORKS AND LEASE
The Mayor moved, seconded by Councillor Keown:
That the Council subject to the resource consent issued by the Environment Court in respect to Hagley Oval becoming operative, resolves as follows:
(a) As landowner (and not in any other capacity), to approve the proposal by Canterbury Cricket Association Incorporated for the development of Hagley Oval attached as Attachment 2 to this report;
(b) To approve the expenditure by the Council of the unspent balance of $1.085 million of the Hagley Oval development funding totalling $1.65 million allocated in the 2012/13 Annual Plan for the development of the embankment, practice wicket, and outfield at Hagley Oval as detailed in this report;
(c) To approve the scope of the works to be undertaken by the Council at Hagley Oval as detailed in paragraph 35 of this report;
(d) Pursuant to section 54(1)(b) of the Reserves Act 1977, to grant to Canterbury Cricket Association Incorporated a ground lease of those parts of South Hagley Park as are approximately delineated on the plan attached as Attachment 3 to this report, as follows:
(i) the lease be for the purpose of erecting the sports pavilion building (including adjoining permanent seating and ancillary areas) and the lighting towers as approved by the Council and as referred to in paragraph (a) of this resolution; and
(ii) the lease to be granted for a term of up to 33 years generally on the Council’s standard lease terms for leases of recreation reserve as shall be negotiated and agreed by the Corporate Support Manager;
(iii) That the lease contain a provision that the tenant satisfy the Chief Executive that it has financial arrangements sufficient to complete the project prior to commencement of construction.
(e) Pursuant to section 54 of the Reserves Act 1977 and a delegation from the Minister of Conservation, to consent on behalf of the Minister of Conservation to the grant of the lease referred to in paragraph (d) of this resolution.
(f) That Canterbury Cricket provide, within the next two weeks, a business plan to Councillors and Council staff showing how they intend to fund the proposal.
(g) That Canterbury Cricket have advised that no further funds from the Christchurch City Council would be sought. 6 COUNCIL 3. 10. 2013 CHRISTCHURCH CITY COUNCIL 29. 8. 2013
13 Cont’d
Councillor Johanson moved by way of amendment:
That consideration of this report be deferred until such time as the conditions of the resource consent are set by the Environment Court.
The amendment was seconded by Councillor Beck and when put to the meeting was declared lost on electronic vote No. 5 by 5 votes to 9, the voting being as follows:
For (5): Councillors Beck, Broughton, Chen, Johanson and Livingstone.
Against (9): The Mayor and Councillors Buck, Button, Carter, Corbett, Gough, Keown, Reid and Wells.
The original motion was then put to the meeting as follows.
Clauses (a) to (d) (ii) and (e) to (g) were put to the meeting and declared carried on electronic vote No. 6 by 11 votes to 3, the voting being as follows:
For (11): The Mayor and Councillors Beck, Buck, Button, Carter, Chen, Corbett, Gough, Keown, Reid and Wells.
Against (3): Councillors Broughton, Johanson and Livingstone.
Clause (d) (iii) was then put to meeting and declared carried on electronic vote No. 7, by 14 votes to nil.
16. RESOLUTION TO BE PASSED - SUPPLEMENTARY REPORTS
It was resolved on the motion of the Mayor, seconded by Councillor Button that the reports be received and considered at the meeting of the Council on 15 August 2013.
27. CORRECTION OF RATES SETTING IRREGULARITIES
It was resolved on the motion of the Mayor, seconded by Councillor Buck, that the Council:
(a) Determine it is desirable to set its rates again for the 2013/14 year because of the irregularities in setting the rates identified and reported to the Council;
(b) Will give 14 days' public notice of its intention to set the 2013/14 rates again in accordance with the requirements of the Local Government (Rating) Act 2002;
(c) Will include in the public notice the following information, required by section 119 of the Act:
(i) information in relation to the 2013/14 rates that was included in the funding impact statement in the Council's 2013/16 3 Year Plan;
(ii) a statement of the reason why the Council has determined that it is desirable to set the 2013/14 rates again; and
(d) Accept the advice of staff and the Council's external legal advisers that the process under section 119 of the Local Government (Rating) Act is not available to correct irregularities found in respect of previous years' rates setting and that these can only be validated by the passing of a Local Bill.
(e) For this purpose, authorises the acting chief executive (or her nominee) to take all steps, including the signing of any documents, that are required for the preparation and passage of a Local Bill. 7 COUNCIL 3. 10. 2013 CHRISTCHURCH CITY COUNCIL 29. 8. 2013
27 Cont’d
Note: staff will bring the outcome of the review back to the Council.
4. CONFIRMATION OF MINUTES – METROPOLITAN FUNDING COMMITTEE 24 JULY 2013, COUNCIL MEETINGS OF 25 JULY 2013 AND 15 AUGUST 2013
It was resolved on the motion of the Mayor, seconded by Councillor Button, that the open minutes of the Council meetings held on 24 July 2013, 25 July 2013 and 15 August 2013 be confirmed.
5. PRESENTATION OF PETITIONS
Nil.
6. REPORT OF THE MEETING OF THE AUDIT AND RISK MANAGEMENT SUBCOMMITTEE MEETING OF 16 JULY 2013
It was resolved on the motion of the Mayor, seconded by Councillor Button, that the Council receive the report.
7. REPORT OF THE COMMUNITY RECREATION AND CULTURE COMMITTEE MEETING OF 6 AUGUST 2013
(2.) SUMNER COMMUNITY CENTRE AND LIBRARY REBUILD
Councillor Johanson moved, seconded by Councillor Carter, that:
(a) The Council confirm the rebuild of the Sumner Library, Community Centre, and Museum and potentially the RSA (with a commitment from them of funding to be contributed) to be concluded on the existing site at 14-18 Wakefield Avenue as a joint facilities rebuild project.
(b) The Council note the insurance shortfall and as such allocate up to $10 million from the Betterment and Improvement Allowance towards this joint facilities rebuild project.
(c) The Council note that adopting the recommendation in this report does not mean Council is accepting an insurance settlement for assets.
Councillor Keown moved by way of amendment that the Council:
(a) In line with the Facilities Rebuild Plan Council delegations, confirm the Rebuild of the Sumner Library and Community Centre and Museum and potentially the RSA (with a commitment from them of funding to be contributed on the existing site at 14-18 Wakefield Avenue, Stage 1 (planning, concept design, cost estimation and community consultation).
(b) Note that the only funding currently available to this project are the insurance proceeds and that the Council work with the Sumner community to close any funding gap between the rebuild cost and the available insurance proceed. This does not preclude the community from applying to the Council for any shortfall.
(c) Note that adopting the recommendation in this report does not mean Council is accepting an insurance settlement for the assets.
The amendment was seconded by Councillor Reid and the clauses were put to the meeting separately.
Clause 7 (2) (a) when put to the meeting was declared carried on electronic vote No. 8 by 14 votes to nil. 8 COUNCIL 3. 10. 2013 CHRISTCHURCH CITY COUNCIL 29. 8. 2013
7 Cont’d
Clause 7 (2) (b) when put to the meeting was declared carried on electronic vote No. 9 by 9 votes to 5, the voting being as follows:
For (9): The Mayor and Councillors Beck, Buck, Button, Gough, Keown, Livingstone, Reid and Wells.
Against (5): Councillors Broughton, Carter, Chen, Corbett and Johanson.
Clause 7 (2) (a) when put to the meeting was declared carried on electronic vote No. 10 by 14 votes to nil.
The carried amendment was then put as the substantive motion and when put to the meeting was declared carried on electronic vote No. 11 by 14 votes to nil.
15. RESOLUTION TO EXCLUDE THE PUBLIC
At 4.05 pm the Council resolved on the motion of the Mayor, seconded by Councillor Button to go into public excluded to consider item 29 An Update from the CEO Subcommittee.
The meeting adjourned at 5.44 pm.
The meeting resumed at 9.08am on Friday 30 August 2013.
30 August 2013 - apologies for lateness were received from the Mayor and Councillor Gough. An apology for absence was received from Councillor Keown.
It was resolved on the motion of Councillor Livingstone, seconded by Councillor Reid that the apologies be accepted.
(9.) CHAIRPERSON’S REPORT – ARTS CENTRE TRUST BOARD PROPOSED CHANGES
Councillor Johanson moved, seconded by Councillor Beck, that the Council:
(a) Receive the Christchurch Arts Centre: A Review of Governance Structure Issues (May 2012) report for information (Attachment 1).
(b) Note the outstanding request from the Arts Centre Trust Board for feedback (Attachment 2 - Letter dated 27 November 2012 from Jen Crawford, Arts Centre Trust Board Chairperson).
(c) Request Council staff to provide advice as part of this report to the Council on:
(i) The proposed changes as recommended by the Arts Centre Trust Board (Attachment 3 – as amended). (ii) Any questions from the Community, Recreation and Culture Committee on this matter. (iii) Any other relevant legal issues.
(d) That staff provide a report to the Council meeting on 12 September 2013.
Note that staff will arrange a workshop with the Council and representatives from the Arts Centre prior to the Council meeting on 12 September 2013.
Councillor Wells moved by way of amendment:
That the Council receive the Christchurch Arts Centre: A Review of Governance Structure Issues (May 2012) report for information (Attachment 1) and support in principle the approach being sought.
The amendment was seconded by Councillor Corbett and when put to the meeting was declared 9 COUNCIL 3. 10. 2013 CHRISTCHURCH CITY COUNCIL 29. 8. 2013
7 Cont’d
carried on electronic vote No. 12 by 7 votes to 4, the voting being as follows:
For (7): The Deputy Mayor and Councillors Beck, Buck, Carter, Corbett, Reid and Wells.
Against (4): Councillors Broughton, Chen, Johanson and Livingstone.
The amended motion was then put to the meeting as the substantive motion and declared carried on electronic vote No. 13 by 11 votes to nil.
(1.) FACILITIES REBUILD PLAN MONTHLY STATUS UPDATE
It was resolved on the motion of Councillor Johanson, seconded by Councillor Chen, that the Council receive the information in this report.
(3.) DEMOLITION OF GOVERNORS BAY COMMUNITY HALL, TOILETS AND ANCILLARY BUILDINGS
It was resolved on the motion of Councillor Johanson, seconded by Councillor Reid, that the Council approve the demolition of the Governors Bay Community Hall, Toilets and Ancillary Buildings, but that this does not include the heritage building (the Pierman Library).
(4.) PROPOSED DEMOLITION OF THE PETANQUE CLUB AND TOILETS LOCATED IN SCOTT PARK
It was resolved on the motion of Councillor Johanson, seconded by Councillor Reid, that the Council agree to the demolition of the existing petanque club, public toilet block and petanque courts.
(5.) PROPOSED DEMOLITION OF THE REMAINDER OF THE ST MARTIN VOLUNTARY LIBRARY
It was resolved on the motion of Councillor Johanson, seconded by Councillor Carter, that the Council:
(a) Agree to the demolition of the remainder of the St Martin Voluntary Library.
(b) Agree in principle to ring-fence the insurance proceeds for a future community facility that includes space for the voluntary library.
(6.) HERITAGE REINSTATEMENT PROGRAMME – SIGN OF THE TAKAHE
Councillor Johanson moved, seconded by Councillor Wells, that the Council:
(a) Receive the report.
(b) Considers the further information as requested by the Community Recreation and Culture Committee.
Councillor Carter moved by way of amendment
That the Council agree to proceed with repairing the Sign of the Takahe to 50 percent of the code, using the insurance recoveries of $1.94 million. That staff urgently report back on the costing options to repair the building to 67 percent of code.
The amendment was seconded by Councillor Livingstone and on being put to the meeting was declared lost on electronic vote No. 14 by 5 votes to 6, the voting being as follows:
For (5): Councillors Broughton, Buck, Carter, Chen and Johanson
Against (6): The Deputy Mayor and Councillors Beck, Corbett, Johanson, Reid and Wells 10 COUNCIL 3. 10. 2013 CHRISTCHURCH CITY COUNCIL 29. 8. 2013
7 Cont’d
Councillor Broughton moved by way of amendment
That the report lie on the table until the 12 September 2013 Council meeting.
The amendment was seconded by Councillor Buck and on being put to the meeting was declared carried.
The carried amendment was then put to the meeting as the substantive motion and was declared carried.
(7.) HERITAGE INCENTIVE GRANTS SIX MONTHLY REPORT
It was resolved on the motion of Councillor Johanson, seconded by Councillor Chen, that the Council receive the report for the period 1 January 2013 to 30 June 2013.
(8.) ELLERSLIE INTERNATIONAL FLOWER SHOW
It was resolved on the motion of Councillor Johanson, seconded by Councillor Corbett, that:
(a) Council staff negotiate a one year Supply of Services Agreement for the management of the 2014 Show. This Agreement will preserve the existing rights of the Parties to the initial Supply of Services Agreement, with the right of renewal for a five year term moving back a year, to after the delivery of the 2014 Show.
(b) Council staff present to the Council a full review, including recommendations for the long term success of the Show in Christchurch, within ten weeks following the completion of the 2014 Show.
(10.) HERITAGE UPDATE INCLUDING MAJESTIC THEATRE AND MCLEANS MANSION
It was resolved on the motion of Councillor Johanson, seconded by Councillor Broughton, that the Council:
(a) Request an urgent meeting with Chris Finlayson, the Minister of Arts Heritage and Culture, regarding the heritage recovery of the city.
(b) Write to the Canterbury Earthquake Recovery Authority expressing its desire for the Majestic Theatre to be saved for its heritage and cultural value and would be supportive of providing assistance.
It was resolved on the motion of Councillor Johanson, seconded by Councillor Broughton, that the report as a whole be received.
8. REPORT OF THE MEETING OF THE PLANNING COMMITTEE OF 7 AUGUST 2013
(1.) CONSENTING REBUILD MONTHLY REPORT
It was resolved on the motion of Councillor Wells, seconded by Councillor Reid, that the Council:
(a) Receive the information in this report.
(b) The temporary accommodation policy be brought to the September 2013 Planning Committee meeting for review. 11 COUNCIL 3. 10. 2013 CHRISTCHURCH CITY COUNCIL 29. 8. 2013
8 Cont’d
(c) Note that the Chair and Deputy Chair of the Planning Committee will work with the Crown Manager and relevant staff to reformat the reporting prior to the September meeting of the Planning Committee.
(2.) CHRISTCHURCH CITY PLAN (DISTRICT PLAN) 2005 – FULLY OPERATIVE
It was resolved on the motion of Councillor Wells, seconded by Councillor Reid that the Council receive the information in this report, noting that the Planning Committee would like to send their congratulations and thanks to staff who have worked on this endeavour over so many years.
(3.) 2013 DISTRICT PLAN REVIEW COMMENCEMENT
It was resolved on the motion of Councillor Wells moved, seconded by Councillor Reid, that the Council:
(a) Receive the information in this report, noting that additional information will be tabled at the Council meeting.
(b) Ask staff to consider how the remaining part of the Heritage chapter (Schedules, map symbols) can be included in the first Chapters to be worked on.
(4.) RESIDENTIAL LAND AVAILABILITY UPDATE
It was resolved on the motion of Councillor Wells, seconded by Councillor Reid, that the Council receive the information in this report.
(5.) STAFF UPDATE ON ENGAGEMENT WITH EASTERN VISION
Councillors Beck and Livingstone took no part in this item.
It was resolved on the motion of Councillor Wells, seconded by Councillor Reid, that the Council:
(a) Receive the information in this report.
(b) The incoming Council approve the attached engagement protocol with Eastern Vision and authorises the Chief Executive Officer to sign it on the Council’s
(6.) WEATHERTIGHT HOMES CLAIMS IN CHRISTCHURCH
It was resolved on the motion of Councillor Wells, seconded by Councillor Beck, that the Council receive the information in this report.
It was on the motion of Councillor Wells, seconded by Councillor Reid, that the report as a whole be received.
At 12.35 pm the meeting adjourned. It was resolved on the motion of Councillor Corbett, seconded by Councillor Button that the resolution to exclude the public be adopted with Jonathan Salter being permitted to remain to provide advice to the Council.
The meeting resumed in public excluded at 2.42 pm
At 3.03 pm the meeting resumed in public on the motion of Councillor Wells, seconded by Councillor Beck. 12 COUNCIL 3. 10. 2013 CHRISTCHURCH CITY COUNCIL 29. 8. 2013
9. REPORT OF THE MEETING OF THE ENVIRONMENT AND INFRASTRUCTURE COMMITTEE OF 8 AUGUST 2013
(1.) INFRASTRUCTURE REBUILD MONTHLY REPORT
It was resolved on the motion of Councillor Reid, seconded by Councillor Buck, that the Council:
(a) Receive the Infrastructure Rebuild Monthly Report for July 2013.
(b) Urgently request that the issue of providing alternative routes through the Central Business District to support business continuity be addressed by Stronger Christchurch Infrastructure Rebuild Team, Christchurch Central Development Unit, Canterbury Earthquake Recovery Authority, Christchurch Traffic Operations Centre, Environment Canterbury, New Zealand Transport Agency and any other relevant agencies and reported back to the Environment and Infrastructure Committee.
(c) Note the Committee’s request for a discussion around the new horizontal infrastructure governance arrangement in order that it can understand the alignment of the Council’s capital work programme with the infrastructure rebuild. Amended
(2.) PROHIBITED TIMES ON ROADS – POLICY EFFICACY REVIEW
Councillor Reid moved, seconded by Councillor Buck, that:
(a) This report on the efficacy of the Prohibited Times on Roads Policy be received.
(b) All existing resolutions prohibiting motor vehicles weighing less than 3,500 kilograms from being operated on a Christchurch City road, pursuant to the Christchurch City Council Traffic Parking Bylaw 2008, Clause 15, be revoked.
(c) Pursuant to the Christchurch City Council Traffic Parking Bylaw 2008, Clause 15, motor vehicles weighing less than 3,500 kilograms are prohibited from being operated at the following days and times:
(i) 10pm Thursday to 5am Friday;
(ii) 10pm Friday to 5am Saturday;
(iii) 10pm Saturday to 5am Sunday;
(iv) 10pm Sunday to 5am Monday;
(v) 10pm on any day which immediately precedes a statutory holiday to 5am on the statutory holiday; and
(vi) from 10pm on any statutory holiday to 5am the following day.
on the following roads:
Avonhead Road (between Ron Guthrey Road and Grays Road) Barters Road (northwest of Waterloo Road) Conservators Road Corringa Road Dickeys Road Grays Road (between Avonhead Road and Ryans Road) Guys Road (between School Road and Conservators Road) Hasketts Road Jessons Road 13 COUNCIL 3. 10. 2013 CHRISTCHURCH CITY COUNCIL 29. 8. 2013
9 Cont’d
Kainga Road Leggett Road Lower Styx Road Miners Road McLeans Island Road (between Chattertons Road and Pound Road) McTeigue Road Roberts Road (between Brunner Street and Pound Road) Ryans Road (from Russley Road to Guys Road) Savills Road School Road (Yaldhurst) Spencerville Road Wilmers Road
(d) Pursuant to the Christchurch City Council Traffic Parking Bylaw 2008, Clause 15, motor vehicles weighing less than 3,500 kilograms are prohibited from being operated from 10pm on any day to 5am the following day on the following roads:
Anchorage Way Ballarat Way Calgary Place Canada Crescent Chinook Place Columbia Avenue Connaught Drive Craft Place Dakota Crescent Edmonton Road Gerald Connolly Place Green Lane Hazeldean Road (between Grove Road and Montreal Street) Hickory Place Hammersmith Drive Klondyke Drive Kotzikas Place Michelle Road Mountview Place Paragon Place Prairie Place Print Place Produce Place Sonter Road Timothy Place Wigram Close Yukon Place
(e) Pursuant to the Christchurch City Council Traffic Parking Bylaw 2008, Clause 15, motor vehicles weighing less than 3,500 kilograms are prohibited from being operated from 9pm on any day to 5am the following day on the following roads:
Chattertons Road Dawsons Road (between West Coast Road (SH73) and Jones Road)
(3.) TRIAL BICYCLE SHARE SCHEME
It was resolved on the motion of Councillor Reid, seconded by Councillor Wells, that the Council recommends to the acting Chief Executive, in principle, a staff bike share scheme with ideally a minimum of five bikes.
The Council requests the Public Transport Working Group to investigate extending the introduction of a public scheme. 14 COUNCIL 3. 10. 2013 CHRISTCHURCH CITY COUNCIL 29. 8. 2013
9 Cont’d
Councillor Carter left the meeting at 3.15 pm.
(4.) APPEAL ON PART OF CANTERBURY REGIONAL COUNCIL DECSION IN STYX STORMWATER MANAGEMENT PLAN CONSENT
It was resolved on the motion of Councillor Reid, seconded by Councillor Wells, that the Council confirm the lodging of an appeal seeking deletion of the words “wherever possible” in condition 4(b) of the Styx stormwater management plan discharge consent issued by the Canterbury Regional Council to the Christchurch City Council.
Note that this decision is consistent with what was agreed between the Canterbury Regional Council reporting officers, Council Officers and MKT.
Councillor Johanson asked that his vote against the motion be recorded.
(5.) RICCARTON PUBLIC TRANSPORT HUB PASSENGER WAITING LOUNGE
It was resolved on the motion of Councillor Reid, seconded by Councillor Wells, that the report lay on the table until consultation is completed.
It was resolved on the motion of Councillor Reid, seconded by Councillor Well, that the report as a whole be received.
Councillors Reid and Wells left the meeting at 3.23 pm.
Councillor Broughton left the meeting at 3.37 pm
10. REPORT OF THE MEETING OF THE CORPORATE AND FINANCIAL COMMITTEE OF 9 AUGUST 2013
(1.) FINAL 2013/14 STATEMENT OF INTENT FOR CANTERBURY DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION HOLDINGS LIMITED
It was resolved on the motion of Councillor Johanson, seconded by Councillor Chen, that the Council receive the Canterbury Development Corporation Holdings Limited’s final Statement of Intent.
(Note: Councillor Button declared an interest in this item and took no part in the discussion and voting thereon.)
Councillor Broughton returned to the meeting at 3.40 pm.
(2.) FINAL STATEMENTS OF INTENT FOR THE WORLD BUSKERS’ FESTIVAL TRUST AND NEW ZEALAND LOCAL GOVERNMENT FUNDING AGENCY
It was resolved on the motion of Councillor Broughton, seconded by Councillor Chen, that the Council receive the final Statements of Intent.
Note That staff provide information to the Council on recent changes to the Café Trust and the timeframe regarding the SOI.
(3.) EARTHQUAKE CLAIMS UPDATE AS AT 30 JUNE 2013
It was resolved on the motion of Councillor Broughton, seconded by Councillor Chen, that the Council receive the report. 15 COUNCIL 3. 10. 2013 CHRISTCHURCH CITY COUNCIL 29. 8. 2013
10 Cont’d
(4.) PERFORMANCE REPORT FOR THE 12 MONTHS TO 30 JUNE 2013
It was resolved on the motion of Councillor Broughton, seconded by Councillor Chen, that the Council:
(a) Approve operational carry forward requests from 2012/13 of $13.9 million, together with associated funding sources (as detailed in Appendix 5), to enable completion of projects in 2013/14.
(b) Approve capital works programme carry forward requests of $108.25 million together with associated NZTA subsidy of $1.3 million, and earthquake rebuild carry forward requests of $143.8 million together with associated recoveries of $91.3 million (as detailed in Appendix 6), to enable completion of capital projects in 2013/14 or later as indicated.
(c) Note the ratepayer operating result after carry forwards required $4.1 million more borrowing, and the earthquake emergency and response result required $3.4 million more borrowing in 2012/13 than estimated in the financial strategy.
(d) Approve the formal cancellation of the Lincoln Road Widening (Curletts to Wrights) project.
(e) Approve a transfer of (surplus) budget of $1,299,535 from the Major Cycleway: Southern Motorway Connections project to the related project for the Aidanfield Drive Underpass.
(f) Approve, the allocation of $2.19 million to fund a cost estimate increase for the Washington Reserve Skate park development, subject to the Council approving the full scope delivery at the tendered price.
Note that staff circulate to Councillors as soon as possible the information on the monitoring and reporting programmes for key strategies.
It was resolved on the motion of Councillor Broughton, seconded by Councillor Chen, that the report as a whole be received.
Councillor Gough left at 3.47 pm.
11. SUMNER VILLAGE CENTRE MASTER PLAN
It was resolved on the motion of Councillor Johanson, seconded by Councillor Buck, that the Council adopt the amended Sumner Village Centre Master Plan as attached.
12. SOUTHERN MOTORWAY EXTENSION – PROPOSED SPEED LIMITS ON ADJOINING ROADS
It was resolved on the motion of Councillor Beck, seconded by Councillor Johanson, that the Council recommend:
(a) That the information be received.
(b) That the Riccarton/Wigram Community Board requests that the Christchurch City Council approve the proposed speed limit review (shown in Attachment 2) for public consultation.
14. NOTICES OF MOTION
Nil. 16 COUNCIL 3. 10. 2013 CHRISTCHURCH CITY COUNCIL 29. 8. 2013
22. APPOINTMENT OF A DISTRICT PLAN REVIEW – WORKING PARTY (DPR-WP) AND PROGRESS UPDATE
This item was withdrawn.
The meeting adjourned at 4.05 pm and resumed at 9 am on Monday 2 September 2013.
MONDAY 2 SEPTEMBER 2013
Councillors Broughton, Carter and Livingstone tendered their apology for the meeting on Monday.
26. UNITED NATIONS INTERNATIONAL STRATEGY FOR DISASTER RISK (“UNISDR”) AND MAKING CITIES RESILIENT CAMPAIGN
It was resolved on the motion of Councillor Button, seconded by Councillor Buck, that the Council support an application to participate in the Rockefeller Foundation’s ‘100 Resilient Cities Centennial Challenge’ rather than joining the United Nations International Strategy for Disaster Risk and ‘Making Cities Resilient Campaign’.
28. TE PAPA OTAKARO/AVON RIVER PRECINCT
Councillor Gough moved, seconded by Councillor Keown, that the Council resolve that it:
(a) Agree to the Crown developing the Te Papa Otakara/Avon River Precinct on land owned or vested in the Council, as specified in the plan attached as Appendix 1 to the staff report, subject to the Crown being responsible, at its cost, for ensuring compliance with all statutory obligations imposed on the Council in respect of the land;
(b) Authorise the Chief Executive to make decisions or to sign any documents required for the purpose of:
(i) effecting changes to the status of the land; and
(ii) vesting the land and improvements comprising the Precinct in the Council, in accordance with its infrastructure design standards and asset management systems.
Note that the Council to discuss future bylaw making on this land with CCDU.
The clause, when put to the meeting was declared carried on electronic vote No. 15 by 10 votes to 1, the voting being as follows:
For (10): The Mayor and Councillors Beck, Buck, Button, Chen, Corbett, Gough, Keown, Reid and wells.
Against (1): Councillor Johanson
15. RESOLUTION TO EXCLUDE THE PUBLIC
At 9.17am on 2 September it was resolved on the motion of the Mayor, seconded by Councillor Button, that the resolution to exclude the public set out on pages 807 to 812 of the agenda and pages 239 to 240 of the agenda continued and the supplementary agenda (page 44) be adopted.
CONFIRMED THIS 3RD DAY OF OCTOBER 2013
MAYOR 17
MINUTES
MINUTES OF A MEETING OF THE CHRISTCHURCH CITY COUNCIL HELD AT 8AM ON FRIDAY, 6 SEPTEMBER 2013
PRESENT: The Mayor, Bob Parker (Chairperson). Councillors Ngaire Button, Peter Beck, Sue Wells, Helen Broughton, Sally Buck, Tim Carter, Jimmy Chen, Barry Corbett, Jamie Gough, Yani Johanson, Glenn Livingstone and Claudia Reid.
1. APOLOGIES
1A. DECLARATIONS OF INTEREST
Nil.
2. RESOLUTION TO EXCLUDE THE PUBLIC
It was resolved on the motion of The Mayor, seconded by Councillor Wells, that the resolution to exclude the public set out on page 2 of the agenda be adopted.
It was resolved that the public be readmitted at 9.00am.
3. CONCLUSION
The meeting concluded at 9.00am.
CONFIRMED THIS 3RD OF OCTOBER 2013
MAYOR
18
MINUTES OF A MEETING OF THE CHRISTCHURCH CITY COUNCIL HELD AT 9.30AM ON THURSDAY 12 SEPTEMBER 2013
PRESENT: The Mayor, Bob Parker (Chairperson). Councillors Peter Beck, Sally Buck, Tim Carter, Jimmy Chen, Barry Corbett, Jamie Gough, Aaron Keown, Glenn Livingstone, Yani Johanson, Claudia Reid and Sue Wells.
Adjourned 10.45 am until 10.59, 12.52pm to 1.30pm
1. APOLOGIES
Apologies for lateness were received from Councillors Wells and The Mayor.
2. DECLARATION OF INTEREST
Councillor Beck declared an interest in Items 22 and 31 and left the table during debate and voting on those items.
3. DEPUTATIONS BY APPOINTMENT
3.1 CHESTER STREET WEST – ROAD STOPPING
David Thornley, Vice Chair ICON, spoke in support of the Hagley /Ferrymead Community Board’s recommendation to the Council that the status and operation of Chester Street West remain unchanged from what currently exists and that the Cathedral Grammar Schools request to be granted a lease over a portion of Chester Street West be declined.
3.2 MAIN ROAD MASTER PLAN – DRAFT FOR COMMUNITY CONSULTATION
Leo Byatt presented his proposal for enhancing Scott Park, noting that the Estuary Edge Master Plan is looking at options for the redevelopment of the reserve. Mr Byatt was invited to submit his suggestions during the consultation period.
4. PRESENTATION OF PETITIONS
A petition signed by two people was presented by Peter Wakeman, the prayer of which read:
“Council to get an alternative costing and location of the Christchurch Town Hall near parking. The cost of the Town Hall rebuild maybe too high and an alternative with costing needs to be known”
4.2 REBUILD
A petition signed by two people was presented by Peter Wakeman, the prayer of which read:
“Request the Government to give our Council debt-free money to fund the rebuild. Given PM Michael Joseph Savage did this to build State Houses in New Zealand which was money created by the RBNZ.”
4.3 ORION
A petition signed by two people was presented by Peter Wakeman, the prayer of which read:
“The power bills are too high for people under financial stress. Council to give Orion away to the people. The Crown will force the sale of Orion otherwise.”
It was carried on the motion of Councillor Button, seconded by Councillor Carter, that the petitions be received. 19 COUNCIL 3. 10. 2013 CHRISTCHURCH CITY COUNCIL 12. 9. 2013
5. REPORT OF A MEETING OF THE RICCARTON/WIGRAM COMMUNITY BOARD: MEETING OF 6 AUGUST 2013
Mike Mora, Chairperson, joined the table for discussion of this item.
(1.) ILAM ROAD – PROPOSED NO STOPPING RESTRICTION AND SPEED LIMIT CHANGE CONSULTATION
It was resolved on the motion of Councillor Chen, seconded by Councillor Corbett:
(a) Revoke existing parking restrictions
(i) That any existing parking restriction on the west side of Ilam Road commencing at its intersection with Rountree Street and extending in a southerly direction for a distance of 38 metres be revoked.
(ii) That any existing parking restriction on the east side of Ilam Road commencing at its intersection with Kirkwood Avenue and extending in a southerly direction for a distance of 15 metres be revoked.
(iii) That any existing parking restriction on the south side of Kirkwood Avenue commencing at its intersection with Ilam Road and extending in a easterly direction for a distance of 15 metres be revoked.
(b) Install parking restrictions
(i) That the stopping of vehicles be prohibited at any time on the west side of Ilam Road commencing at its intersection with Rountree Street and extending in a southerly direction for a distance of 45 metres.
(ii) That the stopping of vehicles be prohibited at any time on the east side of Ilam Road commencing at its intersection with Kirkwood Avenue and extending in a southerly direction for a distance of 15 metres.
(iii) That the stopping of vehicles be prohibited at any time on the south side of Kirkwood Avenue commencing at its intersection with Ilam Road and extending in a easterly direction for a distance of 17 metres.
(c) Speed Limit Consultation
(i) Community consultation commencement on the proposal to lower the permanent speed limit on Ilam Road ( From just south of Kirkwood Avenue to just north of Montana Avenue) and Kirkwood Avenue ( From Ilam Road to Clyde Road).
It was resolved on the motion of Councillor Chen, seconded by Councillor Corbett, that the report as a whole be adopted.
6. REPORT OF A MEETING OF THE RICCARTON/WIGRAM COMMUNITY BOARD: MEETING OF 20 AUGUST 2013
Mike Mora, Chairperson, joined the table for discussion of this item.
It was resolved on the motion of Councillor Chen, seconded by Councillor Corbett, that the report be received. 20 COUNCIL 3. 10. 2013 CHRISTCHURCH CITY COUNCIL 12. 9. 2013
7. REPORT OF A MEETING OF THE RICCARTON/WIGRAM SMALL GRANTS ASSESSMENT COMMITTEE MEETING OF 21 AUGUST 2013
Mike Mora, Chairperson, joined the table for discussion of this item.
It was resolved on the motion of Councillor Chen, seconded by Councillor Keown, that the report be received.
8. REPORT OF THE MEETING OF THE SHIRLEY/PAPANUI COMMUNITY BOARD MEETING OF 7 AUGUST 2013
It was resolved on the motion of Councillor Keown, seconded by Councillor Buck, that the report be received.
9. REPORT OF A MEETING OF THE SHIRLEY/PAPANUI COMMUNITY BOARD SMALL GRANTS FUND ASSESSMENT COMMITTEE MEETING OF 13 AUGUST 2013
It was resolved on the motion of Councillor Keown, seconded by Councillor Buck, that the report be received.
10. REPORT OF THE MEETING OF THE SHIRLEY/PAPANUI COMMUNITY BOARD MEETING OF 21 AUGUST 2013
(1.) EASEMENTS OVER ROAD RESERVE – 13R COLE PORTER AVENUE
It was resolved on the motion of Councillor Keown, seconded by Councillor Buck, that the Council, pursuant to Section 48(1) of the Reserves Act 1977:
(a) Grant the Minister of Conservation’s consent for the easements listed in the schedule below:
Schedule of Proposed Easements Purpose Shown Servient Tenement Dominant Tenement
358421 23A/560 Right of Way A Lot 303 DP 389575 Lot 1 DP 44379
358421 23A/560 Right to convey electricity B Lot 303 DP 389575 Lot 1 DP 44379
Right to convey 358421 23A/560 telecommunications & computer B media Lot 303 DP 389575 Lot 1 DP 44379 358421 23A/560 Right to convey water B Lot 303 DP 389575 Lot 1 DP 44379
(b) Waive the requirement for public notification of these easements.
(2.) PROPOSED EASEMENT FOR THE CONVEYANCE OF ELECTRICITY – HAREWOOD PARK
It was resolved on the motion of Councillor Keown, seconded by Councillor Corbett, that the Council, pursuant to Section 48(1) of the Reserves Act 1977: 21 COUNCIL 3. 10. 2013 CHRISTCHURCH CITY COUNCIL 12. 9. 2013
10 Cont’d
(a) Grant the Minister of Conservation’s consent for the Council to grant a 5.5 square metre easement in favour of Orion New Zealand Limited over a portion of Harewood Park, being Reserve 4892 (SO 9044).
(b) Note that this easement will accommodate the provision of a 11kva transformer that will enable the power supply to be upgraded to the Council’s expanded Harewood Nursery site.
(c) Resolve, as conditions of the granting of the easement:
(i) That all costs associated with the survey and registration of the easement on the Council’s title, be paid for by the Council.
(ii) Not to request a one-off compensatory payment for the privilege of having the easement encumbrance placed on the Council’s title in accordance with Council policy (27 September 2001), because the easement being requested is to build a transformer kiosk, which is being built earlier than would normally be the case with future subdivisions so as to partly service a Council owned facility.
(iii) To pay for officers’ time, and other processing costs to process the application for the easement.
(d) Approve that no public consultation be undertaken before granting the easement as required by section 48 (2) of the Reserves Act 1977 due to the requirements of section 48 (3) of that Act being fulfilled.
(e) Approve that no Iwi consultation be undertaken as required under section 4 of the Conservation Act 1987 for the following reasons:
(i) This area is not identified as an area of interest to Iwi in Appendix 3 “Sites of Significance to Tangata Whenua” in the Christchurch City Plan.
(ii) The area is already a highly modified site.
Councillor Johanson requested that his vote against the motion be recorded.
It was resolved on the motion of Councillor Keown, seconded by Councillor Buck, that the report as a whole be adopted.
11. REPORT OF A MEETING OF THE SPREYDON/HEATHCOTE COMMUNITY BOARD MEETING OF 6 AUGUST 2013
Phil Clearwater, Chairperson, joined the table for discussion of this item.
It was resolved on the motion of Councillor Corbett, seconded by Councillor Reid, that the report be received.
12. REPORT OF A MEETING OF THE SPREYDON/HEATHCOTE SMALL GRANTS ASSESSMENT COMMITTEE MEETING OF 13 AUGUST 2012
Phil Clearwater, Chairperson, joined the table for discussion of this item.
It was resolved on the motion of Councillor Corbett, seconded by Councillor Reid, that the report be received.
22 COUNCIL 3. 10. 2013 CHRISTCHURCH CITY COUNCIL 12. 9. 2013
13. REPORT OF A MEETING OF THE SPREYDON/HEATHCOTE COMMUNITY BOARD MEETING OF 13 AUGUST 2013
Phil Clearwater, Chairperson, joined the table for discussion of this item.
(1.) SURRENDER OF LEASE – CANTERBURY SOCIETY OF MODEL AND EXPERIMENTAL ENGINEERS AT JERROLD RESERVE
It was moved by Councillor Corbett, seconded by Councillor Buck, that the Council pass the following resolutions:
(a) That the application made by the Canterbury Society of Model and Experimental Engineers to surrender their lease over part of Jerrold Reserve which is located at 26 Andrews Crescent be approved.
(b) That the Corporate Support Unit Manager is delegated the authority to negotiate, finalise and document all other terms and conditions of the lease surrender and site vacation.
Councillor Reid moved by way of amendment, seconded by Councillor Corbett, that the Council pass the following resolution:
(c) That it releases the Canterbury Society of Model and Experimental Engineers from its obligations to remove its improvements from the site.
Councillor Reid requested that her vote against the amendment be recorded. The amendment was then put to the meeting and declared carried.
It was carried on the motion of Councillor Corbett, seconded by Councillor Reid, that the report as a whole be adopted.
14. REPORT OF A MEETING OF THE AKAROA/WAIREWA COMMUNITY BOARD MEETING OF 17 JULY 2013
It was resolved on the motion of Councillor Reid, seconded by Councillor Carter, that the report be received.
15. REPORT OF A MEETING OF THE BURWOOD/PEGASUS COMMUNITY BOARD MEETING OF 5 AUGUST 2013
Linda Stewart, Chairperson, joined the table for discussion of this item.
It was resolved on the motion of Councillor Beck, seconded by Councillor Livingstone, that the report be received.
16. REPORT OF A MEETING OF THE BURWOOD/PEGASUS COMMUNITY BOARD MEETING OF 19 AUGUST 2013
Linda Stewart, Chairperson, joined the table for discussion of this item.
(1.) RAWHITI DOMAIN – EASEMENT FOR ORION 66KVA ELECTRICITY CABLE
It was resolved on the motion of Councillor Livingstone seconded by Councillor Beck that the Council resolves as follows:
23 COUNCIL 3. 10. 2013 CHRISTCHURCH CITY COUNCIL 12. 9. 2013
16 Cont’d
That the Council as Delegate of the Minister of the Conservation, gives Ministerial approval under section 48 of the Reserves Act 1977 to the granting by the Council of the easements referred to in paragraph a to c of the staff recommendation.
It was resolved on the motion of Councillor Livingstone, seconded by Councillor Beck, that the report as a whole be adopted.
17. MINUTES OF A MEETING OF THE BURWOOD/PEGASUS SMALL GRANTS FUND ASSESSMENT COMMITTEE MEETING OF 22 AUGUST 2013
Linda Stewart, Chairperson, joined the table for discussion of this item.
It was resolved on the motion of Councillor Beck, seconded by Councillor Livingstone, that the report be received.
18. REPORT OF A MEETING OF THE FENDALTON/WAIMAIRI COMMUNITY BOARD MEETING OF 6 AUGUST 2013
Val Carter, Chairperson, joined the table for discussion of this item.
It was resolved on the motion of Councillor Buck, seconded by Councillor Gough, that the report be received.
19. REPORT OF A MEETING OF THE FENDALTON/WAIMAIRI SMALL GRANTS FUND ASSESSMENT COMMITTEE MEETING OF 20 AUGUST 2013
Val Carter, Chairperson, joined the table for discussion of this item.
It was resolved on the motion of Councillor Buck seconded by Councillor Gough that the report be received.
20. REPORT BY THE CHAIRPERSON OF THE FENDALTON/WAIMAIRI COMMUNITY BOARD 3 SEPTEMBER 2013
Val Carter, Chairperson, joined the table for discussion of this item.
(1.) SALE OF RESERVE – 23 CLIFFORD AVENUE
It was resolved on the motion of Councillor Buck, seconded by Councillor Gough that the Council:
(a) Under the provisions of the Reserves Act 1977, revoke the reservation of that land at 23 Clifford Avenue comprised in Identifier CB27A/1295 having an area of 147 metres squared as it is no longer required for its stated purpose; and
(b) That following the completion of all Reserves Act 1977 processes the reserve be disposed of by way of amalgamation with the adjoining owner at 25 Clifford Avenue, being part of Lot 7 DP 11728 comprised in Identifier CB469/276 for the sum of $45,000 including GST and that the European Beech (Fagus Sylvatica) be protected by way of a Restrictive Covenant before the sale is completed.
Councillor Johanson requested that his vote against the motion be recorded.
It was resolved on the motion of Councillor Buck, seconded by Councillor Gough, that the report as a whole be adopted. 24 COUNCIL 3. 10. 2013 CHRISTCHURCH CITY COUNCIL 12. 9. 2013
21. REPORT OF A MEETING OF THE HAGLEY/FERRYMEAD COMMUNITY BOARD MEETING OF 7 AUGUST 2013
Islay McLeod, Chairperson, and David Cox, Deputy Chairperson, joined the table for discussion of this item.
(1.) KING PARK – DOWNER TEMPORARY OCCUPATION AUTHORITY
It was resolved on the motion of Councillor Carter, seconded by Councillor Johanson, that the Council pass the following resolutions:
(a) That pursuant to clause 5 (b) (i) and (ix) of the Canterbury Earthquake (Reserves Legislation) Order No 2 (2011) use by Downer EDI Engineering Group Limited of part of the recreation reserve known as King Park, as shown approximately on the plan attached to this report (refer Attachments 1 and 2) for the purpose of a ‘Temporary storage depot and work site offices’ as approved.
(b) That the period for which the temporary occupation right is granted is to be from the date of the Council meeting until the expiry of the Order in Council on 18 April 2016 or until a date the need for the site to undertake earthquake repairs from is no longer required by Downers or a re- assigned sub-contractor of SCIRT, whichever is the sooner, this being set out in the warrant of occupation.
(c) That the applicant be required to take all reasonable steps to protect the integrity of the reserve and to ensure that the reserve is reinstated at the end of the use as closely as practicable to its prior condition as required by section 6(2) (a) and (b) of the Order.
(d) That the Corporate Support Unit Manager is delegated the authority to finalise and manage the terms and conditions of the warrant.
It was resolved on the motion of Councillor Carter, seconded by Councillor Johanson, that the report as a whole be adopted.
22. REPORT OF A MEETING OF THE HAGLEY/FERRYMEAD COMMUNITY BOARD MEETING OF 21 AUGUST 2013
Islay McLeod, Chairperson, and David Cox, Deputy Chairperson, joined the table for discussion of this item.
Councillor Beck did not participate in discussion or voting on this item.
(1.) CHESTER STREET WEST ROAD STOPPING CONSIDERATION
It was resolved on the motion of Councillor Johanson, seconded by Councillor Carter, that the Council resolve that the status and operation of Chester Street West remain unchanged from what currently exists and that the Cathedral Grammar Schools request is declined i.e. the status quo is retained.
Councillor Keown requested that his vote against the motion be recorded.
It was moved on the motion of Councillor Johanson, seconded by Councillor Carter, that
(a) The status and operation of Chester Street West remain unchanged from what currently exists and that the Cathedral Grammar Schools request is declined i.e. the status quo is retained.
(b) On the motion of Yani Johanson, seconded by David Cox, that the Board request staff as part of the report to the Council to provide advice on the safety concerns raised. 25 COUNCIL 3. 10. 2013 CHRISTCHURCH CITY COUNCIL 12. 9. 2013
22 Cont’d
When put to the vote the motion was carried. Councillor Keown requested that his vote against the motion be recorded.
It was resolved on the motion of Councillor Johanson, seconded by Councillor Carter, that the report as a whole be adopted.
23. MINUTES OF A MEETING OF THE HAGLEY/FERRYMEAD SMALL GRANTS FUND ASSESSMENT COMMITTEE MEETING OF 28 AUGUST 2013
Islay McLeod, Chairperson, and David Cox, Deputy Chairperson, joined the table for discussion of this item.
It was resolved on the motion of Councillor Johanson, seconded by Councillor Carter, that the report be received.
24. REPORT BY THE CHAIRPERSON OF THE HAGLEY/FERRYMEAD COMMUNITY BOARD MEETING OF 4 SEPTEMBER 2013
Islay McLeod, Chairperson, and David Cox, Deputy Chairperson, joined the table for discussion of this item.
(1.) MAIN ROAD MASTER PLAN – DRAFT FOR COMMUNITY CONSULTATION
It was resolved on the motion of Councillor Carter, seconded by Councillor Johanson, that the Council approve the draft Main Road Master Plan for community consultation.
It was resolved on the motion of Councillor Johanson, seconded by Councillor Carter, that the report as a whole be adopted.
25. REPORT OF A MEETING OF THE LYTTELTON/MT HERBERT COMMUNITY BOARD MEETING OF 18 JULY 2013
Paula Smith, Chairperson, joined the table for discussion of this item.
It was resolved on the motion of Councillor Reid, seconded by Councillor Corbett, that the report be received.
26. REPORT OF AN EXTRAORDINARY MEETING OF THE LYTTELTON/MT HERBERT COMMUNITY BOARD MEETING OF 1 AUGUST 2013
Paula Smith, Chairperson, joined the table for discussion of this item.
It was resolved on the motion of Councillor Reid, seconded by Councillor Corbett, that the report be received.
27. REPORT BY THE CHAIRPERSON OF THE LYTTELTON/MT HERBERT COMMUNITY BOARD MEETING OF 22 AUGUST 2013
(1.) LYTTELTON CIVIC SQUARE DESIGN
It was resolved on the motion of Councillor Reid, seconded by Councillor Corbett that the Council:
(a) Approve the development plan for 44 London Street, shown in Attachment 1, for detailed design, tender and construction: and 26 COUNCIL 3. 10. 2013 CHRISTCHURCH CITY COUNCIL 12. 9. 2013
27 Cont’d
(b) Approve the inclusion in the development plan of the bell from St Joseph’s Church, Lyttelton, subject to the bell being donated by the Catholic Church; and
(c) Note the Lyttelton/Mt Herbert Community Board will recommend a name for the site, following further discussion with the community.
It was resolved on the motion of Councillor Reid, seconded by Councillor Corbett that the report as a whole be adopted.
28. MINUTES OF A MEETING OF THE METROPOLITAN SMALL GRANTS FUND SUBCOMMITTEE MEETING OF 14 AUGUST 2013
(1.) METROPOLITAN 2013/14 SMALL GRANTS FUND – ALLOCATIONS
It was resolved on the motion of Councillor Corbett, seconded by Councillor Buck, that Council send letters to the Minister of Education, Ministry of Social Development, Canterbury Development Corporation and health agencies, specifically Canterbury District Health Board to express concern at the perceived withdrawal of central funding for some local specialist health and education services.
It was resolved on the motion of Councillor Corbett, seconded by Councillor Buck, that the report be received.
29. RESPONSES TO PREVIOUS PUBLIC FORUM
It was resolved on the motion of Councillor Corbett, seconded by Councillor Keown, that the Council note the information contained in attachment one in response to issues that were raised during the public forum of the 22 August 2013 Earthquake Forum.
30. REPORT OF A MEETING OF THE COMMUNITY, RECREATION AND CULTURE COMMITTEE MEETING OF 6 AUGUST 2013
(6.) HERITAGE REINSTATEMENT PROGRAMME – SIGN OF THE TAKAHE
It was resolved on the motion of Councillor Johanson, seconded by Councillor Reid, that the Council:
(a) Repair and strengthen the Sign of the Takahe to 67 per cent New Building Standard.
(b) That up to $1,471,586 insurance shortfall be funded from the Infrastructure and Building Improvement Allowance.
(c) Note, that this is not a full and final insurance settlement.
31. REPORT OF A MEETING OF THE COMMUNITY, RECREATION AND CULTURE COMMITTEE 5 MARCH 2013
(5.) FANFARE – A GATEWAY SCULPTURE FOR CHRISTCHURCH
Councillor Beck did not participate in discussion or voting on this item.
It was resolved on the motion of Councillor Johanson seconded by Councillor Reid that the Council: 27 COUNCIL 3. 10. 2013 CHRISTCHURCH CITY COUNCIL 12. 9. 2013
31 Cont’d
(a) Agree to the installation and ongoing maintenance of Fanfare a sculpture by Neil Dawson at the northern entrance to Christchurch on State Highway One just south of the Waimakiriri Bridge
(b) Approve entering into a licence to occupy with the New Zealand Transport Authority regarding the siting, ownership and maintenance of Fanfare
(c) Note that the maintenance costs for Fanfare will be included for consideration in the draft 2015-25 Long Term Plan.
32. 2013 WASTE MANAGEMENT AND MINIMISATION PLAN: CONSIDERATION OF SUBMISSIONS
It was resolved on the motion of Councillor Buck, seconded by Councillor Reid that the Council:
(a) Adopt the attached finalised Waste Management and Minimisation Plan 2013.
(b) Thank all submitters who contributed towards the public consultation process.
36. RESOLUTION TO BE PASSED - SUPPLEMENTARY REPORTS
It was resolved on the motion of Carter seconded by Buck that the reports be received and considered at the meeting of the Council on 12 September 2013.
37. ARTS CENTRE TRUST BOARD - GOVERNANCE REVIEW
It was resolved unanimously on the motion of Councillor Corbett seconded by Councillor Beck that the Council:
(a) Note the independent review of the governance structure of the Arts Centre Trust Board and the Board's response;
(b) Support the establishment of a new Arts Centre Trust Board as recommended by the Board in October 2012;
(c) Support the preparation and passage of a Private Bill for this purpose;
(d) Support the proposal that the Arts Centre site reverts to Crown ownership in the event that the Board was no longer able to fulfil its obligations and was wound up;
(e) Authorise staff to pay to the Board the seismic strengthening portion of the Council's annual grant, including the funds held back since 2009, subject to the Board providing relevant information and invoices;
(f) Authorise the General Manager Community Services to negotiate and recommend to the Council a Memorandum of Understanding between the Council and the Board.
35. RESOLUTION TO EXCLUDE THE PUBLIC
It was resolved on the motion of Councillor Wells, seconded by Councillor Reid that the resolution to exclude the public as set out on page 521 of the open agenda and page 57 of the supplementary agenda be adopted.
28 COUNCIL 3. 10. 2013 CHRISTCHURCH CITY COUNCIL 12. 9. 2013
CONFIRMED THIS 3RD OF OCTOBER 2013
MAYOR 29
MINUTES
MINUTES OF AN EXTRAORDINARY MEETING OF THE CHRISTCHURCH CITY COUNCIL HELD AT 11AM ON THURSDAY, 19 SEPTEMBER 2013
PRESENT: The Mayor, Bob Parker (Chairperson). Councillors Ngaire Button, Sue Wells, Helen Broughton, Sally Buck, Tim Carter, Jimmy Chen, Barry Corbett, Jamie Gough, Yani Johanson, Glenn Livingstone and Claudia Reid.
1. APOLOGIES
Apologies for absence were received from Councillors Beck and Keown.
2. DECLARATION OF INTEREST
There were no declarations of interest.
3. RESETTING OF RATES FOR 2013/14
It was resolved on the motion of The Mayor, seconded by Councillor Wells, that the Council.
1. Note that notwithstanding the inclusion of an amount for "excess water supply charge (rate charge) and excess factor" in the schedule of fees and charges set out on page 171, volume 2, of the 2013/16 Three Year Plan, this charge should have been set as a targeted rate.
2. Revoke resolution (f) of the resolutions made at the Council meeting on 28 June 2013, this being the resolution to set rates for the 2013/14 financial year;
3. Set under the Local Government (Rating) Act 2002 the following rates for the 2013/14 financial year, commencing on 1 July 2013 and ending on 30 June 2014 (all statutory references are to the Local Government (Rating) Act 2002).
(a) A uniform annual general charge under section 15(1)(b) of $117.56 (inc GST) per separately used or inhabited part of a rating unit.
(b) A general rate under sections 13(2)(b) and 14 at different rates in the dollar of rateable value, as follows:
Rate Factor (cents/$ Differential Category Rateable Value capital value) (inc GST) Business Capital Value 0.458723 Rural (Farming and Forestry) Capital Value 0.194660 Residential and other Capital Value 0.291990 properties
(c) A water supply targeted rate under section 16(3)(b) and 16(4)(b) set differentially depending on whether a property is connected or capable of connection to the on- demand water reticulation system, as follows:
Rate Factor Differential Category Rateable Value (cents/$ capital value) (inc GST) Connected (full charge) Capital Value 0.036418 Serviceable (half charge) Capital Value 0.018209
(d) A restricted water supply targeted rate under sections 16(3)(b) and 16(4)(a) on all rating units with one or more connections to restricted water supply systems of $165.00 (inc GST) per connection.
30 COUNCIL 3. 10. 2013 CHRISTCHURCH CITY COUNCIL 19. 9. 2013
(e) A land drainage targeted rate under sections 16(3)(b) and 16(4)(a) on all rating units in the serviced area of 0.027275 cents per dollar of capital value (inc GST).
(f) A sewerage targeted rate under sections 16(3)(b) and 16(4)(a) on all rating units in the serviced area of 0.062669 cents per dollar of capital value (inc GST).
(g) A waste minimisation targeted rate under sections 16(3)(b) and 16(4)(b) set differentially depending on whether a full or partial service is provided, as follows:
Rate Charge (inc Differential Category Basis for Liability GST) Full service Per separately $151.51 used or inhabited part of a rating unit Partial service Per separately $113.63 used or inhabited part of a rating unit
Note: The full service charge is assessed on every separately used or inhabited part of a rating unit in the serviced area. The partial service charge is assessed on every separately used or inhabited part of a rating unit outside the kerbside collection area, where a limited depot collection service is available (75% of the full rate). Where ratepayers elect and Council agrees, additional levels of service may be provided. Each additional level of service will be rated at the full service charge.
(h) A water supply fire connection targeted rate under sections 16(3)(b) and 16(4)(a) on all rating units receiving the benefit of a water supply fire connection of $103.27 (inc GST) per connection.
(i) An excess water supply volumetric targeted rate under section 19(2)(a) set for all land connected to a water supply and metered for extraordinary use in the period 1 July 2013 to 30 June 2014 of $0.67 (inc GST) per m3 or any part of a m3 for consumption in excess of that assessed by the water supply targeted rate for each rating unit in the 2013/14 year.
For example, if a rating unit is assessed $670 for the water supply targeted rate, that rating unit's consumption allocation is 1,000m3 (670 divided by 0.67c/m3). Liability for the excess water supply volumetric targeted rate commences when consumption commences of the 1001st cubic metre by that rating unit.
(j) An active travel targeted rate under section 16(3)(a) and 16(4)(a) of $20.00 (inc GST) per separately used or inhabited part of a rating unit.
(k) A loan servicing costs (Governors Bay Sewerage Scheme) targeted rate under section 16(3)(b) and 16(4)(a) on all rating units in the scheme area for which a lump sum contribution has not been paid of $179.91 (inc GST) per rating unit.
(l) A loan servicing costs (Governors Bay Water Scheme) targeted rate under section 16(3)(b) and 16(4)(a) on all rating units in the scheme area for which a lump sum contribution has not been paid of $113.47 (inc GST) per rating unit.
4. CONCLUSION
The meeting concluded at 11.05am.
CONFIRMED THIS 3RD OF OCTOBER 2013 MAYOR
31
3. 10. 2013 Clause 6
BURWOOD/PEGASUS COMMUNITY BOARD 2 SEPTEMBER 2013
Report of a meeting of the Burwood/Pegasus Community Board held on Monday 2 September 2013 at 4pm in the Board Room Corner Beresford and Union Streets, New Brighton.
PRESENT: Linda Stewart (Chairperson), Tim Baker, Peter Beck, David East and Tim Sintes.
APOLOGIES: Apologies for absence were received and accepted from Julie Gorman and Glenn Livingstone.
An apology for lateness was received and accepted from Peter Beck who arrived at 4.10pm and was absent for clauses 1 to 3 and part of 4.1.
The Board reports that:
PART B – REPORTS FOR INFORMATION
1. DEPUTATIONS BY APPOINTMENT
1.1 POSITIVE DIRECTIONS TRUST
Phil Tikao addressed the Board regarding the role and activities of the Positive Directions Trust including examples of services and programmes offered including supporting disengaged young people, employment assistance, earthquake support and advocacy, domestic and community support and nutrition and fitness services.
Mr Tikao responded to questions from members.
The Chairperson thanked Mr Tikao for his deputation and on behalf of the Board, congratulated the Positive Directions Trust for their work in supporting the community.
1.2 RENEW BRIGHTON
Rebecca May of Renew Brighton addressed the Board regarding a proposal to operate the Central New Brighton School Pool as a transitional swimming facility for use by the community. Discussions on the proposal were ongoing with the Ministry of Education, students at Auckland Unitec, Council staff and Rawhiti Community Sports Inc.
Ms May responded to questions from members.
Staff also gave an update on the North New Brighton School pool project and advised that funding from Phase 2 of the Capital Endowment Fund had been recommended for approval at the recent Board Chairs Workshop.
On behalf of the Board, the Chairperson thanked Ms May for Renew Brighton’s initiative and complimented the organisation on its work.
32 3. 10. 2013 Burwood/Pegasus Community Board 2. 9. 2013 - 2 -
1 Cont’d
1.3 NEW BRIGHTON SAFETY PARTNERSHIP
Rebecca May of Renew Brighton, updated the Board on progress to date regarding the New Brighton Safety Partnership (formerly Panel) project. A current focus of the group was on obtaining incorporated society status.
The Board agreed to appoint David East as an alternate Board representative to Peter Beck, for the balance of the term.
Following questions from members, the Chairperson thanked Ms May for the update provided to the Board.
2. PRESENTATION OF PETITIONS
Nil
3. NOTICES OF MOTION
Nil
4. CORRESPONDENCE
5. BRIEFINGS
Nil
6. COMMUNITY BOARD ADVISER’S UPDATE
6.1 UPCOMING BOARD AND COMMUNITY ACTIVITIES
The Board received information on:
upcoming Board activities including its ordinary meeting on Monday 16 September 2013, the Avondale Community Meeting re land drainage and flood management on Tuesday 17 September 2013, the Board site visit to the Prestons subdivision on Wednesday 18 September 2013 and a further Board Meeting on Monday 30 September 2013
upcoming community activities including the Land Drainage Public Meetings (Mairehau, Shirley, St Albans) on Monday 2 and Tuesday 3 September 2013 and the South Brighton Park Tree Planting Day on Sunday 15 September 2013.
Clauses 6.2 and 6.3 (Part C) of these minutes detail other decisions made by the Board regarding the scheduling of a further Board meeting on 30 September 2013 and the confirmation of the minutes of Board meetings to be held during the remainder of the Board’s term.
33 3. 10. 2013 Burwood/Pegasus Community Board 2. 9. 2013 - 3 -
6 Cont’d
6.4 CAPITAL ENDOWMENT FUND – SPECIAL ONE-OFF PROJECTS SCHEME 2012/13 – PHASE 1 – BURWOOD PEGASUS BEAUTIFICATION PROJECTS
It was recalled that at its meeting on 19 August 2013, the Board was advised that the PEEEP Trust had withdrawn from delivery of the Burwood/Pegasus Beautification Project, funded from Phase 1 of the Capital Endowment Fund - Special One-off Projects Scheme.
Staff since confirmed advice given at the meeting that any funds remaining unexpended from the 2012/13 budget envelope for the Capital Endowment Fund at 30 June 2013, would be carried forward to the 2013/14 Scheme budget envelope (Phase 2).
With the support of the Board, the Board Chairperson at the Chairs Workshop on 30 August 2013 sought the support of other Chairs for funds to be retained for beautification projects in the Burwood/Pegasus Ward. Board Chairs agreed to $80,000 from Phase 2 of the Fund being allocated to this project subject to the Burwood/Pegasus Community Board resolving accordingly.
The Board decided to recommend to the Metropolitan Funding Committee that $80,000 from Phase 2 of the Capital Endowment Fund - Special One-off Projects Scheme 2013/14 be transferred to the Metropolitan Discretionary Response Fund 2013/14 and allocated to beautification projects in the Burwood/Pegasus Ward.
6.5 SOUTH NEW BRIGHTON PARK COMMUNITY TREE PLANTING DAY
The Board received information regarding the South New Brighton Park Community Tree Planting Day to be held in South New Brighton Park on Sunday 15 September 2013 from 10am to12pm.
7. QUESTIONS UNDER STANDING ORDERS
Nil
PART C – DELEGATED DECISIONS TAKEN BY THE BOARD
6. COMMUNITY BOARD ADVISER’S UPDATE (CONTD)
6.2 BRIDGE RESERVE STORM WATER BASIN AND PUMP STATION – LANDSCAPE DESIGN – BOARD APPROVAL
The Board received information from SCIRT on the need for the Board to consider for approval, the landscape design for the storm water basin and pump station site at the Bridge Reserve following public consultation on the proposal which closes on 15 September 2013.
The Board resolved to hold an ordinary meeting of the Burwood/Pegasus Community Board on Monday 30 September 2013 at 4.30pm in the Board Room for the purpose of considering for approval, the landscape plan for the Bridge Reserve Storm Water and Pump Station project.
6.3 BOARD MINUTES – CONFIRMATION
Following the holding of the Board’s ordinary meeting scheduled on 16 September (and any other decided on subsequent meeting(s)), the minutes are required to be confirmed. For this to occur, it was proposed that this action be undertaken by the Chairperson and Deputy Chairperson on behalf of the Board.
34 3. 10. 2013 Burwood/Pegasus Community Board 2. 9. 2013 - 4 -
6 Cont’d
The Board resolved that the minutes of the Board’s ordinary meeting on 16 September 2013 (and any other subsequent meeting(s) convened before the end of the current term), be confirmed on behalf of the Board by the Chairperson and Deputy Chairperson.
8. DECLARATION OF INTEREST
Nil
9. CONFIRMATION OF MINUTES – 19 AUGUST 2013
The Board resolved that the report of its ordinary meeting of 19 August 2013, be confirmed.
The meeting concluded at 5.06 pm.
CONFIRMED THIS 16TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2013
LINDA STEWART CHAIRPERSON 35 COUNCIL 3. 10 .2013 Clause 7
BURWOOD/PEGASUS COMMUNITY BOARD 16 SEPTEMBER 2013
Report of a meeting of the Burwood/Pegasus Community Board held on Monday 16 September 2013 at 4pm in the Board Room Corner Beresford and Union Streets, New Brighton.
PRESENT: Tim Baker (Deputy Chairperson), Peter Beck, David East, Julie Gorman, Glenn Livingstone and Tim Sintes.
APOLOGIES: Apologies for absence were received and accepted from Linda Stewart
An apology for lateness was received and accepted from Glenn Livingstone who arrived at 4.07pm and was absent for clauses 1 to 3 and part of 4.1.
The Board reports that:
PART B – REPORTS FOR INFORMATION
1. DEPUTATIONS BY APPOINTMENT
1.1 KEVIN TWISS
Kevin Twiss addressed the Board regarding the Bournemouth Crescent/Hampshire Street pedestrian accessway, advising that the issues of graffiti, litter and anti social behaviour were continuing and of the adverse impacts that this was having on the immediate neighbourhood.
Mr Twiss requested that the accessway be closed and indicated his willingness to purchase the land for use as his driveway, thereby enabling access to be retained to the existing underground services.
Mr Twiss responded to questions from members.
The Chairperson thanked Mr Twiss for his deputation.
1.2 COLIN HUNT
Colin Hunt addressed the Board regarding the Bournemouth Crescent/Hampshire Street pedestrian accessway, indicating support for the deputation from Mr Twiss. Further, he referred to the inconvenience and detrimental affects on his daily life in having to deal with the issues associated with the accesway that adjoined his property.
Mr Hunt also expressed a wish that the accessway be closed.
Mr Hunt responded to questions from members.
The Chairperson thanked Mr Hunt for his deputation.
Clause 14 (Part C) of these minutes details the Board’s decision on this matter.
2. PRESENTATION OF PETITIONS
Nil 36 3. 10. 2013 Burwood/Pegasus Community Board 16. 9. 2013
3. NOTICES OF MOTION
Nil
4. CORRESPONDENCE
Nil
5. BRIEFINGS
5.1 TRANSPORT SAFETY MANAGER, ROAD CORRIDOR OPERATIONS
Robyn Gardener, Transport Safety Manager, briefed the Board on her role and provided information on works in progress including the current focus on high risk routes for motorcyclists and risk analysis on intersections that will soon be accessible online to allow for mitigation and assessment.
Ms Gardener advised that the Transport Safety team are working to strengthen the system by adopting an understanding of crashes and risks, innovation, legislation and enforcement, leadership and capability, education and information provision.
After questions from members, the Chairperson thanked Ms Gardener for her briefing
5.2 COMMUNITY RECREATION ADVISOR, SOUTHERN COMMUNITY RECREATION
Simon Hill, Community Recreation Adviser, briefed the Board on changes to the summer events programme in Burwood/Pegasus including the possibility of the “I Love New Brighton” event being held on Waitangi Day (6 February 2014).
Mr Hill also advised that Beach Blast is likely to take place in March 2014 and involve the local community.
The Chairperson thanked Mr Hill for his briefing.
6. RESIDENTS’ ASSOCIATIONS/ COMMUNITY ORGANISATIONS
Representatives from the Parklands Baptist Community Church, Redevelopment Team, updated the Board on current activities including their major plans to redevelop the existing building at 180 Queenspark Drive, to incorporate a community café, multiple meeting rooms, a sports hall and teaching spaces. It was indicated that the extensions would be purpose built with an emphasis on community access and use.
Following questions from members, the Chairperson thanked the representatives for their update and congratulated the Church on its building project and for its work in the Parklands community.
7. BURWOOD/PEGASUS EARTHQUAKE RECOVERY
Tasha Black, Earthquake Recovery Community Advocate, updated the Board on current issues and provided information and statistics city wide covering changes in sale prices for housing and suburbs relative desirability, vacant residential land, comparison of independent property assistance by wards through Canterbury Earthquake Regulatory Authority’s Residential Advisory Service, where residential red zone owners have moved to, external migration and the occupations of new arrivals in Christchurch.
The Board received the information with thanks.
37 3. 10. 2013 Burwood/Pegasus Community Board 16. 9. 2013
8. COMMUNITY BOARD ADVISER’S UPDATE
8.1 UPCOMING BOARD ACTIVITIES
The Board received information on upcoming Board and community activities including the Avondale Community Meeting on land drainage, flood management and building levels on 17 September 2013, the Board’s site visit to the Prestons Ltd. subdivision on 18 September 2013, its meeting on 30 September 2013, and the Burwood Community Fair at Burwood Park on 21 September 2013.
8.2 BOARD FUNDS 2013/14 – UPDATE
The Board received information on the current status of the Burwood/Pegasus Discretionary Response Fund 2013/14 and the Burwood/Pegasus Youth Development Fund 2013/14.
8.3 ESTUARY EDGE
The Board received a memorandum from staff providing a response to the status and condition of the Estuary Edge, previously raised with the Board by the South New Brighton Residents’ Association.
The Board requested that staff forward the information to the South New Brighton Residents’ Association and other local interested parties.
8.4 PLEASANT POINT YACHT CLUB - UPDATE
The Board received an update from staff, regarding the recent successful establishment of the temporary containers for use by the Pleasant Point Yacht Club on South New Brighton Park for its coming season, and also details on the Club’s plans to provide permanent facilities.
The Board requested that staff forward this information to the Pleasant Point Yacht Club and other local interested parties.
9. BURWOOD/PEGASUS SMALL GRANTS FUND ASSESSMENT COMMITTEE – MINUTES OF 22 AUGUST 2013
The Board received and noted for record purposes, the minutes of the Burwood/Pegasus Small Grants Fund Assessment Committee meeting of 22 August 2013.
10. QUESTIONS UNDER STANDING ORDERS
Nil
11. VALEDICTORIES
The Board received valedictories from Julie Gorman and Peter Beck.
On behalf of the Board, the Chairperson thanked Julie Gorman and Peter Beck for their contributions and services to the Board and to the Burwood/Pegasus community.
38 3. 10. 2013 Burwood/Pegasus Community Board 16. 9. 2013
PART C – DELEGATED DECISIONS TAKEN BY THE BOARD
12. DECLARATION OF INTEREST
David East declared an interest in the funding application regarding the Burwood Primary School (Clause 16 (Part C) of these minutes refer) and took no part in the discussion and voting thereon.
13. CONFIRMATION OF MINUTES – 2 SEPTEMBER 2013
The Board resolved that the minutes of its ordinary meeting of 2 September 2013, be confirmed.
14. BOURNEMOUTH CRESCENT/HAMPSHIRE STREET - PEDESTRIAN ACCESSWAY REVIEW
The Board considered a report seeking a decision on whether the accessway that links Hampshire Street and Bournemouth Crescent should be retained, or that steps be taken to initiate closure of the accessway.
Staff provided further elaboration about the closure process and of the likely costs involved and answered questions from members.
The Board also took in to consideration the deputations heard earlier in the meeting (Clauses 1.1 and 1.2 refer)
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
That the Burwood/Pegasus Community Board receive this report and approve either:
(a) That the pedestrian accessway situated between 26 and 28 Bournemouth Crescent and 109 and 111 Hampshire Street be retained in its present form.
or
(b) That staff prepare an Application for Road Stopping of the pedestrian accessway situated between 26 and 28 Bournemouth Crescent and 109 and 111 Hampshire Street under the Local Government Act (1974), subject to prior agreement of proposed terms of sale of the road once stopped.
The Board resolved that staff prepare an Application for Road Stopping of the pedestrian accessway situated between 26 and 28 Bournemouth Crescent and 109 and 111 Hampshire Street under the Local Government Act (1974), subject to the prior agreement of the proposed terms of sale of the road once stopped.
15. NEW BRIGHTON ROAD/BOWER AVENUE - PROPOSED GIVE WAY CONTROL
The Board considered a report seeking approval to install a Give Way control against the New Brighton Road left turn lane at its intersection with Bower Avenue.
The Board resolved to approve that a Give Way control be placed against the New Brighton Road left turn lane (western approach) at its intersection with Bower Avenue.
39 3. 10. 2013 Burwood/Pegasus Community Board 16. 9. 2013
16. PROPOSED BREEZES ROAD BUS STOP EXTENSION – CHISNALLWOOD INTERMEDIATE
The Board considered a report seeking approval to extend an existing Bus Stop on Breezes Road on the frontage to Chisnallwood Intermediate School.
The Board resolved to approve:
(a) That all existing parking and stopping restrictions on the southern side of Breezes Road commencing at a point 73 metres east of its intersection with Pembroke Street and extending in an easterly direction for a distance of 87 metres, be revoked.
(b) That the stopping of vehicles be prohibited at any time on the southern side of Breezes Road commencing at a point 73 metres east of its intersection with Pembroke Street and extending in an easterly direction for a distance of 40 metres.
(c) That the parking of vehicles be restricted to Buses only (8am to 10am, 2pm to 4pm school days) on the southern side of Breezes Road commencing at a point 113 metres east of its intersection with Pembroke Street and extending in an easterly direction for a distance of 42 metres.
(d) That the stopping of vehicles be prohibited at any time on the southern side of Breezes Road commencing at a point 155 metres east of its intersection with Pembroke Street and extending in an easterly direction for a distance of 5 metres.
17. SHORTLAND STREET RESERVE PLAYGROUND
The Board considered a report seeking approval to remove and relocate the Shortland Street Reserve Playground.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
It is recommended that the Burwood/Pegasus Community Board:
(a) Approve the removal of the playground equipment from Shortland Street Playground Reserve subject to Foodstuffs South Island Limited funding, and place the equipment into storage.
(b) Approve for staff to complete a site selection process to identify a new location where the equipment can be placed within the Aranui/Wainoni area. Site selection report to be submitted back to the Burwood/Pegasus Community Board for consideration.
(c) Approve for staff to consider other uses for the Shortland Street Reserve area by other units of the Council.
(d) Approve for staff to commence the process to revoke the Reserve Classification under the Reserves Act, if it is determined that the reserve can not be used for any other recreational activity.
BOARD CONSIDERATION
The Board was of the view that as a consequence of the adjoining supermarket redevelopment and the identified health and safety issues arising for users of the playground, that Foodstuffs South Island Limited be requested to meet the costs for the removal and storage of the playground equipment.
40 3. 10. 2013 Burwood/Pegasus Community Board 16. 9. 2013
17 Cont’d
BOARD DECISION
The Board resolved to:
(a) Approve the removal of the playground equipment from Shortland Street Playground Reserve and request Foodstuffs South Island Limited to fund the removal and storage of the equipment in view of the unsafe nature of the playground arising from the redevelopment of the supermarket site.
(b) Approve for staff to complete a site selection process to identify a new location where the equipment can be placed within the Aranui/Wainoni area. Site selection report to be submitted back to the Burwood/Pegasus Community Board for consideration.
(c) Approve for staff to consider other uses for the Shortland Street Reserve area by other units of the Council.
(d) Approve for staff to commence the process to revoke the Reserve Classification under the Reserves Act, if it is determined that the reserve can not be used for any other recreational activity.
18. BEXLEY RESERVE – NORTH AVON CHRISTCHURCH BMX CLUB LEASE AND LICENCE
The Board considered a report seeking approval of an application from the North Avon Christchurch BMX Club for a lease and licence over part of Bexley Reserve for a BMX track and facilities, and for the Club to install lighting on the BMX track prior to the Transport and Greenspace Unit Manager granting approval under delegated authority.
The Board resolved to, under delegated authority from the Council:
(a) Grant a lease to North Avon Christchurch BMX Club Inc. pursuant to section 12 of the Local Government Act 2002, over approximately 15,000 square metres of the land described in Schedule A below, as shown on the attached plan labelled Bexley Reserve - proposed lease/licence to North Avon Christchurch BMX Club for a period of up to 33 years broken into three terms of 11 years each, on which to construct a BMX track, with associated bunding, start ramp, and points hut.
(b) Grant a licence to North Avon and Christchurch BMX Club Inc, pursuant to section 12 of the Local Government Act 2002, over approximately 15,100 square metres of the land described in Schedule A below, as shown on the attached plan labelled Bexley Reserve - proposed lease/licence to North Avon Christchurch BMX Club for a period of up to 33 years broken into three terms of 11 years each, on which to install temporary facilities during large sports events, including warm-up areas, spectator and competitor seating, staging, food and merchandise stalls, and additional parking. 41 3. 10. 2013 Burwood/Pegasus Community Board 16. 9. 2013
18 Cont’d
Schedule A Lease/licence approximately 30,100 square metres of Lot 1 DP 994, contained within certificate of title CB12B/958 the total area of which is 18.3793 hectares, Section 1 Survey Office Plan 307757 contained in certificate of title 66441, the area of which is 0.5016 hectares, and part Rural Section 6897, 7198, 9152, and 9165, the area of which is 13.3723 hectares contained in Certificate of Title CB192/211, all parcels being fee simple land vested in the Christchurch City Council, pursuant to the Local Government Act 2002.
Both subject to the following conditions:
(i) That the North Avon Christchurch BMX Club Inc. have the right to ask for a renewal of its lease and licence for a further term at the end of each of the first two terms, subject to the Council being satisfied that the conditions of the lease and licence have been met, and that there is sufficient need for the facilities and amenities, and that some other use should not have priority in the public interest.
(ii) That the North Avon Christchurch BMX Club Inc. is to obtain all necessary resource and building consents before any development commences on the site.
(iii) That the lease/licence terms be negotiated by the Corporate Support Manager in consultation with the Policy Advisor, City Environment Group.
(iv) That the lease/licence area be maintained by the North Avon Christchurch BMX Club Inc. in a safe and tidy condition at all times.
(v) That the area covered by the licence agreement be available for public use at all times except when being used by the North Avon Christchurch BMX Club Inc. for associated track activities.
(vi) That all costs associated with the issuing of the lease/licence, development and subsequent maintenance of all structures are to be the responsibility of the North Avon Christchurch BMX Club Inc.
(vii) That the lease agreement is to include a clause which indemnifies the Council and its servants from all claims or demands of any kind, and all liability in respect to any damage or injury occurring to any person or property as a result of the North Avon Christchurch BMX Club Inc.’s activities on site.
(viii) The North Avon Christchurch BMX Club is to show proof to the Policy Advisor that it has a current minimum of $2,000,000 public liability insurance which must be maintained as current during the lease/licence period.
(ix) That the final location, plans and designs for any buildings, fences or other structures, are to be approved by the Transport and Greenspace Unit Manager, or his delegate.
(x) That before the Club and their contractors commence work on the site, a bond of $2000 is to be paid to the Christchurch City Council via the Transport and Greenspace Area Supervisor (Eastern) at Civic Offices, and a temporary access licence signed. The bond less any expenses incurred by the Council will be refunded to the payee upon completion of the work.
(xi) The approval of this application is being made subject to a requirement for the removal of the existing BMX track and associated facilities, and reinstatement of the site to the satisfaction of the Transport and Greenspace Unit Manger or his delegate.
(xii) The licence will be automatically revoked upon the surrender or withdrawal of the lease associated with this application.
42 3. 10. 2013 Burwood/Pegasus Community Board 16. 9. 2013
18 Cont’d
(c) Support the approval by the Transport and Greenspace Unit Manager under his delegated authority of the installation of lighting poles on Bexley Reserve by the North Avon Christchurch BMX Club Inc. subject to the following conditions:
(i) The final design and layout for the installation of the lights being agreed by the Transport and Greenspace Unit Manager or his delegate.
(ii) The North Avon Christchurch BMX Club Inc. obtaining the necessary resource consents, and building consents, at their cost before commencing installation of the lighting system upon the park.
(iii) The North Avon Christchurch BMX Club Inc. being responsible for ensuring that they, or any contractors they engage, are responsible for obtaining plans of all services presently laid underground in the park (electricity, telephonic, sewerage, storm water, high pressure water supply and irrigation).
(iv) The North Avon Christchurch BMX Club Inc. being required to deposit scaled plans, showing the lighting poles and cable layout in the park, as built, within two months of the work being completed.
(v) The North Avon Christchurch BMX Club Inc. being responsible for all costs associated with the installation and maintenance of the lighting system.
(vi) The North Avon Christchurch BMX Club Inc. being responsible for ensuring that the lighting system is maintained in a safe and tidy condition at all times.
(vii) That the lights are not operated after 9 pm.
(viii) The North Avon Christchurch BMX Club Inc. is to pay a bond of $2000 to the Council via the Transport and Greenspace Area Supervisor (Eastern) at Civic Offices before any construction work commences on the site. The bond, less any expenses incurred by the Council will be refunded to the payee upon completion of the development to a standard acceptable to the Transport and Greenspace Unit Manager or his delegate.
(ix) That the poles be painted Flax Green (12 B 21) or Black in colour to integrate them into the park environment.
(x) That this approval will lapse if the development is not completed within two years of application.
19. BURWOOD/PEGASUS NEIGHBOURHOOD WEEK FUND 2013 - APPLICATIONS
The Board considered a report outlining applications for funding from its Neighbourhood Week Fund for 2013.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
That the Burwood/Pegasus Community Board considers the applications as set out in the attached matrix and allocate its Neighbourhood Week Fund for 2013 accordingly.
BOARD DECISION
The Board resolved to:
(a) Approve the applications as set out in the submitted matrix, including the four late applications received, and allocate its Neighbourhood Week Fund 2013 totalling $3,606.50.
(b) Approve the allocation of the Neighbourhood Week Fund 2013 of $3,500 supplemented by a further $106.50 if required, from its Discretionary Response Fund 2013/14. 43 3. 10. 2013 Burwood/Pegasus Community Board 16. 9. 2013
20. BURWOOD/PEGASUS COMMUNITY BOARD DISCRETIONARY RESPONSE FUND 2013/14 - PARKLANDS UNITED SPORTS CLUB - APPLICATION
The Board considered an application for funding from its 2013/14 Discretionary Response Fund for the Parklands United Sports Club towards the purchase and installation of flood lights on the Parklands Reserve.
The Board resolved to approve a grant of $5,000 from its Discretionary Response Fund 2013/14 to the Parklands United Sports Club towards the purchase and installation of flood lights on Parklands Reserve.
21. BURWOOD/PEGASUS COMMUNITY BOARD DISCRETIONARY RESPONSE FUND 2013/14 – BURWOOD PRIMARY SCHOOL - APPLICATION
The Board considered an application for funding from its 2013/14 Discretionary Response Fund for the Burwood Primary School for $3,000 towards marquee hire/set up costs.
The Board resolved to approve a grant of $3,000 from its Discretionary Response Fund 2013/14 to the Burwood Primary School towards marquee hire/set up costs.
The meeting concluded at 6.47 pm.
SIGNED BY THE CHAIRPERSON OF THE BOARD AND THE COMMUNITY BOARD ADVISER PURSUANT TO STANDING ORDER 3.18.2.
CONFIRMED THIS 20TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2013
TIM BAKER PETER DOW DEPUTY CHAIRPERSON COMMUNITY BOARD ADVISER
44 45
3. 10. 2013 Clause 8
FENDALTON/WAIMAIRI COMMUNITY BOARD 3 SEPTEMBER 2013
Report of a meeting of the Fendalton/Waimairi Community Board held on Tuesday 3 September 2013 at 3.30pm in the Boardroom, Fendalton Service Centre, corner Jeffreys and Clyde Roads.
PRESENT: Val Carter (Chairperson), Faimeh Burke, Cheryl Colley, David Cartwright, Jamie Gough and David Halstead.
APOLOGIES: An apology was received and accepted from Sally Buck.
The Board reports that:
PART B - REPORTS FOR INFORMATION
1. SALE OF RESERVE – 23 CLIFFORD AVENUE
This report was considered by the Council at its meeting of 12 September 2013.
2. DEPUTATIONS BY APPOINTMENT
2.1 KEN MCANERGNEY – CARLTON MILL BRIDGE
Mr Ken McAnergney was in attendance and spoke to the Board of his concerns (and made mention of those of friends, family and some bridge users) regarding the proposed SCIRT repair and design betterment of the Carlton Mill Pedestrian Bridge.
The Board decided to advise SCIRT urgently of the concerns expressed by the deputation and users of the current footbridge including:
• the unattractiveness of the proposed design
• the “lack of visual connection” between bridge users and the river
• the desirability of community consultation on SCIRT betterment overground projects
• safety implications and lack of visibility in/out of the proposed wooden palisade design coupled with concerns of attracting graffiti
• the scope for design changes to this project.
3. PRESENTATION OF PETITIONS
Nil.
4. NOTICES OF MOTION
Nil.
5. CORRESPONDENCE
Nil. 46 3. 10. 2013 Fendalton/Waimairi Community Board 3. 9. 2013
6. BRIEFINGS
Nil.
7. COMMUNITY BOARD ADVISER’S UPDATE
• cancellation of the scheduled Combined Community Board Seminar on Monday 9 September 2013
• Avonhead Community Group Invitation to potential electoral candidates to a meeting on 17 September 2013 - advice was provided on this matter
8. ELECTED MEMBERS’ INFORMATION EXCHANGE
• Neighbourhood Support Canterbury (Val Carter) Nothing to report
• Christchurch Streets and Garden Awards Committee (Faimeh Burke) No further meetings scheduled for 2013
• Keep Christchurch Beautiful Committee (David Cartwright) Possible change of logo discussed
• Merivale Precinct Society (Faimeh Burke – unofficial) Meeting to be held Wednesday 4 September 2013.
• Merivale Business Association Incorporated (David Halstead) Meeting to be held Wednesday 4 September 2013 to finalise the Association’s business plan.
• Waimakariri/Eyre/Cust Rating District Liaison Committee (David Halstead) No further meetings scheduled for 2013.
• Riccarton/Ilam Community Safety Joint Working Party (Jamie Gough and David Cartwright) Meeting to be held on Friday 6 September 2013.
• Community Board Chairpersons/Staff Forum (Val Carter) Nothing to report.
• Community Board Council Meeting (Val Carter) Nothing to report.
• Council and Committee meetings (Sally Buck and Jamie Gough) Nothing to report.
• General The Chairperson provided feedback from the Board Chairpersons’ discussion of the applications to the Capital Endowment Fund – Special Projects Phase 2. The Metropolitan Funding Committee meets on 11 September to make final decisions.
47 3. 10. 2013 Fendalton/Waimairi Community Board 3. 9. 2013 9. FENDALTON/WAIMAIRI SMALL GRANTS FUND ALLOCATION COMMITTEE – REPORT OF 20 AUGUST 2013
The outcomes of the Fendalton/Waimairi Small Grants Fund Assessment Committee meeting held on Tuesday 20 August 2013 at 5.10pm were presented to the Fendalton/Waimairi Community Board for its information.
The Board received the report and the outcomes within.
PART C - REPORT ON DELEGATED DECISIONS TAKEN BY THE BOARD
10. DECLARATION OF INTEREST
There were no declarations of interest.
11. CONFIRMATION OF MEETING MINUTES – 20 AUGUST 2013
The Board resolved that the minutes of its ordinary meeting of Tuesday 20 August 2013 be confirmed.
12. BURNSIDE PARK – POPLAR TREE REMOVAL
The Board considered a report providing information in connection with the request by the Burnside Bowling Club for the removal of two poplar trees at Burnside Park.
A written submission by Mr Paul Davies against the removal of the Poplar trees in Burnside Park was tabled.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Given that the trees are healthy, the amenity value of the trees, together with the policy and principles of the Burnside Park Management Plan and that no funding is available for their removal, it is recommended that the Fendalton/Waimairi Community Board decline the request by the Burnside Bowling Club to remove two poplar trees in Burnside Park.
BOARD CONSIDERATION AND RECOMMENDATION
The Board carefully noted the staff recommendations including the costs associated with the removal of the trees. The Board also considered the consultation feedback in particular that 56% of respondents supported removal. Staff advice was sought on the nature of the kapok/fluff nuisance of the trees, the impact of this on the bowling green surfaces and options for easy removal or clean up. The Board also sought advice on the heritage and landscape amenity aspects of the trees in a park setting. Advice on the number of similar poplars in the park and in other locations across the city was sought, together with discussion of possible replacement trees, costs and potential location.
Following this advice and discussion the Fendalton/Waimairi Community Board resolved that the staff recommendation be adopted unless the Burnside Bowling Club funded the full cost (of no more than $16,000), for the removal and replacement of the trees in an appropriate location, in which case the removal would be supported on a time limited basis. This option will only apply if the removal is achieved by the end of 2013.
(Note: Faimeh Burke requested that her vote against the decision be recorded.)
48 3. 10. 2013 Fendalton/Waimairi Community Board 3. 9. 2013 13. APPLICATION TO THE FENDALTON/WAIMAIRI COMMUNITY BOARD 2013/14 DISCRETIONARY RESPONSE FUND – ST MARGARET’S COLLEGE
The Board considered an application for funding from its 2013/14 Discretionary Response Fund from St Margaret's College - Educating Girls Globally (EGG) for $2,000 towards equipment hire for the EGG’s Factor Concert.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
It is recommended that the Fendalton/Waimairi Community Board declines the application from St Margaret's College - Educating Girls Globally towards equipment hire for the EGGs Factor Concert.
BOARD CONSIDERATION AND RECOMMENDATION
The Board sought extensive advice from staff as to the reason for their recommendation and also noted the criteria for applications to the Board’s Discretionary Response Fund.
The Board considered that the application met the criteria of the fund. The Board were extremely supportive of the initiative shown by these two young ‘leaders’ in establishing the EGG organisation and the benefits to the many young people in the ward who would be associated with the organisation and attendance at the proposed event.
The Fendalton/Waimairi Community Board resolved to allocate $1,500 from its 2013/14 Discretionary Response Fund to St Margaret's College - Educating Girls Globally towards equipment hire for the EGG’s Factor Concert.
14. CHAIRPERSON’S REPORT – APPLICATION TO THE FENDALTON/WAIMAIRI COMMUNITY BOARD’S 2013/14 DISCRETIONARY FUND – UPDATING OF BOARDROOM ARTWORK (CANVAS PHOTOGRAPHIC IMAGES)
The Board considered a report by the Chairperson regarding the updating of the Boardroom artwork which would require the updating of several of the photographs in the montage of 12 photographic images depicting iconic places or from projects the board have either been involved with, or funded.
That the Fendalton/Waimairi Community Board resolved to:
(a) allocate up to $1,500 from its 2013/14 Discretionary Response Fund for the updating of the Boardroom artwork
(b) delegate the choice of photographs to the Chairperson, Deputy Chairperson and Jamie Gough.
15. APPLICATION TO THE BOARD’S YOUTH DEVELOPMENT FUND – LUKE JACKSON
The Board considered an application for funding from its 2013/14 Youth Development Fund from Luke Jackson towards the cost of competing in the World Taekwon-Do Championships.
The Fendalton/Waimairi Community Board resolved to allocate $400 to Luke Jackson towards the cost of competing in the World Taekwon-Do Championships.
16. APPLICATION TO THE BOARD’S YOUTH DEVELOPMENT FUND – OLIVIA BERGER
The Board considered an application for funding from the its 2013/14 Youth Development Fund from Olivia Berger towards the cost of attending Outward Bound.
The Fendalton/Waimairi Community Board resolved to allocate $200 to Olivia Berger towards the cost of attending Outward Bound. 49 3. 10. 2013 Fendalton/Waimairi Community Board 3. 9. 2013
17. COMMUNITY BOARD ADVISER’S UPDATE (CONT’D)
• Harper Avenue Information Memorandum regarding No Right Turn into Park Terrace An information Memorandum was tabled regarding the Board’s request for the reinstatement of the right turn option from Harper Avenue into Park Terrace.
The Board resolved to request that the Chairperson explicitly register the continued concerns of this Board regarding the continued lack of re-instatement of the right turn at Harper Avenue at the council meeting of 3 October 2013.
The Board also resolved to request a further report back on the matter, specifically addressing Chapter 14 of the report – Traffic Congestion Management – presented to Council on 5 April 2012 which includes “the right turn movement from Harper Avenue into Park Terrace be banned; until such a time as the one way east west network of Salisbury Street, Kilmore Street, Lichfield Street and St Asaph Street is fully operative” and why this reinstatement has not occurred.
The meeting concluded at 5.25pm.
CONFIRMED THIS 17TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2013
VAL CARTER CHAIRPERSON 50 51
3. 10. 2013 Clause 9
FENDALTON/WAIMAIRI COMMUNITY BOARD 17 SEPTEMBER 2013
Report of a meeting of the Fendalton/Waimairi Community Board held on Tuesday 17 September 2013 at 3.30pm in the Boardroom, Fendalton Service Centre, corner Jeffreys and Clyde Roads.
PRESENT: Val Carter (Chairperson), Sally Buck, Faimeh Burke, Cheryl Colley, David Cartwright, Jamie Gough and David Halstead.
APOLOGIES: Nil.
The Board reports that:
The meeting was adjourned at 4.10pm and reconvened at 4.18pm.
PART B – REPORTS FOR INFORMATION
1. DEPUTATIONS BY APPOINTMENT
1.1 JAMIE AND DYLAN O’KEEFE – PEDESTRIAN CROSSING
Jamie and Dylan O’Keefe were in attendance and spoke to the Board regarding the potential for the installation of a pedestrian crossing in Wairakei Road.
Information was also tabled in support of a pedestrian crossing being installed in Wairakei Road from local businesses, Roydvale Primary School and Breens Intermediate School, which included observations that the increase of traffic post earthquake makes crossing Wairakei Road dangerous for students from local schools.
Staff advised that the potential for a crossing in this area is already identified but as yet unfunded and of a lower priority than others in the city.
The Board decided to request staff to report back on the issues raised by the deputation regarding the safety concerns expressed by Jamie and Dylan O’Keefe, Roydvale School, Breens Intermediate, Edukids and parents relating to crossing Wairakei Road in the vicinity of the school. The Board also requested staff to carefully take into account the survey information provided by Jamie and Dylan and the feedback from the schools and business community that traffic volumes have increased significantly post earthquake.
The Board recommends that the incoming Board consider financing options for the crossing should the need arise.
1.2 JOHN DYER – COLLEGE AVENUE PARKING PLAN
Mr John Dyer was in attendance and spoke to the Board in opposition to the proposed parking plan for College Avenue.
Refer clause 14 for the decision on this matter.
1.3 TOBY GILES – COLLEGE AVENUE PARKING PLAN
Mr Toby Giles, the representative for the Waimairi Tennis Club was in attendance and spoke in opposition to the proposed parking plan for College Avenue.
Refer clause 14 for decision on this matter.
52 3. 10. 2013 Fendalton/Waimairi Community Board 17. 9. 2013
1 Cont’d
1.4 MARK WILLIAMSON– COLLEGE AVENUE PARKING PLAN
Mr Mark Williamson, a resident of Brenchley Avenue was in attendance and spoke in opposition to the proposed parking plan for College Avenue.
Refer clause 14 for decision on this matter.
2. PRESENTATION OF PETITIONS
Nil.
3. NOTICES OF MOTION
Nil.
4. CORRESPONDENCE
4.1 MR PHIL MILLAR – VERONICA PLACE
Email correspondence from Mr Phil Millar of Veronica Place to Councillor Gough was tabled regarding Mr Millar’s continued concerns regarding resident and guest parking in Veronica Place
The Board received the information and requested that it be forwarded to appropriate staff.
5. BRIEFINGS
Nil.
6. COMMUNITY BOARD ADVISER’S UPDATE
Nil.
7. EARTHQUAKE RECOVERY UPDATE
Joanna Corbett, Ward Earthquake Recovery Advocate, advised the Board that she would be leaving her position at the end of the month and provided an update on all current projects and their status. Staff advised the Board that the Fendalton/Waimairi Earthquake Recovery Advocate position was unlikely to continue. (This is a shared position with Shirley/Papanui and Riccarton/Wigram Community Boards.)
The Board decided to formally register its concern at the loss of the current Ward Earthquake Recovery Advocate and that no replacement will be forthcoming. The Fendalton/Waimairi ward is under resourced in this area and the Board would wish to know why and also what is to be done to rectify the situation on a permanent basis. The Board notes that there has only been a single staff member allocated to community development for nearly a year despite the needs of the Fendalton/Waimairi ward.
The Board also decided to request a formal report on the work done by Joanna Corbett including recommendations for ongoing work in the ward. 53 3. 10. 2013 Fendalton/Waimairi Community Board 17. 9. 2013
8. ELECTED MEMBERS’ INFORMATION EXCHANGE
Nothing to report.
PART C – REPORT ON DELEGATED DECISIONS TAKEN BY THE BOARD
9. DECLARATION OF INTEREST
There were no declarations of interest.
10. CONFIRMATION OF MEETING MINUTES – 3 SEPTEMBER 2013
The Board resolved that the minutes of its ordinary meeting of Tuesday 3 September 2013 be confirmed.
The Board were advised by staff of the need to delegate authority to the Chairperson and the Community Board Adviser to approve the Minutes of the Board’s ordinary meeting of 17 September 2013 being the last meeting of the 2010-2013 electoral term (refer Standing Orders 3.18.2).
The Board resolved to adopt staff recommendation.
11. KOTARE STREET MOBILITY PARKING SPACES
The Board considered a report seeking its approval to install two mobility parking spaces in the designated parking area off Kotare Street, immediately south of Fendalton Park.
The Fendalton/Waimairi Community Board resolved to approve that:
(a) All parking restrictions starting from a point 50 metres north of the northern kerbline of Kotare Street and 6.5 metres west of the western property boundary of 48a Kotare Street and extending in a westerly direction for 6 metres be revoked.
(b) Mobility Parking Spaces be installed, operating at all times, starting from a point 50 metres north of the northern kerbline of Kotare Street and 6.5 metres west of the western property boundary of 48a Kotare Street and extending in a westerly direction for 6 metres.
12. LOGISTICS DRIVE – NO STOPPING RESTRICTIONS
The Board considered a report seeking approval for the installation of no-stopping restrictions on Logistics Drive, Koru Place and Jet Place.
The Fendalton/Waimairi Community Board resolved that:
(a) All parking restrictions on the north-western side of Logistics Drive, commencing at its intersection with Jet Place and extending in a south-westerly direction for 10 metres be revoked
(b) All parking restrictions on the north-western side of Logistics Drive, commencing at its intersection with Jet Place and extending in a north-easterly direction for 10 metres be revoked
(c) All parking restrictions on the south-western side of Jet Place, commencing at its intersection with Logistics Drive and extending in a north-westerly direction for 8 metres be revoked
(d) All parking restrictions on the north-eastern side of Jet Place, commencing at its intersection with Logistics Drive and extending in a north-westerly direction for 8 metres be revoked 54 3. 10. 2013 Fendalton/Waimairi Community Board 17. 9. 2013
12 Cont’d
(e) All parking restrictions on the north-western side of Logistics Drive, commencing at its intersection with Koru Place and extending in a south-westerly direction for 20 metres be revoked
(f) All parking restrictions on the north-western side of Logistics Drive, commencing at its intersection with Koru Place and extending in a north-easterly direction for 10 metres be revoked
(g) All parking restrictions on the south-western side of Koru Place, commencing at its intersection with Logistics Drive and extending in a north-westerly direction for 6 metres be revoked
(h) All parking restrictions on the north-eastern side of Koru Place, commencing at its intersection with Logistics Drive and extending in a north-westerly direction for 6 metres be revoked
(i) All parking restrictions on the south-eastern side of Logistics Drive, commencing at a point 277 metres southwest of its intersection with Sawyers Arms Road and extending in a south- westerly direction for 83 metres be revoked
(j) The stopping of vehicles be prohibited at any time on the north-western side of Logistics Drive, commencing at its intersection with Jet Place and extending in a south-westerly direction for 10 metres
(k) The stopping of vehicles be prohibited at any time on the north-western side of Logistics Drive, commencing at its intersection with Jet Place and extending in a north-easterly direction for 10 metres
(l) The stopping of vehicles be prohibited at any time on the south-western side of Jet Place, commencing at its intersection with Logistics Drive and extending in a north-westerly direction for 8 metres
(m) The stopping of vehicles be prohibited at any time on the north-eastern side of Jet Place, commencing at its intersection with Logistics Drive and extending in a north-westerly direction for 8 metres
(n) The stopping of vehicles be prohibited at any time on the north-western side of Logistics Drive, commencing at its intersection with Koru Place and extending in a south-westerly direction for 20 metres
(o) The stopping of vehicles be prohibited at any time on the north-western side of Logistics Drive, commencing at its intersection with Koru Place and extending in a north-easterly direction for 10 metres
(p) The stopping of vehicles be prohibited at any time on the south-western side of Koru Place, commencing at its intersection with Logistics Drive and extending in a north-westerly direction for 6 metres
(q) The stopping of vehicles be prohibited at any time on the north-eastern side of Koru Place, commencing at its intersection with Logistics Drive and extending in a north-westerly direction for 6 metres
(r) The stopping of vehicles be prohibited at any time on the south-eastern side of Logistics Drive, commencing at a point 277 metres southwest of its intersection with Sawyers Arms Road and extending in a south-westerly direction for 83 metres
13. WINSLOW STREET/BURNSIDE CRESCENT – PARKING AND NO STOPPING RESTRICTIONS
The Board considered a report seeking its approval for the installation of P120 Parking restrictions and No-Stopping restrictions in Winslow Street and Burnside Crescent. 55 3. 10. 2013 Fendalton/Waimairi Community Board 17. 9. 2013
13 Cont’d
The Fendalton/Waimairi Community Board resolved that:
(a) All existing parking and stopping restrictions on both sides of Winslow Street for its entire length be revoked
(b) All existing parking and stopping restrictions on the western side of Burnside Crescent, commencing at its intersection with Winslow Street and extending in a northerly direction for 20 metres be revoked
(c) All existing parking and stopping restrictions on the western side of Burnside Crescent, commencing at its intersection with Winslow Street and extending in a southerly direction for 27 metres be revoked
(d) All existing parking and stopping restrictions on the eastern side of Burnside Crescent, commencing at a point 177 metres northwest of its intersection with Kendal Avenue and extending in a northerly direction for 57 metres be revoked
(e) The stopping of vehicles be prohibited at any time on the south-western side of Winslow Street, commencing at its intersection with Roydvale Avenue and extending in a south-easterly direction for 17 metres
(f) The stopping of vehicles be prohibited at any time on the north-eastern side of Winslow Street, commencing at its intersection with Roydvale Avenue and extending in a south-easterly direction for 17 metres
(g) The stopping of vehicles be prohibited at any time on the northern side of Winslow Street, commencing at its intersection with Burnside Crescent and extending in a westerly direction for 34 metres
(h) The stopping of vehicles be prohibited at any time on the southern side of Winslow Street, commencing at its intersection with Burnside Crescent and extending in a westerly direction for 18 metres
(i) The parking of vehicles be restricted to a maximum period of 120 minutes (Monday to Friday, 8am to 6pm) on the south-western side of Winslow Street, commencing at a point 17 metres southeast of its intersection with Roydvale Avenue and extending in a south-easterly direction for a distance of 56 metres
(j) The stopping of vehicles be prohibited at any time on the western side of Burnside Crescent, commencing at its intersection with Winslow Street and extending in a northerly direction for 20 metres
(k) The stopping of vehicles be prohibited at any time on the western side of Burnside Crescent, commencing at its intersection with Winslow Street and extending in a southerly direction for 27 metres
(l) The parking of vehicles be restricted to a maximum period of 120 minutes (Monday to Friday, 8am to 6pm) on the eastern side of Burnside Crescent, commencing at a point 177 metres northwest of its intersection with Kendal Avenue and extending in a northerly direction for 57 metres
14. COLLEGE AVENUE AREA PARKING PLAN
The Board considered a report seeking its approval for the installation of P120 Parking restrictions and no-stopping restrictions in College Avenue, Brenchley Avenue, Watford Street, Urunga Avenue and Normans Road. 56 3. 10. 2013 Fendalton/Waimairi Community Board 17. 9. 2013
14 Cont’d
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
It is recommended that the Fendalton/Waimairi Community Board approve:
(a) That all existing parking and stopping restrictions on the north-eastern side of Urunga Avenue, commencing at its intersection with Normans Road and extending in a north-westerly direction for 120 metres be revoked.
(b) That the stopping of vehicles be prohibited at any time on the north-eastern side of Urunga Avenue, commencing at its intersection with Normans Road and extending in a north- westerly direction for 15 metres.
(c) That the parking of vehicles be restricted to a maximum period of 120 minutes (9am to 4pm, Monday to Friday, February to November) on the north-eastern side of Urunga Avenue, commencing at a point 15 metres northwest of its intersection with Normans Road and extending in a north-westerly direction for 72 metres.
(d) That the stopping of vehicles be prohibited at any time on the north-eastern side of Urunga Avenue, commencing at a point 87 metres northwest of its intersection with Normans Road and extending in a north-westerly direction for 33 metres.
(e) That all existing parking and stopping restrictions on the north-eastern side of Urunga Avenue, commencing at its intersection with Brenchley Avenue and extending in a south-easterly direction for 37 metres be revoked.
(f) That the stopping of vehicles be prohibited at any time on the north-eastern side of Urunga Avenue, commencing at its intersection with Brenchley Avenue and extending in a south-easterly direction for 12 metres.
(g) That the parking of vehicles be restricted to a maximum period of 120 minutes (9am to 4pm, Monday to Friday, February to November) on the north-eastern side of Urunga Avenue, commencing at a point 12 metres southeast of its intersection with Brenchley Avenue and extending in a south-easterly direction for 25 metres.
(h) That all existing parking and stopping restrictions on the north-western side of Brenchley Avenue, commencing its intersection with Urunga Avenue and extending in a north- easterly direction for 120 metres be revoked.
(i) That the stopping of vehicles be prohibited at any time on the north-western side of Brenchley Avenue, commencing at its intersection with Urunga Avenue and extending in a north-easterly direction for 10 metres.
(j) That the parking of vehicles be restricted to a maximum period of 120 minutes (9am to 4pm, Monday to Friday, February to November) on the north-western side of Brenchley Avenue, commencing at a point 10 metres northeast of its intersection with Urunga Avenue and extending in a north-easterly direction for 75 metres.
(k) That the stopping of vehicles be prohibited at any time on the north-western side of Brenchley Avenue, commencing at a point 85 metres northeast of its intersection with Urunga Avenue and extending in a north-easterly direction for 35 metres.
(l) That all existing parking and stopping restrictions on the south-eastern side of Brenchley Avenue, commencing at its intersection with College Avenue and extending in a south-westerly direction for 16 metres be revoked.
(m) That the stopping of vehicles be prohibited at any time on the south-eastern side of Brenchley Avenue, commencing at its intersection with College Avenue and extending in a south-westerly direction for 16 metres. 57 3. 10. 2013 Fendalton/Waimairi Community Board 17. 9. 2013
14 Cont’d
(n) That all existing parking and stopping restrictions on the south-eastern side of Brenchley Avenue between College Avenue and Watford Street be revoked.
(o) That the stopping of vehicles be prohibited at any time on the south-eastern side of Brenchley Avenue, commencing at its intersection with College Avenue and extending in a north-easterly direction for 16 metres.
(p) That the parking of vehicles be restricted to a maximum period of 120 minutes (9am to 4pm, Monday to Friday, February to November) on the south-eastern side of Brenchley Avenue, commencing at a point 16 metres northeast of its intersection with College Avenue and extending in a north-easterly direction for 73 metres.
(q) That the stopping of vehicles be prohibited at any time on the south-eastern side of Brenchley Avenue, commencing at a point 89 metres northeast of its intersection with College Avenue and extending in a north-easterly direction for 15 metres.
(r) That all existing parking and stopping restrictions on the south-western side of College Avenue, commencing at its intersection with Brenchley Avenue and extending in a south-easterly direction for 10 metres be revoked.
(s) That the stopping of vehicles be prohibited at any time on the south-western side of College Avenue, commencing at its intersection with Brenchley Avenue and extending in a south-easterly direction for 10 metres.
(t) That all existing parking and stopping restrictions on the north-eastern side of College Avenue, commencing at its intersection with Brenchley Avenue and extending in a south-easterly direction for 87 metres be revoked.
(u) That the stopping of vehicles be prohibited at any time on the north-eastern side of College Avenue, commencing at its intersection with Brenchley Avenue and extending in a south-easterly direction for 10 metres.
(v) That the parking of vehicles be restricted to a maximum period of 120 minutes (9am to 4pm, Monday to Friday, February to November) on the north-eastern side of College Avenue, commencing at a point 10 metres southeast of its intersection with Brenchley Avenue and extending in a south-easterly direction for 77 metres.
(w) That all existing parking and stopping restrictions on the south-western side of College Avenue, commencing at its intersection with Normans Road and extending in a north- westerly direction for 96 metres be revoked.
(x) That the stopping of vehicles be prohibited at any time on the south-western side of College Avenue, commencing at its intersection with Normans Road and extending in a north- westerly direction for 18 metres.
(y) That the parking of vehicles be restricted to a maximum period of 120 minutes (9am to 4pm, Monday to Friday, February to November) on the south-western side of College Avenue, commencing at a point 18 metres northwest of its intersection with Normans Road and extending in a north-westerly direction for 78 metres.
(z) That all existing parking and stopping restrictions on the north-eastern side of Watford Street, commencing at its intersection with Halton Street and extending in a south-easterly direction for 64 metres be revoked.
(aa) That the stopping of vehicles be prohibited at any time on the north-eastern side of Watford Street, commencing at its intersection with Halton Street and extending in a south- easterly direction for 15 metres. 58 3. 10. 2013 Fendalton/Waimairi Community Board 17. 9. 2013
14 Cont’d
(bb) That the parking of vehicles be restricted to a maximum period of 120 minutes (9am to 4pm, Monday to Friday, February to November) on the north-eastern side of Watford Street, commencing at a point 15 metres southeast of its intersection with Halton Street and extending in a south-easterly direction for 49 metres.
(cc) That all existing parking and stopping restrictions on the north-eastern side of Watford Street, commencing at its intersection with Normans Road and extending in a north-westerly direction for 203 metres be revoked.
(dd) That the stopping of vehicles be prohibited at any time on the north-eastern side of Watford Street, commencing at its intersection with Normans Road and extending in a north- westerly direction for 21 metres.
(ee) That the parking of vehicles be restricted to a maximum period of 120 minutes (9am to 4pm, Monday to Friday, February to November) on the north-eastern side of Watford Street, commencing at a point 21 metres northwest of its intersection with Normans Road and extending in a north-westerly direction for 123 metres.
(ff) That the stopping of vehicles be prohibited at any time on the north-eastern side of Watford Street, commencing at a point 144 metres northwest of its intersection with Normans Road and extending in a north-westerly direction for 59 metres.
(gg) That all existing parking and stopping restrictions on the north-western side of Normans Road, commencing at its intersection with Urunga Avenue and extending in a north-easterly direction for 18 metres be revoked.
(hh) That the stopping of vehicles be prohibited at any time on the north-western side of Normans Road, commencing at its intersection with Urunga Avenue and extending in a north- easterly direction for 18 metres.
(ii) That all existing parking and stopping restrictions on the north-western side of Normans Road, commencing at its intersection with College Avenue and extending in a north-easterly direction for 19 metres be revoked.
(jj) That the stopping of vehicles be prohibited at any time on the north-western side of Normans Road, commencing at its intersection with College Avenue and extending in a north- easterly direction for 19 metres.
(kk) That all existing parking and stopping restrictions on the north-western side of Normans Road, commencing at its intersection with Watford Street and extending in a north-easterly direction for 17 metres be revoked.
(ll) That the stopping of vehicles be prohibited at any time on the north-western side of Normans Road, commencing at its intersection with Watford Street and extending in a north- easterly direction for 17 metres.
BOARD CONSIDERATION AND RESOLUTION
The Board considered the information supplied by the deputations and noted the that the proposed parking restrictions were to be in place from February to November and felt that it would be more effective to have the restrictions in place explicitly during school days rather than for the school year as the main driver for imposing restrictions was to deter all day student parking. The Board also noted the opposition to the proposed parking plan by some residents and the Tennis Club. 59 3. 10. 2013 Fendalton/Waimairi Community Board 17. 9. 2013
14 Cont’d
Taking these matters into account the Board resolved to adopt the staff recommendation subject to the following changes:
(a) That the restrictions put in place are on school days and not February to November as is now stated; and
(b) That the whole plan be reviewed in 12 months time.
15. CONSIDERATION OF APPLICATIONS FOR NEIGHBOURHOOD WEEK FUNDING 2013
The Board considered a report listing the applications received for the Fendalton/Waimairi Neighbourhood Week 2013 funding.
Staff advised that two late applications had been received and presented relevant information to the Board.
The Board resolved:
(a) To approve the allocations recommended for its 2013 Neighbourhood Week Fund as follows:
Numbers No. Name Activity Amount ($) Attending
1. Stephanie Winter BBQ 20 40
2. Sheryl Killick Afternoon Tea 30 40
David Chapple (Derenzy Place 3. Brunch 27 54 Neighbourhood Support Group)
4. Charlotte Bryden Picnic 40 80
Anita Bell (Avonhead Neighbourhood 5. BBQ Lunch 30 60 Support – Parkview Place)
6. Marnie Hewitt – Wallace Street Network) Street BBQ 50 100
7. Victoria Smith BBQ 50 100
8. Lynne Wise Afternoon Tea 30 50
Anna Western-Bell (Chislehurst Place 9. BBQ 40 80 residents)
10. Lesley Boomer BBQ 25 50
Keith Wardell (Glandovey Road 11. BBQ 50 100 Neighbourhood Group) Maria Ballinger (Flower Street/Warden 12. BBQ 32 64 Place Neighbourhood Support Group)
13. Jeffrey Ross BBQ 40 80
14. Glennis Radford BBQ 45 90
Alison Kircher (Wai-iti Terrance 15. BBQ 45 90 Neighbours)
16. Monica Renwick Afternoon Tea 13 26 60 3. 10. 2013 Fendalton/Waimairi Community Board 17. 9. 2013
15 Cont’d
Numbers No. Name Activity Amount ($) Attending Philip Buckingham (Derwant Street & 17. Sandringham Place Neighbourhood BBQ 90 120 Support Groups) Brian Jackson (Talltree Avenue BBQ/Street 18. 30 60 Neighbourhood Support Group) Picnic
19. Linda Carroll Pizza Picnic 50 100
20. Ronald Symons BBQ 30 60
Street Party and 21. Warren Kaneen 25 50 BBQ Carolyn Coghlan (Hawkswood 22. BBQ 100 200 Neighbourhood Support Group) Brian Dilger (Neighbourhood Watch 23. BBQ 28 56 Group) Kath Stone (Brookside Terrace West 24. BBQ 100 200 Neighbourhood Support Group)
25. Frances Evans BBQ 50 64.50
26. Andrea Thwaites BBQ 60 100
27. Iain Malcolm BBQ 85 100
28. Michelle Staples Street BBQ 90 180
Edward Malta (Willowbrook Place 29. Morning Tea 25 50 Neighbourhood Group)
30. Lyndsay Watson BBQ 40 80
31. Jane Hole (Neighbourhood Group) Morning Tea 8 20
32. Geraldine Heyward Afternoon Tea 45 90
33. Diane Rudkin Street BBQ 50 100
Total $2,784.50
(b) That the late application from G Heyward for an afternoon tea be accepted.
(c) That the late application from D Rudkin for a street BBQ in Plynlimon Park be accepted.
(d) That the application from R Gordon be declined as it related to an open day function to promote Russley Golf Course.
(e) That the application from J Irving be declined due to the street BBQ being held in February 2014 not during Neighbourhood Week but that Ms Irving be advised of other suitable funds for her planned event.
(Note: As per its Strengthening Communities Funding resolution of 20 August 2013 the Board noted that the unspent funds totalling $715.50 would remain available for allocation to other neighbourhood activities throughout the year.) 61 3. 10. 2013 Fendalton/Waimairi Community Board 17. 9. 2013
16. APPLICATION TO FENDALTON/WAIMAIRI COMMUNITY BOARD 2013/14 DISCRETIONARY RESPONSE FUND – PAPANUI TOC H ATHLETICS CLUB INC
The Board considered an application for funding from its 2013/14 Discretionary Response Fund from the Papanui Toc H Athletics Club Incorporated (Inc) for the Winter Fitness Training Programme.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
It is recommended that the Fendalton/Waimairi Community Board approves a grant of $500 from the 2013/14 Discretionary Response Fund to Papanui Toc H Athletics Club Inc for the Winter Fitness Training Programme.
BOARD CONSIDERATION AND RESOLUTION
Staff advised that post earthquake there was a shift in membership of the Athletics Club and that it had been determined that the current membership was now evenly split between the Shirley/Papanui and Fendalton/Waimairi wards.
Staff also advised that the Shirley/Papanui Community Board would be considering a report on Wednesday 18 September on this matter and the staff recommendation to that Board was $400.
The Fendalton/Waimairi Community Board resolved to allocate $400 from the 2013/14 Discretionary Response Fund to Papanui Toc H Athletics Club Inc for the Winter Fitness Training Programme subject to the Shirley/Papanui Community Board allocating $400 at its meeting on 18 September 2013.
17. APPLICATION TO THE FENDALTON/WAIMAIRI COMMUNITY BOARD’S YOUTH DEVELOPMENT FUND 2013/14 – ANDREW JAMES TYLER
The Board considered an application for funding from its 2013/14 Youth Development Fund from Andrew James Tyler towards the cost of competing at the Hockey New Zealand Under 15 Tournament.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
It is recommended that the Fendalton/Waimairi Community Board makes a grant of $100 to Andrew James Tyler towards the cost of competing at the Hockey New Zealand Under 15 Tournament.
BOARD CONSIDERATION AND RESOLUTION
The Board noted that it had allocated $150 to Andrew Tyler in the previous financial year and discussed Andrew’s achievements and noted that it was important to have consistency with last year’s allocation.
The Fendalton/Waimairi Community Board resolved to allocate $150 to Andrew James Tyler towards the cost of competing at the Hockey New Zealand Under 15 Tournament.
18. APPLICATION TO THE BOARD’S YOUTH DEVELOPMENT FUND 2013/14 – ANNELISE GIBBONS
The Board considered an application for funding from its 2013/14 Youth Development Fund from Annelise Gibbons towards the cost of competing at the Rhythmic Gymnastics New Zealand Nationals.
The Fendalton/Waimairi Community Board resolved to allocate $300 to Annelise Gibbons towards the cost of competing at the Rhythmic Gymnastics New Zealand Nationals.
The meeting concluded at 5.51pm. 62 3. 10. 2013 Fendalton/Waimairi Community Board 17. 9. 2013
SIGNED BY THE CHAIRPERSON OF THE BOARD AND THE COMMUNITY BOARD ADVISER PURSUANT TO STANDING ORDER 3.18.2.
CONFIRMED THIS 24TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2013
VAL CARTER CHAIRPERSON
EDWINA CORDWELL COMMUNITY BOARD ADVISER
63 3. 10. 2013
Clause 10 HAGLEY/FERRYMEAD COMMUNITY BOARD 4 SEPTEMBER 2013
Report of a meeting of the Hagley/Ferrymead Community Board held on Wednesday 4 September 2013 at 3pm in the Board Room, Woolston Club, 43 Hargood Street, Woolston, Christchurch.
PRESENT: Islay McLeod (Chairperson), David Cox (Deputy Chairperson), Tim Carter, Yani Johanson, Nathan Ryan and Bob Todd.
APOLOGIES An apology for absence was received and accepted from Brenda Lowe-Johnson.
The Board reports that:
PART A - MATTERS REQUIRING A COUNCIL DECISION
1. BARNETT PARK – APPLICATION FOR WATER PUMPING STATION AND ASSOCIATED PIPING AND CABLE EASEMENTS
General Manager responsible: General Manager City Environment Group, DDI 941 8608 Officer responsible: Unit Manager, Asset and Network Planning Author: John Allen – Policy and Leasing Administrator
PURPOSE OF REPORT
1. To present the Hagley/Ferrymead Community Board’s consideration and recommend that the Council, as delegate of the Minister of Conservation, gives Ministerial approval under section 48 of the Reserves Act 1977 to the granting by the Council of the easements over part of Barnett Park.
The report also sought the Board’s approval for granting of easements in favour of the Christchurch City Council pursuant to section 48 (6) of the Reserves Act 1977 over part of Barnett Park in which to lay potable water supply pipes, associated electric cabling, and convert the existing old closed toilet block to a pump station including the provision of a light vehicle drive to the building, as showed on the attached proposed easement plan (refer Attachment 1), to service the residential hill areas on Moncks Spur. Clause 1 (Part C) of this report records the Board’s delegated decision regarding this.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
2. The former potable water supply pump station sited in front of Monks Cave at the bottom of Cave Terrace was badly damaged in the earthquakes, being temporarily repaired until a new pump station is built.
3. There is a requirement to move the new pump station further away from the cliff face/cave for earthquake security reasons.
4. This area is of great significance to the local rununga, and therefore if there is an opportunity to move this pump station away from this corner then the Council needs to consider such an option seriously.
5. There is an old toilet block at the front of Barnett Park tucked into the native vegetation, which has been closed since the earthquakes because of damage to the building. There is a modern upgraded toilet block on the north end of the changing sheds, which is located approximately 200 metres by sealed surfaces further into the park, which services park users. 64 3. 10. 2013 Hagley/Ferrymead Community Board 4. 9. 2013
1 Cont’d
6. Investigations have been undertaken into strengthening this building to 66 per cent of the current earthquake building standards and fitting the pumping station inside it. These investigations have found that the building is admirably suited for such a purpose to enable the pumping station to be removed from the Monks Cave corner, thereby enabling this corner to be enhanced. Officers believe that this would be the favoured option from the local rununga’s perspective.
7. Officers believe that the removal of this old toilet block, (which does not comply with the Council’s “Crime Prevention Through Environmental Design” principals (CPTED), will not affect the Council’s level of service in the provision of public toilet facilities throughout the city, because of the newer, and since built upgraded public toilets close by in the park pavilion. Officers contend therefore that the level service for public toilet provision throughout the city will not be changed if this toilet block is not rebuilt as a toilet block.
8. Officers are recommending that the requested easements be approved.
FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS
9. The financial implications to the Council are as per the Stronger Christchurch Infrastructure Rebuild Team (SCIRT) Alliance Agreement that has been signed between three parties, these being the Canterbury Earthquake Recovery Authority (CERA), New Zealand Transport Authority (NZTA), and the Council.
Do the Recommendations of this Report Align with 2013-16 TYP budgets?
10. Yes, see previous paragraph.
LEGAL CONSIDERATIONS
11. The easements will be granted pursuant to section 48 (1) (f), [Providing or facilitating access or the supply of water to or the drainage of any other land not forming part of the reserve or for any other purpose connected with any such land], and 48(1) (d) for the associated electrical supply required.
12. There will be some temporary disturbance of the existing plantings within the reserve to enable water pipes to be laid to and from the upgraded former toilet block; any affected plantings being replaced after the services to and from the building have been laid. The pathway into the building will be widened to allow light vehicle access to the building. Other than this there will be no perceptible long term change to the front of the park.
13. Officers are of the view that no consultation will be necessary under the requirements of section 48 (2) of the Act, because the exceptions set out in section 48 (3) are fully complied with these being:
(a) The reserve is vested in an administering body and is not likely to be materially altered or permanently damaged; and
(b) The rights of the public in respect of the reserve are not likely to be permanently affected.
14. Officers are recommending that a condition be placed upon the granting of the easements to ensure that tangata whenua values are properly protected, this being that all construction work on site is to be undertaken in accordance with the requirements of the Christchurch Emergency Global Archaeological Authority dated 26 September 2016 which the Council holds for earthquake repair work.
15. The Council will not of course be charging itself a one off compensation payment as decided by independent valuation for the granting unto itself a legal interest, (easement), in the land In accordance with Council’s Easement Compensation Policy, (27 September 2001). 65 3. 10. 2013 Hagley/Ferrymead Community Board 4. 9. 2013
1 Cont’d
16. Barnett Park is a classified recreation reserve made up mainly of three parcels of land Pt RES 4947 of 7.248 hectares contained in CT 328620 (2007 page 2708 NZGZ), RES 4630 of 32.7542 hectares contained in CT 620/38 (1992 page 289 NZGZ), and RS 40504 of 0.0774 hectares contained in CT 467115 (1992 page 289 NZGZ). All parcels of land are vested in the Council pursuant to the Reserves Act 1977. The easements will be over the first mentioned parcel.
17. There is a management plan in place for Barnett Park dated August 1992. There is nothing in this management plan that precludes the Council granting further easements over Barnett Park, as long as the process as set out in section 48 of the Reserves Act 1977 is followed.
18. The Community Boards have delegated authority from the Council to consider and approve or otherwise applications for easements across reserves.
19. Under section 48 of the Act the Minister of Conservation’s consent is required to any grant of an easement over a reserve. On 12 June 2013 the Minister delegated his powers of approval to local authorities. At the time of preparing this report the Minister’s approval powers have not been further delegated to community boards and therefore a separate approval of the Council as delegate of the Minister’s powers will be required.
Have you considered the legal implications of the issue under consideration?
20. Yes, see above.
ALIGNMENT WITH LTCCP AND ACTIVITY MANAGEMENT PLANS
21. Not applicable.
Do the recommendations of this report support a level of service or project in the 2013-16 TYP?
22. Not applicable.
ALIGNMENT WITH STRATEGIES
23. Not applicable.
Do the recommendations align with the Council’s strategies?
24. Not applicable.
CONSULTATION FULFILMENT
25. Public consultation will not be required, see paragraph 6, 12, and 13 above.
26. The construction work will be undertaken in accordance with the requirements of the Christchurch Emergency Global Archaeological Authority dated 26 September 2011, (which includes amongst other things the requirement to have in place an accidental archaeological discovery protocol, before construction work commences on the site.
27. The Council has considered its iwi consultation requirements as it is required to do under section 4 of the Conservation Act 1987. The area concerned has been highly modified and for the reasons set out in paragraphs 4, 6, and 14, officers believe that no further consultation is required. 66 3. 10. 2013 Hagley/Ferrymead Community Board 4. 9. 2013
1 Cont’d
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
It is recommended that the Council as delegate of the Minister of Conservation, gives Ministerial approval under section 48 of the Reserves Act 1977 to the granting by the Council of the easements referred to in recommendation (a) (6) of this resolution.
BOARD RECOMMENDATION
The Board decided on the motion of David Cox, seconded by Islay McLeod, to recommend that the Council as delegate of the Minister of Conservation, gives Ministerial approval under section 48 of the Reserves Act 1977 to the granting by the Council of the easements over part of Barnett Park.
Clause 1 (Part C) of this report records the Board’s delegated decision regarding the granting of the easements.
BACKGROUND
28. All easements shown on the attached plan are sized in accordance with the development standards for subdivisions, that being the easement width is to be a minimum of twice the depth the utility service is laid plus the diameter of the service itself. The easement for buildings is the area covered by the building plus an apron around the outside of the building of one metre.
29. It was intended to remove the old toilet block at the front of the park once the newer toilets into the park were upgraded. Public toilets are expensive items to maintain, and therefore need to be strategically placed to ensure that the maintenance costs incurred are justified. The cost to maintain two public toilet blocks close to one another in a suburban urban park situation is difficult to justify.
PART B - REPORTS FOR INFORMATION
2. MAIN ROAD MASTER PLAN – DRAFT FOR COMMUNITY CONSULTATION
This report was considered by the Council at its meeting on 12 September 2013 by way of a Chairperson’s Report.
3. DEPUTATIONS BY APPOINTMENT
3.1 MT PLEASANT MEMORIAL COMMUNITY CENTRE AND RESIDENTS ASSOCIATION INC
The Board received a deputation and presentation from Linda Rutland, Coordinator of the Mt Pleasant Memorial Community Centre and Residents Association Inc seeking Community Board support for capital funding from the Council to complete the shortfall they currently have to rebuild the Mt Pleasant Community Centre.
The Board decided on the motion of Islay McLeod, seconded by Yani Johanson, to record its support for the Council considering a grant of $500,000 to the Mt Pleasant Memorial Community Centre towards the rebuilding of the Mt Pleasant Community Centre.
The Board noted that this support does not indicate Board approval under its delegations at any future time.
The Board Chairperson thanked Linda Rutland for the deputation on behalf of the Association.
4. PRESENTATION OF PETITIONS
Nil. 67 3. 10. 2013 Hagley/Ferrymead Community Board 4. 9. 2013
5. NOTICES OF MOTION
Nil.
6. CORRESPONDENCE
Nil.
7. BRIEFINGS
7.1 SCOTT PARK CONCEPT PLAN
The Board received a briefing from Eric Banks, Senior Network Planner Greenspace, on the Scott Park Concept Plan included within the draft Main Road Master Plan. Board members were advised that the Concept Plan has been developed with park lessee and users, and of the rationale for the proposed pathway through the park.
Richard MacKay, Commodore of the Mt Pleasant Yacht Club addressed the Board in support of the Council staff consultation with park users to date and safety and usability in relation to the position of the pathway.
The Board Chairperson thanked Eric Banks for the briefing to the Board and Richard MacKay for his contribution.
8. COMMUNITY BOARD ADVISER’S UPDATE
The Board received information from the Community Board Adviser on Board related activities including upcoming meetings, current consultations and District Plan Review.
The Board received an update on the Hagley/Ferrymead Small Grants Fund Assessment Committee meeting held on Wednesday 28 August. The Board decided to write to the community representatives appointed to the Committee, Wayne Hawker, Mike Hannifin and Cecilia Fitzgerald to acknowledge their contributions to the Committee.
The Board received an update in response to the request for information on the future of the Linwood Service Centre at 180 Smith Street.
The Board was advised a letter has been received from the Office of Hon Gerry Brownlee acknowledging receipt of the correspondence from the Board regarding the Christchurch Community House. Board members were made aware that a meeting has been held with the Christchurch Community House regarding a new location for the House.
9. QUESTIONS UNDER STANDING ORDERS
Nil.
10. ELECTED MEMBERS’ INFORMATION EXCHANGE
The Board agreed to invite Joshua Smith (Youth Development Fund recipient),a member of the St Andrew’s College Pipe Band, to attend a future Board meeting.
Board members discussed recent announcements regarding the number of residents expected to reside in the central city and decided to request information on the progress of the Central City Living Zones Review undertaken by the Council early in 2013. 68 3. 10. 2013 Hagley/Ferrymead Community Board 4. 9. 2013
10 Cont’d
The Board Chairperson tabled notes from the Land Drainage Recovery Programme Public Meetings held on 2 and 3 September 2013.
PART C – REPORT ON DELEGATED DECISIONS TAKEN BY THE BOARD
11. DECLARATION OF INTEREST
There were no declarations of interest.
12. CONFIRMATION OF MEETING MINUTES – 21 AUGUST 2013
It was resolved on the motion of Bob Todd, seconded by Nathan Ryan, that the minutes of the Board’s ordinary meeting of 21 August 2013 be confirmed.
1. BARNETT PARK – APPLICATION FOR WATER PUMPING STATION AND ASSOCIATED PIPING AND CABLE EASEMENTS (CONTINUED)
The Board considered a report seeking the Board’s approval for granting of easements in favour of the Christchurch City Council pursuant to section 48 (6) of the Reserves Act 1977 over part of Barnett Park in which to lay potable water supply pipes, associated electric cabling, and convert the existing old closed toilet block to a pump station including the provision of a light vehicle drive to the building, to service the residential hill areas on Moncks Spur.
The report also sought the Board’s recommendation that the Council, as delegate of the Minister of Conservation, gives Ministerial approval under section 48 of the Reserves Act 1977 to the granting by the Council of the easements. Clause 1 (Part A) of this report records the Board’s recommendation regarding this.
The Board resolved on the motion of David Cox, seconded by Islay McLeod, to:
(a) Approve the granting unto itself pursuant to the requirements of section 48 of the Reserves Act 1977 over Pt RES 4947 of 7.248 hectares contained in CT 328620 (2007 page 2708 NZGZ) which is part of Barnett Park a classified recreation reserve the following easements:
(i) An easement pursuant to section 48 (1) (f) and (d) over approximately 123 square metres of the park which encompasses the present closed toilet block which is to be converted to a pump station, and the pipe work and associated cabling into and out of the converted pump station.
(ii) An easement pursuant to section 48 (1) (a) over approximately 110 square metres of the park so as to widen the present foot path to the former toilet block to a light vehicle driveway from the main park driveway.
The granting of these easements is subject to the following conditions:
1. The easement terms being negotiated by the Corporate Support Unit Manager or their nominee.
2. The easement construction area being maintained by the applicant, and their contractors in a safe and tidy condition at all times.
3. The easements being surveyed as built and registered on the Councils title.
4. All the infrastructure to be built is to be placed within the easement. 69 3. 10. 2013 Hagley/Ferrymead Community Board 4. 9. 2013
1 Cont’d
5. The Council not require the payment of a one off compensatory payment as decided by independent valuation for the privilege of having the easement encumbrance placed on the Council’s title in accordance with Council policy (27 September 2001), because the Council would be charging and paying itself.
6. The Company undertaking the work is to contact the Greenspace Area Contracts Supervisor to sign a temporary access licence before any construction work commences on the site. After completing the work the Contractor is to be released from the temporary access licence requirements by the Greenspace Area Contract Supervisor after inspection of the restoration of the site has occurred to ensure it has been left in a standard acceptable to this person.
7. To ensure the protection of tangata whenua values, all construction work on site is to be undertaken in accordance with the requirements of the Christchurch Emergency Global Archaeological Authority dated 26 September 2016 which the Council holds for earthquake repair work.
8. Any shrubs that need to be removed to allow the work to be undertaken are to be replaced with new plants once the construction work has been completed.
(b) Approve the following:
(i) Not undertaking public consultation before granting the easement as required by section 48 (2) of the Reserves Act 1977 due to the requirements of section 48 (3) being fulfilled as elaborated upon in paragraph 11 of this report.
(ii) The Council has fulfilled iwi consultation requirements as required under section 4 of the Conservation Act 1987 for the reasons set out in paragraph 27, and recommendation (a) (7) above.
13. APPLICATION TO HAGLEY/FERRYMEAD COMMUNITY BOARD 2013/14 DISCRETIONARY RESPONSE FUND – THE FRIENDS OF EDMONDS FACTORY GARDEN INC
The Board considered a report seeking approval of an application for funding to the Hagley/Ferrymead Community Board 2013/14 Discretionary Response Fund from The Friends of Edmonds Factory Garden Inc towards purchasing Sunrise Seats.
It was resolved on the motion of David Cox, seconded by Bob Todd, that the Hagley/Ferrymead Community Board approve a grant of $4,255 from the 2013/14 Discretionary Response Fund to The Friends of Edmonds Factory Garden Inc towards purchasing Sunrise Seats.
8. COMMUNITY BOARD ADVISER’S UPDATE (CONTINUED)
Following the Board’s final ordinary meeting for this term scheduled for 18 September 2013, the minutes from that meeting are required to be confirmed. For this to occur it is proposed that this action be undertaken by the Chairperson and Deputy Chairperson on behalf of the Board.
It was resolved on the motion of Bob Todd, seconded by Tim Carter, that the minutes of the Board’s ordinary meeting on 18 September 2013 be confirmed on behalf of the Board by the Board Chairperson and Deputy Chairperson.
The Board Chairperson declared the meeting closed at 4.25pm.
CONFIRMED THIS 18TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2013
ISLAY MCLEOD CHAIRPERSON 70 71 3. 10. 2013
ATTACHMENT 1 TO CLAUSE 1
72 73 3. 10. 2013
Clause 11 HAGLEY/FERRYMEAD COMMUNITY BOARD 18 SEPTEMBER 2013
Report of a meeting of the Hagley/Ferrymead Community Board held on Wednesday 18 September 2013 at 3pm in the Board Room, Woolston Club, 43 Hargood Street, Woolston, Christchurch.
PRESENT: Islay McLeod (Chairperson), David Cox (Deputy Chairperson), Tim Carter, Yani Johanson, Brenda Lowe-Johnson, Nathan Ryan and Bob Todd.
APOLOGIES: An apology for lateness was received and accepted from Yani Johanson who arrived at 3.04pm and was absent for clauses 12, 13 and part of clause 3.1.
The Board meeting was adjourned from 3.10pm to 3.20pm.
The Board reports that:
PART A - MATTERS REQUIRING A COUNCIL DECISION
1. YOUTH HOSTEL ASSOCIATION – ROLLESTON HOUSE LEASE EXTENSION
General Manager responsible: General Manager City Environment, DDI 941 8608 Officer responsible: Unit Manager Transport & Greenspace Author: Luke Rees-Thomas, Leasing Consultant
PURPOSE OF REPORT
1. To present the Hagley/Ferrymead Community Board’s recommendation to the Council, that the Corporate Support Manager be delegated authority to vary the lease agreement by an extension of the current term to 22 November 2015 and the provision of one further 12 month renewal option to the Lessee.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
2. The Council currently leases ‘Rolleston House’ a Heritage status building located at 5 Worcester Street to The Youth Hostels Association (YHA) of New Zealand Incorporated. The ‘YHA’ has occupied the premise since the original purchase by Council in 1976.
3. Following the YHA’s previous lease expiry in July 2011, the Community Board recommended (and subsequently the Council resolved) to allow an extension of the lease agreement to the present expiry date of 20 November 2014. This decision was determined as a result of the February 2011 earthquake and the urgent requirement to re-establish inner city accommodation, in particular the backpacker tourist market.
4. The YHA is requesting a further extension of the lease for 12 months to 20 November 2015, with an additional right of renewal option included for a further 12 month term. These requests propose a potential final lease expiry of 20 November 2016.
5. The Lessee’s reasoning for the above requests is detailed within their letter dated 17 June 2013, addressed to Council staff and drafted by the YHA’s Chief Executive (refer Attachment 1). In summary, the YHA’s new premise in Manchester Street is estimated for opening mid 2015. To avoid reducing the city’s accommodation numbers, an overlap in tenancies is required. If downtime is sustained between the lease expiry of Rolleston House in November 2014 and the opening of Manchester Street in mid 2015, it is estimated 60 YHA beds will be unavailable for seven months and will apply further pressure on an already stressed regional supply. 74 3. 10. 2013 Hagley/Ferrymead Community Board 18. 9. 2013 1 Cont’d
6. It is feasible that Rolleston House may be required by the YHA beyond November 2016, though a decision on this will be delayed until demand is determined nearer the time. A two year extension will also provide time for the Council to undertake a detailed options review for the site whilst rental income is generated.
7. Council staff note the Lessee’s financial contribution to the premise upgrade along with the regional pressure to re-establish the city’s accommodation levels. Staff therefore support the requests submitted by the Lessee for lease extension, as detailed within the options provided and staff recommendation put forward.
FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS
8. Should the lease be extended, the Council as Lessor will benefit from further rental funds received and vacancy downtime eliminated until 2015 at a minimum. A market rental valuation will be sought and applied with respect to the rental paid from 20 November 2014 through to the final expiry date in 2016.
Do the Recommendations of this Report Align with 2013-16 TYP budgets?
9. Yes.
LEGAL CONSIDERATIONS
10. The proposed variation of lease document will be drafted through the Council’s in-house legal team, with any legal recommendations considered.
11. The Community Board does not have the delegated authority to authorise the granting of the proposed lease; that decision needs to be made by the full Council. The Community Board does have powers to make recommendations to the Council.
Have you considered the legal implications of the issue under consideration?
12. Yes.
ALIGNMENT WITH LTCCP AND ACTIVITY MANAGEMENT PLANS
13. Not Applicable.
Do the recommendations of this report support a level of service or project in the 2013-16 TYP?
14. Yes.
ALIGNMENT WITH STRATEGIES
15. Christchurch Visitor Strategy, for example, Goal 1.3 – Ensure the range and quality of visitor accommodation meets visitor needs.
Do the recommendations align with the Council’s strategies?
16. Yes.
CONSULTATION FULFILMENT
17. Council practice provides that an expiring commercial lease is taken to the market for expressions of interest. Given the extraordinary circumstances to which the tenant’s requests surround, the city’s accommodation supply is reliant on retaining operations such as the YHA’s and any vacancy of the premise would have a negative effect on the region during a critical period of the rebuild. 75 3. 10. 2013 Hagley/Ferrymead Community Board 18. 9. 2013 1 Cont’d
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
That the Council:
(a) Grant an extension of the current lease to 20 November 2015 and provide one further right of renewal option for 12 months with a final expiry of 20 November 2016 to the Youth Hostels Association of New Zealand Incorporated, over part of the property located at 5 Worcester Street also known as Rolleston House; and
(b) Grant delegated authority to the Corporate Support Unit Manager to negotiate the rental for the extended lease term(s) from 20 November 2014 to the expiry of the lease, based on market rates.
BOARD RECOMMENDATION
The Board decided to recommend on the motion of Tim Carter, seconded by Bob Todd, to the Council that the staff recommendation be adopted.
BACKGROUND (THE ISSUES)
18. The property located at 5 Worcester Street on the corner of Rolleston Avenue is referred to as Rolleston House. The legal description is Part Rural Section 364, 366 and 368 in the District of Canterbury. The building has a Category II listing with New Zealand Historic Places Trust.
19. The property was acquired from the Canterbury University in 1976 and gazetted as land taken for a parking place vested in the Council and funded from the Parking Account.
20. The property adjoins the existing public car park which surrounds the property and is isolated from nearby residential properties. (Lot 2 DP 36171 and PT Lot 14 DP 1003).
21. The property is zoned as Living 4C (Central City – Character) in the Christchurch City Plan.
22. Over the course of the Tenant’s 37 year lease term, the YHA has invested a substantial amount of funds into the building, most notably during the recent refurbishment in conjunction with the Council’s earthquake insurance funded repairs. For example; kitchen/bathroom facilities and sprinkler systems – all of which have allowed the YHA to maintain regulatory compliance whilst providing an above average standard of accommodation for guests.
23. Following the February 2011 earthquake, the tenant was unable to operate from the premise until a substantial repair and upgrade programme was completed in collaboration with the Council’s Facilities Rebuild (heritage) team. The tenant was cooperative and heavily involved with the repair and refurbishment programme despite hindering their ability to trade over the period.
24. As mentioned in paragraph 5, the Council has received a letter from the YHA outlining request and reasoning for an extension to their current lease (refer Attachment 1).
25. A further letter of support has been received from the Chief Executive of Christchurch and Canterbury Tourism, which provides a similar basis for lease extension justification (refer Attachment 2).
26. The Council’s internal asset owner, Transport and Greenspace Unit, have confirmed there are no alternative uses planned for the site within the requested extension term and they endorse the staff recommendation within this report. Following the eventual departure of YHA, there is likelihood that the premise will either be leased to a similar replacement tenant. 76 3. 10. 2013 Hagley/Ferrymead Community Board 18. 9. 2013 1 Cont’d
27. The building in question, Rolleston House, is included under the heritage classification which provides little scope for structural and fit-out modification. This extends to limitations on a change of use from the current utilisation, that being a hostel/boutique hotel. The building is unique in its construction fabric and as a result will also limit layout possibilities to potential tenants. Should the lease be taken to market following a departure by YHA, it is expected that potential operators will come from a somewhat niche market and not abundant in numbers.
28. YHA’s intentions for Rolleston House beyond their requested extension to 2015/2016 are yet to be finalised. It is expected their decision will be based on whether both Rolleston House and the new Manchester Street operation will operate in unison, or if the Manchester Street premise will meet demand. It is expected that this decision will be re-assessed and determined as the city’s rebuild escalates and how the supply for backpacker accommodation quantifies at that time.
THE OPTIONS
Option A
29. Deal unilaterally with the current tenant by granting an extension of lease to 20 November 2015 and provide one further right of renewal option for 12 months to 20 November 2016.
This option will allow the Tenant to continue operating on site and validates their previous commitments to the premise being the funds and improvements they have invested into the building during the lease term. The local accommodation market will not be negatively affected and YHA bed numbers will be retained throughout the transition to their new premise and possibly beyond.
Option B
30. Decline the Tenant’s requests for an extension and take the lease to market upon expiry of the current term being 20 November 2014.
The Council will likely experience an undetermined loss of rental income between tenancies and the accommodation market may be affected by a reduction of 60 beds. The Landlord may be required as part of new lease negotiations to invest further funds into the premise to meet the requirements of the new tenant. Only expressions of interest involving permanent residential accommodation could be considered without changes to the City Plan. Any change in the current activity of the site which is currently classified as residential and traveller’s accommodation and recreation activities would require resource consent.
THE PREFERRED OPTION
31. Option A - Deal unilaterally with the current tenant by granting an extension of the lease to 20 November 2015 and provide one further right of renewal option for 12 months to 20 November 2016.
2. COMMUNITY BOARD ADVISER’S UPDATE
UPDATE MEMO TO THE BOARD – NO RIGHT TURN FROM HARPER AVENUE INTO PARK TERRACE
The Board received a previously circulated memo (refer Attachment 1) from staff providing an update on the no right turn from Harper Avenue into Park Terrace.
The Board also received a deputation and correspondence regarding this matter, clauses 3 and 5 refer. 77 3. 10. 2013 Hagley/Ferrymead Community Board 18. 9. 2013 2 Cont’d
BOARD CONSIDERATION
Board members discussed the memo and previous information, matters raised in the deputation and correspondence and ongoing traffic implications with regard to the current right turn ban. Board members were advised that the memo had also been received and considered by the Fendalton/Waimairi Community Board.
The Board decided on the motion of Yani Johanson, seconded by Islay McLeod, to:
(a) Receive the memo providing an update on the No Right Turn from Harper Avenue into Park Terrace.
(b) Request that the Council reinstate the right turn from Harper Avenue into Park Terrace.
BOARD RECOMMENDATION
That the Council reinstate the right turn from Harper Avenue to Park Terrace.
(Note: The Board requested that the staff memo be attached to the Board’s recommendation on this matter.)
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
That staff prepare a report to the incoming Council. Refer to the Notice of Motion in item 39.2.
PART B - REPORTS FOR INFORMATION
2. COMMUNITY BOARD ADVISER’S UPDATE (CONTINUED)
2.1 CURRENT BUSINESS
The Board received information from the Community Board Adviser on Board related activities including the balances of the Hagley/Ferrymead Community Board 2013/14 Discretionary Response Fund and Youth Development Scheme Funds, current Council consultations and a memo providing information to the Board on the current status of the Deans Avenue: Hagley Crossing Project. The Community Board Adviser and other staff present thanked Board members for their support and work during the term.
2.2 SCARBOROUGH PADDLING POOL SITE – EARLY CHILDHOOD AQUATIC PLAY FACILITY
Board members considered community recommendations developed following a community workshop convened by the Board in August and further community feedback on the future use of the former Scarborough Paddling Pool site.
The Board decided on the motion of Islay McLeod, seconded by Tim Carter, to endorse the following community recommendations with regard to an aquatic play facility on the site of the former Scarborough paddling pool.
Support for rebuilding an early childhood aquatic play facility on the site as soon as practical. An up to date facility incorporating a graduated pool and soft surface play area such as splash pads and water toys. A facility that is designed to be accessible. A fence or barrier between the pool area and the road to increase safety. That the facility blend in/is complementary to the surrounding environment. Shading and shelter be included. Seating be included. Support for showers being included. 78 3. 10. 2013 Hagley/Ferrymead Community Board 18. 9. 2013 2 Cont’d
Link between the aquatic play facility and the playground to ensure that land use is optimised. That changing rooms are not an essential feature at this time but that design of the facility should not preclude development of these in the future.
3. DEPUTATIONS BY APPOINTMENT
3.1 JOSHUA SMITH
The Board received a deputation from Joshua Smith, a Youth Development Scheme grant recipient and a member of the St Andrew’s College Pipe Band. Joshua thanked the Board for the grant, discussed the Pipe Band’s achievements winning the World Pipe Band and Drumming Championships (Juvenile) in Glasgow and displayed the trophies, shield and badge the Band were awarded with. The Board Chairperson invited Joshua to play the bagpipes for the meeting.
The Board Chairperson thanked Joshua Smith for his deputation and his performance.
3.2 TONY SIMPSON, PHILLIPSTOWN SCHOOL
The Board received a deputation from Tony Simpson, Principal Phillipstown School supported by the School’s Board of Trustees. Tony Simpson updated the Board on the School’s Judicial Review of the Ministry of Education decision to close the school and sought approval for an application for funding from the Board’s Discretionary Response Fund.
Clause 19 (Part C) of this report details the Board’s decision on application for funding.
The Board Chairperson thanked Tony Simpson for his deputation.
3.3 BRUCE BELLIS
The Board received a deputation and supporting information from Bruce Bellis in support of the reinstatement of the right turn from Harper Avenue into Park Terrace and providing comment on the staff memorandum on this matter.
The Board Chairperson thanked Bruce Bellis for his deputation.
Clause 2 (Part A) of this report details the Board’s recommendation to the Council on this matter.
3.4 DARYL HEWITT AND MICHAEL ROCHFORD, DJ HEWITT BUILDERS LIMITED
The Board received a deputation from Daryl Hewitt and Michael Rochford, from DJ Hewitt Builders Limited. Board members were advised that Michael Rochford is the top building apprentice for the Central South Island and will be competing in the national competition in Auckland in October.
The Board Chairperson thanked Daryl Hewitt and Michael Rochford for their deputation, congratulated Michael on his achievement and wished him well for the national competition.
4. PRESENTATION OF PETITIONS
Nil. 79 3. 10. 2013 Hagley/Ferrymead Community Board 18. 9. 2013 5. NOTICES OF MOTION
Nil.
6. CORRESPONDENCE
The Board received a memo from Bruce Garrett, General Manager, The George, requesting the reinstatement of the right turn from Harper Avenue into Park Terrace. Clause 2 (Part A) of this report refers to the Board’s recommendation to the Council on this matter.
The Board received a letter from Tennis Canterbury, Wilding Park Foundation, thanking the Board for their recent support of their project application for Tennis Canterbury and the Wilding Park Foundation to reinstate tennis courts.
The Board received a letter from Roger Sutton, Chief Executive Canterbury Earthquake Recovery Authority, in response to the Board’s correspondence regarding accommodation for Christchurch Community House.
7. BRIEFINGS
7.1 HEATHCOTE VALLEY COMMUNITY FACILITIES
The Board received a briefing and supporting information from Council staff and representatives from the Heathcote community, Sooze Harris and Sandy Chamberlain on key points from a community meeting on Heathcote Valley community facilities held on 11 September.
The Board acknowledged and recorded its thanks for the work of Sooze Harris, Sandie Chamberlain and others involved in organising and facilitating the community meeting.
8. HAGLEY/FERRYMEAD SMALL GRANTS FUND ASSESSMENT COMMITTEE – MINUTES OF 28 AUGUST 2013
It was decided on the motion of Islay McLeod, seconded by Bob Todd, that the minutes of the Hagley/Ferrymead Small Grants Fund Assessment Committee meeting of 28 August 2013 be received and noted for record purposes.
9. QUESTIONS UNDER STANDING ORDERS
Nil.
10. ELECTED MEMBERS’ INFORMATION EXCHANGE
Board members discussed the flowering median strips on Linwood Avenue and Bealey Avenue and decided to acknowledge the Transport and Greenspace Unit and their contractors for the upkeep of these areas.
The Board decided to acknowledge and thank the Woolston Club for their hospitality in making the Boardroom available for the Board to meet in since August 2012.
The Board decided to write to Fulton Hogan to acknowledge the contributions of the company by donating work towards construction of the Coastal Pathway and the restoration of Kerrs Reach.
Board members discussed the Central City Recovery Plan Accessible City transport chapter and decided to request a briefing from the Central City Development Unit on the Central City Recovery Plan and Accessible City transport chapter early in the new term of the Board. 80 3. 10. 2013 Hagley/Ferrymead Community Board 18. 9. 2013 10 Cont’d
The Board decided to write to the Cashmere Technical Football Club to congratulate the Senior Men’s Team on winning the ASB Chatham Cup.
Board members were advised that the Environment and Infrastructure has referred the Heathcote Valley noise issue back to the Hagley/Ferrymead Community Board for further consideration. The Board decided to contact KiwiRail to request further information on their activity in Heathcote.
Board members acknowledged and thanked Council staff for their work during the term of the Board.
11. VALEDICTORIES/POROPOROAKI
The Board received valedictories from retiring members Tim Carter, David Cox and Bob Todd.
Board members spoke in appreciation of the contributions and services of Tim Carter, David Cox and Bob Todd to the Board and the community. On behalf of the Board the Chairperson presented them with acknowledgements of their service.
PART C – REPORT ON DELEGATED DECISIONS TAKEN BY THE BOARD
12. DECLARATION OF INTEREST
There were no declarations of interest.
13. CONFIRMATION OF MEETING MINUTES – 4 SEPTEMBER 2013
It was resolved on the motion of Bob Todd, seconded by David Cox, that the minutes of the Board’s ordinary meeting of 4 September 2013 be confirmed.
14. BILLYS TRACK AND MAJOR HORNBROOK ROAD – PROPOSED NO-STOPPING RESTRICTION
The Board considered a report seeking approval to install no-stopping restrictions on Billys Track.
It was resolved on the motion of Bob Todd, seconded by David Cox,
(a) That any parking or stopping restrictions on the eastern side of Major Hornbrook Road commencing at its intersection with Billys Track and extending in a southerly direction for a distance of 20 metres be revoked.
(b) That any parking or stopping restrictions on the eastern side of Major Hornbrook Road commencing at its intersection with Billys Track and extending in a northerly direction for a distance of 23.5 metres be revoked.
(c) That any parking or stopping restrictions on the southern/uphill side of Billys Track be revoked.
(d) That any parking or stopping restrictions on the northern/downhill side of Billys Track be revoked.
(e) That the stopping of vehicles be prohibited at any time on the eastern side of Major Hornbrook Road commencing at its intersection with Billys Track and extending in a southerly direction for a distance of 20 metres. 81 3. 10. 2013 Hagley/Ferrymead Community Board 18. 9. 2013 14 Cont’d
(f) That the stopping of vehicles be prohibited at any time on the eastern side of Major Hornbrook Road commencing at its intersection with Billys Track and extending in a northerly direction for a distance of 23.5 metres.
(g) That the stopping of vehicles be prohibited on the southern side of Billys Track commencing at its intersection with Major Hornbrook Road and extending in an easterly or a southerly direction for 101 metres to its intersection with Mt Pleasant Road.
(h) That the stopping of vehicles be prohibited on the northern side of Billys Track commencing at its intersection with Major Hornbrook Road and extending in an easterly or a southerly direction for 96 metres to its intersection with Mt Pleasant Road.
15. CONSIDERATION OF APPLICATIONS FOR NEIGHBOURHOOD WEEK FUNDING
The Board considered a report presenting 28 applications for Hagley/Ferrymead Community Board Neighbourhood Week 2013 funding. Staff advised of an error in an application included in the agenda and tabled an updated matrix with amended staff recommendations.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
That the Board consider the applications as set out in the matrix and allocate Neighbourhood Week funds accordingly.
BOARD CONSIDERATION
Board members discussed the application from the Community and Public Health on behalf of the Fruit and Vege Co-op volunteers and if the application was appropriate for the criteria for Neighbourhood Week.
BOARD DECISION
(a) It was resolved on the motion of Tim Carter, seconded by Bob Todd, that the application from Anne Vanschevensteen of Community and Public Health on behalf of the Fruit and Vege Co-op volunteers be referred to the Hagley/Ferrymead Community Board 2013/14 Discretionary Response Fund and allocated a grant of $100.
(b) It was resolved on the motion of Tim Carter, seconded by Bob Todd, that the Board allocate its Neighbourhood Week funds to a total of $3,400 as follows:
No. Contact/Organisation Location of Activity Allocation
OK Corral Scooter Park or 1 Sumner Bays Union Trust $150.00 Redcliffs Community Shed 2 Jill Boanas Muritai Terrace $100.00
3 Linwood North School Linwood North School $100.00
4 Neighbourhood Watch Jura Place $77.00 St Chad’s Church, 5 Anglican Parish of Linwood – St Chad’s $200.00 Carnarvon Street Neighbourhood 6 Wakatu Avenue $80.00 Wakatu Avenue 7 Robin Arnold Brigid Place $100.00
8 Charlotte Russell Hamlet Lane $70.00 82 3. 10. 2013 Hagley/Ferrymead Community Board 18. 9. 2013
No. Contact/Organisation Location of Activity Allocation
9 Max Lucas Smith Street, Linwood $150.00
10 Stephanie Gandy Sumnervale Drive $125.00 Linwood Avenue Community 11 Linwood Resource Centre Corner Trust and Linwood $250.00 Resource Centre 12 Linwood Intermediate School Linwood Intermediate School $250.00
13 Wildberry Street No. 1 Group Wildberry Street $50.00
14 Sonia Taylor Highlight Lane $50.00
15 Phillipstown Community Centre Community Centre $150.00 The Friends of Linwood Cemetery 16 Linwood Cemetery $115.00 Charitable Trust 17 Liza Bannock Stoke Street $75.00
18 Gary Charmley Mt Pleasant Road $70.00
19 Fiona Miller Beachville Road $100.00 Marty and Friends, 20 Local community $150.00 Mt Pleasant Community Ma and Pas Bakery, 22 Neighbourhood Support $150.00 Stanmore Road 23 Flinders Road Neighbourhood Watch Heathcote Domain $120.00
24 Woolston Community Association Inc Woolston Park $100.00
25 Marnie Erkkila Dacre Street $85.00
26 Dianne Taylor End of Dunkeld Lane $100.00 Brownlee Reserve, 27 Clifton Neighbourhood Committee $200.00 Panorama Road 28 Barnardos 100 Ensors Road $233.00
(c) It was resolved on the motion of Yani Johanson, seconded by Tim Carter, that the unallocated Neighbourhood Week Funds of $100 be transferred to the Hagley/Ferrymead Community Board 2013/14 Discretionary Response Fund.
16. APPLICATION TO HAGLEY/FERRYMEAD COMMUNITY BOARD 2013/14 DISCRETIONARY RESPONSE FUND – FRIENDS OF EDMONDS FACTORY GARDEN INC
The Board considered a report seeking approval of an application for funding to the Hagley/Ferrymead Community Board 2013/14 Discretionary Response Fund from The Friends of Edmonds Factory Garden Inc towards event related costs.
It was resolved on the motion of Bob Todd, seconded by Tim Carter, that the Hagley/Ferrymead Community Board approve a grant of $1,000 from the 2013/14 Discretionary Response Fund to The Friends of Edmonds Factory Garden Inc towards event related costs.
83 3. 10. 2013 Hagley/Ferrymead Community Board 18. 9. 2013 17. APPLICATION TO THE HAGLEY/FERRYMEAD COMMUNITY BOARD 2013/14 YOUTH DEVELOPMENT SCHEME – JOHN KENNETH TUMBALI POBLADOR AND JASFER VALIAO ROSALITAS
The Board considered a report seeking approval of an application for funding to the Hagley/Ferrymead Community Board 2013/14 Youth Development Scheme from John Kenneth Tumbali Poblador and Jasfer Valiao Rosalitas.
It was resolved on the motion of Bob Todd, seconded by Islay McLeod, that the Hagley/Ferrymead Community Board support the application and allocate $200 each from the 2013/14 Youth Development Scheme fund as a contribution to John Kenneth Tumbali Poblador and Jasfer Valiao Rosalitas to compete at the annual national Filipino sports and cultural event in Rotorua from 25 to 27 October 2013.
18. APPLICATION TO THE HAGLEY/FERRYMEAD COMMUNITY BOARD 2013/14 YOUTH DEVELOPMENT SCHEME – KATIE JANE CORY-WRIGHT
The Board considered a report seeking approval of an application for funding to the Hagley/Ferrymead Community Board 2013/14 Youth Development Scheme from Katie Jane Cory-Wright.
It was resolved on the motion of Islay McLeod, seconded by Bob Todd, that the Hagley/Ferrymead Community Board support the application and allocate $500 from the 2013/14 Youth Development Scheme fund as a contribution to Katie Jane Cory-Wright to represent New Zealand in orienteering in Australia from 26 September to 7 October 2013.
19. APPLICATION TO HAGLEY/FERRYMEAD COMMUNITY BOARD 2013/14 DISCRETIONARY RESPONSE FUND – PHILLIPSTOWN SCHOOL BOARD OF TRUSTEES
The Board considered a report seeking approval of an application for funding to the Hagley/Ferrymead Community Board 2013/14 Discretionary Response Fund from Phillipstown School Board of Trustees towards a Judicial Review.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
It is recommended that the Hagley/Ferrymead Community Board declines a grant from the 2013/14 Discretionary Response Fund to Phillipstown School Board of Trustees towards a Judicial Review.
BOARD CONSIDERATION
The Board received a deputation from Tony Simpson, Principal Phillipstown School, regarding this matter, clause 2.2 (Part B) refers.
Board members discussed the application and sought advice from staff on this application and the matters relating to the criteria and process regarding the Discretionary Response Fund.
BOARD DECISION
It was resolved unanimously on the motion of Islay McLeod, seconded by Brenda Lowe-Johnson, that the Hagley/Ferrymead Community Board approve a grant of $10,000 from the Hagley/Ferrymead Community Board 2013/14 Discretionary Response Fund to the Phillipstown School Board of Trustees towards the Judicial Review.
It was decided on the motion of Yani Johanson, seconded by Brenda Lowe-Johnson, that the Board:
(a) Acknowledge the work that Phillipstown School is doing in the local community and that the Board supports the course of action undertaken by the school.
(b) Respects the professional advice provided by Council staff. 84 3. 10. 2013 Hagley/Ferrymead Community Board 18. 9. 2013
20. APPLICATION TO HAGLEY/FERRYMEAD COMMUNITY BOARD 2013/14 DISCRETIONARY RESPONSE FUND – KIMIHIA ADVENTURE PROGRAMME TRUST
The Board considered a report seeking approval of an application for funding to the Hagley/Ferrymead Community Board 2013/14 Discretionary Response Fund from Kimihia Adventure Programme Trust towards the Youth Development Worker wages.
It was resolved on the motion of Islay McLeod, seconded by Bob Todd, that the Hagley/Ferrymead Community Board approve a grant of $2,000 from the 2013/14 Discretionary Response Fund to Kimihia Adventure Programme Trust towards the Youth Development Worker wages.
21. APPLICATION TO HAGLEY/FERRYMEAD COMMUNITY BOARD 2013/14 DISCRETIONARY RESPONSE FUND – AVEBURY HOUSE COMMUNITY TRUST
The Board considered a report seeking approval of an application for funding to the Hagley/Ferrymead Community Board 2013/14 Discretionary Response Fund from Avebury House Community Trust towards purchasing furniture and equipment.
It was resolved on the motion of Yani Johanson, seconded by Tim Carter, that the Hagley/Ferrymead Community Board approve a grant of $2,255 from the 2013/14 Discretionary Response Fund to Avebury House Community Trust towards the purchase of furniture and equipment.
22. APPLICATION TO HAGLEY/FERRYMEAD COMMUNITY BOARD 2013/14 DISCRETIONARY RESPONSE FUND – SUMNER OUT OF SCHOOL CARE AND RECREATIONAL SERVICES
The Board considered a report seeking approval of an application for funding to the Hagley/Ferrymead Community Board 2013/14 Discretionary Response Fund from the Sumner Out of School Care and Recreational Services (SOSCARS) towards training costs.
The Board decided to write to the Ministers of Social Development and Education to express disappointment in the changes to funding of OSCAR programmes which has resulted in a reduction for SOSCARS.
It was resolved on the motion of Islay McLeod, seconded by Bob Todd, that the Hagley/Ferrymead Community Board approve a grant of $1,210 from the 2013/14 Discretionary Response Fund to SOSCARS towards training courses.
The Board Chairperson declared the meeting closed at 5.30pm.
85 3. 10. 2013 Hagley/Ferrymead Community Board 18. 9. 2013
SIGNED BY THE CHAIRPERSON AND DEPUTY CHAIRPERSON OF THE BOARD AND THE COMMUNITY BOARD ADVISER PURSUANT TO STANDING ORDER 3.8.2
CONFIRMED THIS 25TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2013
ISLAY MCLEOD CHAIRPERSON
DAVID COX DEPUTY CHAIRPERSON
JO DALY COMMUNITY BOARD ADVISER Christchurch City Council City Environment Group
Memorandum
Date: 24 September 2013
From: Paul Burden, Road Corridor Operations Manager
To: Mayor and Councillors REGARDING ITEM 11.2 OF THE HAGLEY FERRYMEAD REPORT TO COUNCIL 18 SEPTEMVBER 2013: ADDITIONAL STAFF COMMENTARY – COUNCIL MEETING 3 AND 4 OCTOBER 2013
Purpose of this Memo
1. The purpose of this memo is to provide additional information to the Council concerning traffic matters where Community Boards have resolved not to support staff recommendations or have raised a notice of motion.
No Right Turn from Harper Avenue into Park Terrace
2. The Hagley/Ferrymead Community Board, at its 18th September 2013 meeting, resolved to “Request that the Council reinstate the right turn from Harper Avenue into Park Terrace”
3. The Council resolution giving effect to this ban reads “the right turn movement from Harper Avenue into Park Terrace be banned; until such a time as the one way east west network of Salisbury Street, Kilmore Street, Lichfield Street and St Asaph Street is fully operative” (Traffic Congestion Management – presented to Council on 5 April 2012).
4. The ban was introduced for strategic purposes post earthquakes to keep traffic moving along Bealey Avenue which continues to experience elevated volumes. However the wording of the resolution implies it is a temporary solution. Also the resolution is no longer pertinent given the content of the AAC document as it relates to the one-way streets i.e. Kilmore and Salisbury Streets will become two-way Streets. For this reason a more relevant resolution is required to continue with the ban or the ban should be uplifted. Staff support a new resolution to retain the ban however it is acknowledged that travel patterns may change considerably following the one-way street conversions (Kilmore Street is currently scheduled for 2014) and a further review should occur at this time. The consequences of uplifting the ban now are that traffic travelling along Harper Avenue and Bealey Avenue will experience increased delay due to the need to reintroduce the right turn phase from Harper Avenue into Park Terrace.
Halswell – Request for Speed Review
Transport & Greenspace Unit - Christchurch City Council - 53 Hereford Street - PO Box 73014 Christchurch 8154 - Telephone (03) 941-8092 – Paul. [email protected] Trim: 13/933739 5. A Notice of Motion at the Riccarton / Wigram Community Board on 3rd September 2013 reads: “That the Board request a comprehensive speed review in Halswell from Templeton’s Road, Henderson’s Road, Sparks Road and Halswell Junction Road. This review is to include Halswell Road (State Highway 75)”.
6. Staff will arrange for the additional areas to be reviewed in conjunction with the current speed limit review underway in that area.
Cranford Street/ Main North Road – Zebra Crossing Upgrade
7. The Shirley/Papanui Community Board, at its 18th September meeting, resolved “to ask staff whether there has been a safety audit undertaken of the crossing/ intersection after the installation of the crossing and if so what the results of this are”
8. This arose because the Board received correspondence regarding the end to employment of a school crossing warden on the Cranford Street/Main North Road intersection. The warden was employed through Board funding. A raised zebra crossing has been installed at this intersection and it has now been deemed safe by staff, so a warden is no longer required. Hence the Board is seeking confirmation, through an audit, that in fact the raised zebra crossing has sufficiently mitigated the pre-existing safety concerns.
9. Staff will complete a formal safety audit and report back to the Community Board.
Recommendation
10. That the information be received
Paul Burden Road Corridor Operations Manager Transport and Greenspace DDI: 03 941 8938 MOB: 027 499 5881 Email: [email protected] Web: www.ccc.govt.nz
Christchurch City Council 53 Hereford Street, PO Box 73014 Christchurch 8154
Transport & Greenspace Unit - Christchurch City Council - 53 Hereford Street - PO Box 73014 Christchurch 8154 - Telephone (03) 941-8092 – Paul. [email protected] Trim: 13/933739 86 3. 10. 2013 Hagley/Ferrymead Community Board 18. 9. 2013 ATTACHMENT 1 TO CLAUSE 1
87 3. 10. 2013 Hagley/Ferrymead Community Board 18. 9. 2013 ATTACHMENT 2 TO CLAUSE 1
88 3. 10. 2013 Hagley/Ferrymead Community Board 18. 9. 2013 ATTACHMENT 2 TO CLAUSE 1 Cont’d
ATTACHMENT 1 TO CLAUSE 2 HAGLEY FERRYMEAD COMMUNITY BOARD 18. 9. 2013 89
Christchurch City Council City Environment Group
Memorandum
Date: 20 August 2013
From: MO KACHFI – SENIOR ENGINEER - CAPITAL
To: FENDALTON/ WAIMAIRI COMMUNITY BOARD AND HAGLEY/ FERRYMEAD COMMUNITY BOARD cc: Edwina Cordwell – Community Board Adviser (for distribution) cc Jo Daly – Community Board Adviser (for distribution)
Attachments: 1. Memo dated 27 March 2012 to Fendalton/ Waimairi and Hagley/ Ferrymead Community Boards (Trim: 12/186488)
2. Memo dated 24 April 2013 to Fendalton/ Waimairi Community Board (Trim: 13/274701)
3. Appendix A (Trim: 13/798829)
4. Appendix B (Trim: 13/798869)
NO RIGHT TURN FROM HARPER AVENUE INTO PARK TERRACE
Purpose of this Memo: The purpose of this memo is to provide Fendalton/Waimairi and Hagley/Ferrymead Community Boards with an update on the current Right Turn ban from Harper Avenue into Park Terrace.
Background: Memos were presented to both the Fendalton/Waimairi and Hagley/Ferrymead Community Boards in March 2012 and April 2013 (refer to Attachment One and Attachment Two) which explained the reasons behind the ban and what needs to happen before the ban can be considered for relaxation.
Furthermore, a report was also presented to the Council on 5 April 2012, in the form of chapter 14, titled Traffic Congestion Management, in which detailed explanations same to that in the attachments were given for the ban. It was resolved that the Council receive the information within the report.
Information requested: The Fendalton/Waimairi and the Hagley/ Ferrymead Community Boards requested an update from staff on this matter following the removal of cordons.
Email: [email protected] Trim: 13/778825 ATTACHMENT 1 TO CLAUSE 2 HAGLEY FERRYMEAD COMMUNITY BOARD 18. 9. 2013 90 - 2 -
Members of the Community Boards will recall the conclusion of the memo dated 24 April 2013 which was “Due to the fact that Bealey Avenue is still compensating for the loss of level of service incurred because of the continued road closures within the four Avenues, coupled with the ever growing needs for temporary traffic management in the CBD, it is not feasible at this stage to consider relaxing the ban”.
The removal of the cordons in June of this year did not bring about a great deal of relief to the four Avenues. Instead, it has made it possible for delayed demolitions and construction to begin at a faster pace which intensified the requests even more for temporary traffic management including road closures, lane restrictions and certain restrictions on specific movements. An extract, which was taken shortly after the traffic surveys were done, of these major road works on the four Avenues and within, is included as Appendix A. Please refer to Attachment Three. The planning and execution of these road works change on daily basis and can be viewed by visiting the Council’s website at www.transportforchristchurch.govt.nz.
To prove whether significant changes to traffic volumes following the removal of the cordons had in fact materialised, a fresh traffic survey was conducted on Tuesday 30 July 2013, at Bealey/Carlton/Harper intersection, Bealey/ Papanui/ Victoria intersection and Kilmore/ Park Terrace intersection. The results can be seen in tables, 1, 1a, 2, 2a, 3 and 3a. Traffic data before and after the earthquakes where available have also been included as Appendix B, please refer to Attachment Four, for comparison.
Table 1 Bealey/Carlton/Harper 2013 AM Peak Counts Approach Left Through Right Bealey East Approach 83 1538 316 Park Terrace 186 196 0 Harper 63 1011 0 Carlton 343 247 0
Table 1a Bealey/Carlton/Harper 2013 PM Peak Counts Approach Left Through Right Bealey East Approach 75 863 350 Park Terrace 222 351 0 Harper 42 1353 0 Carlton 343 247 0
Table 2 Bealey/Papanui/Victoria 2013 AM Peak Counts Approach Left Through Right Bealey East Approach 64 1502 266 Victoria 133 194 16 Bealey West Approach 178 1040 199 Papanui 212 377 260
Table 2a Bealey/Papanui/Victoria 2013 PM Peak Counts Approach Left Through Right Bealey East Approach 29 947 265 Victoria 112 254 27 Bealey West Approach 228 1379 97 Papanui 222 227 165
Email: [email protected] Trim: 13/778825 ATTACHMENT 1 TO CLAUSE 2 HAGLEY FERRYMEAD COMMUNITY BOARD 18. 9. 2013 91 - 3 -
Table 3 Kilmore/Park Terrace AM Peak Counts Approach Left Through Right Park Terrace North Approach 0 0 0 Kilmore 146 0 99 Park Terrace South Approach 0 246 0
Table 3a Kilmore/Park Terrace PM Peak Counts Approach Left Through Right Park Terrace North Approach 0 0 0 Kilmore 50 0 180 Park Terrace South Approach 0 491 0
The results from the fresh traffic surveys clearly show that the volume of traffic along Bealey Avenue and Harper Avenue are as high now as they were after the 22 February earthquake. The results also show that at the time of the traffic survey, Kilmore/ Park Terrace intersection was operating at about a third of its normal capacity, this is because of the on going road works in the area. This is consistent with our findings and the reasons for the ban of the right turn from Harper Avenue as described in details in the memo dated 27 March 2012. Please refer to Attachment One. The reasons for this consistency is the fact that the road network along the four Avenues and within are still far from being normal, i.e. as they were before the events of the earthquakes. As stated in previous memos until we get to that stage the four Avenues will continue to work harder to compensate for the loss of level of services on the adjacent road network. The delicate balance that exists at present will be compromised greatly if the ban was to be lifted bringing with it hardship and even longer queues and delays to the majority of road users along the Bealey Avenue and Harper Avenue corridors.
Conclusion: The conclusion presented to Fendalton/Waimairi Community Board in the attached memo dated 24 April 2013 applies. Please refer to Attachment Two.
With works starting to ramp up in the central city after the removal of the cordons, competition for road space will also increase as there is more and more demand for temporary traffic management within the four Avenues coming from private developers, SCIRT, Council and CERA which is likely to be the case for the next three to four years.
Furthermore, looking ahead, The Draft “An Accessible City” Chapter of the Recovery Plan, if approved by the Minister for Earthquake Recovery, talks about Park Terrace becoming a local distributor and Salisbury/Kilmore one-way being converted to two-way streets with through trips will be encouraged onto the four Avenues where these Avenues themselves will be upgraded to improve travel around the Central City.
Combining all these factors together, the recommendation is to keep the ban on right turn from Harper Avenue in the interest of the majority of road users and also in the interest of road safety and efficiency and to review the situation again in four years time or when these factors have been addressed.
Mo Kachfi SENIOR ENGINEER - CAPITAL
Email: [email protected] Trim: 13/778825 ATTACHMENT 1 TO CLAUSE 2 HAGLEY FERRYMEAD COMMUNITY BOARD 18. 9. 2013 92
Christchurch City Council City Environment Group
Memorandum
Date: 27 March 2012
From: SEAN LEWIS
To: FENDALTON / WAIMAIRI COMMUNITY BOARD HAGLEY / FERRYMEAD COMMUNITY BOARD
cc: Edwina Cordwell and Jo Daly – Community Board Advisers
Attachments: None
RIGHT TURN FROM HARPER AVENUE INTO PARK TERRACE
Purpose of this Memo: The purpose of this memo is to give the Fendalton/Waimairi and Hagley/Ferrymead Community Boards an update on why reinstating the right-turn from Harper Avenue into Park Terrace is not recommended.
Background: During the period following the 22 February earthquake, traffic volumes were not at normal levels and some key roads (including Kilmore Street and Salisbury Street) were closed. This resulted in huge volumes of traffic using Bealey Avenue instead of the Kilmore Street and Salisbury Street one-way pair.
The previous controls used at the intersection of Bealey Avenue/Carlton Mill Road/Harper Avenue/Park Terrace were not suitable to handle this redistribution of traffic. For this reason, the wording of the strategic routes report read “The right turn movement from Harper Avenue into Park Terrace be banned; until such a time as the one way east west network of Salisbury Street, Kilmore Street, Lichfield Street and St Asaph Street is fully operative”.
These roads are not yet all fully operative. At present, the only way to move from the central-eastern suburbs (e.g. Linwood, Dallington, etc) to the western side of town is via Bealey Avenue. This traffic would have previously used Kilmore Street and entered the Bealey Avenue/Carlton Mill Road/Harper Avenue/Park Terrace intersection from the Park Terrace approach. Now, traffic heading to the west uses Bealey Avenue.
Information requested:
Transport & Greenspace Unit • Civic Offices • 53 Hereford Street • PO Box 73014 • Christchurch 8154 Telephone (03) 941 8621 • Fax (03) 941 8864 • Email [email protected] TRIM: 12/186488 ATTACHMENT 1 TO CLAUSE 2 HAGLEY FERRYMEAD COMMUNITY BOARD 18. 9. 2013 93 - 2 -
There are two main considerations before we would recommend returning the signals control to that used before 22 February 2011.
These are:
1. Traffic Volumes and Flow
2. Intersection Layout and Safety
Traffic Volumes and Flow Prior to 22 February, vehicles coming from the east side of town used Kilmore Street to connect with Park Terrace. They would then left-turn onto Harper Avenue and continue west. Due to the current closure of Kilmore Street and the closed connection from Avonside Drive, these vehicles are now using Bealey Avenue to head west.
As a result, the traffic volumes heading west in the morning peak have increased to 180% of pre-quake levels. The traffic volumes for the evening peak heading west have also increased to 110% of pre-quake levels. For this reason, the west-bound traffic in both the AM and PM peaks requires a longer green-time than previously allocated.
To conflict with this, in the PM peak the east-bound traffic has also increased to 115%. For this reason the east-bound traffic in the PM peak also requires a longer green-time than previously allocated.
Park Terrace is currently acting as a main through-route south through the Central Business District while Durham Street is closed. Park Terrace is also acting as a north-bound replacement for traffic previously using Madras Street (closed from Tuam Street to Hereford Street), and Fitzgerald Avenue (reduced to one-lane and 30 kilometres per hour from Kilmore Street to Cambridge Terrace). If we reduce the time currently allocated to Park Terrace/Carlton Mill Road, these vehicles will suffer longer delays.
Reinstating the right turn from Harper Avenue into Park Terrace will not be recommended until capacity has been added elsewhere in the network to allow for the displaced traffic from Kilmore Street so this traffic does not use Bealey Avenue, or Kilmore Street is operational again.
Conclusion – Both east-bound and west-bound traffic through Bealey Avenue/Harper Avenue require more time than allocated pre-quake. No time can be sacrificed from Park Terrace/Carlton Mill Road and time can not be increased.
Intersection Layout and Safety The bridge at the Harper Avenue approach to this intersection is very narrow and only has space for the current two east-bound lanes. There is nowhere to add a turning bay for right turning traffic to wait-in while looking for a gap in the traffic. Therefore, right turning vehicles will be blocking through traffic and will be under extreme pressure to enter the intersection and turn unsafely.
The offset layout of the intersection means that visibility for right turning traffic down Bealey Avenue is poor and there is no safe space in the intersection to wait and prepare to turn. In addition to this, Bealey Avenue is also wide at this point, with turning vehicles required to cross two through-lanes before exiting the intersection.
This creates a major safety issue which can only be resolved by preventing west-bound traffic from flowing while east-bound traffic has a green light. This is called ‘split-approach phasing’.
Transport & Greenspace Unit • Civic Offices • 53 Hereford Street • PO Box 73014 • Christchurch 8154 Telephone (03) 941 8621 • Fax (03) 941 8864 • Email [email protected] TRIM: 12/186488 ATTACHMENT 1 TO CLAUSE 2 HAGLEY FERRYMEAD COMMUNITY BOARD 18. 9. 2013 94 - 3 -
This is how the intersection control used to operate prior to 22 February. Unfortunately, due to the increased traffic flows, the intersection will not sustain this type of control. Modelling data shows that the financial cost of level-of-service reduction will increase by 15%, using the New Zealand Transport Agency (NZTA) Economic Evaluation Manual.
There is an allowance in the proposed Central City Plan for upgrading the capacity of the Four Avenues. Hopefully this will include improvement of the bridge to carry a right-turning lane, or an allowance to provide improved, safer access into this corner of the city nearby.
Conclusion – The intersection layout does not allow those wishing to turn right to wait safely to turn. Split approach phasing will be required which will not handle the post- earthquake traffic volumes, causing longer queues to form along Bealey Avenue and Harper Avenue.
Looking Ahead Currently the right turn from Bealey Avenue into Victoria Street is causing frustration for many drivers. For this reason this movement is receiving about 25% of the entire cycle time at this intersection.
Looking ahead, we expect that a majority of these right-turning vehicles will continue east along Bealey Avenue to Durham Street, once Durham Street is reopened. The green arrow at this intersection will make the right turn easier and safer than the current right turn into Victoria Street.
This will have a major congestion-relief effect on Victoria Street, Dorset Street and Park Terrace. When traffic using Park Terrace as a through-route has migrated from Park Terrace to Durham Street, the extra time involved detouring via Victoria Street will be similar to the delay inflicted to all vehicles at Bealey Avenue/Carlton Mill Road/Harper Avenue/Park Terrace if the right turn was reinstated.
In fact, if the right turn is reinstated, there will be little or no incentive for vehicles to continue to Durham Street and the character of Park Terrace will likely remain as it is currently, with bumper to bumper traffic. I’m sure this is not the environment that the residents of Park Terrace expect.
Summary Reinstating the right turn from Harper Avenue into Park Terrace is not recommended for two main reasons.
The changed traffic flows and volumes would be adversely affected by the way the traffic signals had to operate, using split-approach phasing. This split-approach phasing is required due to the lack of space on the existing Harper Avenue bridge for a dedicated right- turn lane. Modelling done in accordance with the NZTA Economic Evaluation Manual shows that the financial cost of level-of-service reduction will increase by 15%.
Reinstating the right turn from Harper Avenue into Park Terrace will not be recommended until capacity has been added elsewhere in the network to allow for the displaced traffic from Kilmore Street, so this traffic does not use Bealey Avenue, or Kilmore Street is operational again. There is an allowance in the proposed Central City Plan for upgrading the capacity of the Four Avenues. Hopefully this will include improvement of the bridge to carry a right- turning lane, or an allowance to provide improved, safer access into this corner of the city nearby.
Looking ahead, the displaced vehicles heading from west to south will be better served to turn at Bealey Avenue/Durham Street, so will naturally migrate there. This will allow for
Transport & Greenspace Unit • Civic Offices • 53 Hereford Street • PO Box 73014 • Christchurch 8154 Telephone (03) 941 8621 • Fax (03) 941 8864 • Email [email protected] TRIM: 12/186488 ATTACHMENT 1 TO CLAUSE 2 HAGLEY FERRYMEAD COMMUNITY BOARD 18. 9. 2013 95 - 4 -
easier turning and reduced delays to vehicles needing to access Park Terrace via Dorset Street
Sean Lewis TRAFFIC SYSTEMS TEAM LEADER
Transport & Greenspace Unit • Civic Offices • 53 Hereford Street • PO Box 73014 • Christchurch 8154 Telephone (03) 941 8621 • Fax (03) 941 8864 • Email [email protected] TRIM: 12/186488 ATTACHMENT 1 TO CLAUSE 2 HAGLEY FERRYMEAD COMMUNITY BOARD 18. 9. 2013 96
Christchurch City Council City Environment Group
Memorandum
Date: 24 April 2013
From: MO KACHFI – CTOC SENIOR ENGINEER
To: FENDALTON / WAIMAIRI COMMUNITY BOARD
cc: Edwina Cordwell – Community Board Adviser (for distribution) and Kay Rabe
Attachments: Memo to Fendalton / Waimairi and Hagley / Ferrymead Community Boards dated 27 March 2012 (TRIM 13/281343)
NO RIGHT TURN FROM HARPER AVENUE INTO PARK TERRACE
Purpose of this Memo: The purpose of this memo is to provide Fendalton / Waimairi Community Board with an update on the current Right Turn ban from Harper Avenue into Park Terrace.
Background: A memo was presented to both the Fendalton / Waimairi and Hagley / Ferrymead Community Boards in March 2012 (refer Attachment 1) which explained the reasons behind the ban and what needs to happen before the ban can be considered for relaxation.
Furthermore, a report was also presented to the Council on 5 April 2012, in the form of chapter 14, titled Traffic Congestion Management, in which detailed explanations same to that in the attachment were given for the ban. It was resolved that the Council receive the information within the report.
Information requested: The Fendalton / Waimairi Community Board requested an update from staff on this matter.
Members of the Community Board will recall the summary of the memorandum presented to you in March 2012 which was:
Reinstating the right turn from Harper Avenue into Park Terrace is not recommended for two main reasons.
(a) The changed traffic flows and volumes would be adversely affected by the way the traffic signals had to operate, using split-approach phasing. This split-
Transport and Greenspace • Civic Offices • 53 Hereford Street • PO Box 73014 • Christchurch 8154 Telephone (03) 941 8996 • Fax (03) 941 8784 • [email protected] Trim: 13/274701 ATTACHMENT 1 TO CLAUSE 2 HAGLEY FERRYMEAD COMMUNITY BOARD 18. 9. 2013 97 - 2 -
approach phasing is required due to the lack of space on the existing Harper Avenue bridge for a dedicated right-turn lane. Modelling done in accordance with the NZTA Economic Evaluation Manual shows that the financial cost of level-of-service reduction will increase by 15 percent.
(b) Reinstating the right turn from Harper Avenue into Park Terrace will not be recommended until capacity has been added elsewhere in the network to allow for the displaced traffic from Kilmore Street, (so this traffic does not use Bealey Avenue), or Kilmore Street is operational again. There is an allowance in the proposed Central City Plan for upgrading the capacity of the Four Avenues. This is likely to require improvement of the bridge to carry a right-turning lane, or an allowance to provide improved, safer access into this corner of the city nearby.
Chapter 14 of the report presented to the Council on 5 April 2012 endorsed the above summary. It also added the following statement “The previous controls used at the intersection of Bealey Avenue / Carlton Mill Road / Harper Avenue / Park Terrace were not suitable to handle this redistribution of traffic”. For this reason, the wording of the strategic routes report read “The right turn movement from Harper Avenue into Park Terrace be banned; until such a time as the one way east west network of Salisbury Street, Kilmore Street, Lichfield Street and St Asaph Street is fully operative”.
Unfortunately, the situation has not changed much since March and April 2012, and these roads will not be fully operational for sometime yet. Furthermore, a number of Central City projects are commencing that will increase the demand on the Avenues, including Bealey Avenue.
Conclusion: Due to the fact that Bealey Avenue is still compensating for the loss of level of service incurred because of the continued road closures within the four Avenues, coupled with the ever growing needs for temporary traffic management in the CBD, it is not feasible at this stage to consider relaxing the ban.
Mo Kachfi CTOC – SENIOR ENGINEER
Transport and Greenspace • Civic Offices • 53 Hereford Street • PO Box 73014 • Christchurch 8154 Telephone (03) 941 8996 • Fax (03) 941 8784 • [email protected] Trim: 13/274701 ATTACHMENT 1 TO CLAUSE 2 HAGLEY FERRYMEAD COMMUNITY BOARD 18. 9. 2013 98 ATTACHMENT 1 TO CLAUSE 2 HAGLEY FERRYMEAD COMMUNITY BOARD 18. 9. 2013 99 ATTACHMENT 1 TO CLAUSE 2 HAGLEY FERRYMEAD COMMUNITY BOARD 18. 9. 2013 100 ATTACHMENT 1 TO CLAUSE 2 HAGLEY FERRYMEAD COMMUNITY BOARD 18. 9. 2013 101 ATTACHMENT 1 TO CLAUSE 2 HAGLEY FERRYMEAD COMMUNITY BOARD 18. 9. 2013 102 ATTACHMENT 1 TO CLAUSE 2 HAGLEY FERRYMEAD COMMUNITY BOARD 18. 9. 2013 103 ATTACHMENT 1 TO CLAUSE 2 HAGLEY FERRYMEAD COMMUNITY BOARD 18. 9. 2013 104 ATTACHMENT 1 TO CLAUSE 2 HAGLEY FERRYMEAD COMMUNITY BOARD 18. 9. 2013 105 ATTACHMENT 1 TO CLAUSE 2 HAGLEY FERRYMEAD COMMUNITY BOARD 18. 9. 2013 106 ATTACHMENT 1 TO CLAUSE 2 HAGLEY FERRYMEAD COMMUNITY BOARD 18. 9. 2013 107 ATTACHMENT 1 TO CLAUSE 2 HAGLEY FERRYMEAD COMMUNITY BOARD 18. 9. 2013 108 109 3. 10. 2013
LYTTELTON/MT HERBERT COMMUNITY BOARD Clause 12 22 AUGUST 2013
Report of a meeting of the Lyttelton/Mt Herbert Community Board held on Thursday 22 August 2013 at 1.30pm in the Boardroom, Lyttelton Service Centre, 15 London Street, Lyttelton.
PRESENT: Paula Smith (Chairperson), Jeremy Agar, Ann Jolliffe, Adrian Te Patu and Andrew Turner.
APOLOGY: An apology for lateness was received and accepted from Claudia Reid who arrived at 3pm and was absent for Clauses 1, 2, 3, 12 and 14.
Jeremy Agar departed early at 4.20pm and was absent for a part of Clause 10.
KARAKIA: Adrian Te Patu gave the opening karakia.
The Board reports that:
PART B - REPORTS FOR INFORMATION
1. LYTTELTON CIVIC SQUARE DESIGN
This item was presented to the 12 September 2013 Council meeting by way of a Chairperson’s Report.
2. DECLARATION OF INTEREST
There were no declarations of interest.
3. DEPUTATIONS BY APPOINTMENT
3.1 SERGEANT GARY MANCH, LYTTELTON POLICE
Sergeant Gary Manch, Lyttelton Police showed a video taken by the Lyttelton Tunnel Control showing the risky behaviour and law breaking activities of anti social car drivers at night on Norwich Quay with approximately 100 vehicles arriving and being parked on the Quay and adjacent streets. Sergeant Manch is working with Council staff to alleviate the problem with possible parking restrictions being implemented during night time hours.
The Board decided to refer the information provided by Sergeant Manch to staff to investigate and report back to the Board on the suggestion outlined in that document.
3.2 ALI MITCHELL – CASS BAY FORESHORE
Ali Mitchell, a resident of Cass Bay, spoke to her correspondence item requesting Board support to alleviate safety issues for swimmers in Cass Bay caused by powered craft.
The Board decided to hold a site visit meeting with Environment Canterbury staff, the Harbourmaster, Council staff and Cass Bay Residents’ Association members to discuss the safety issue for swimmers in Cass Bay caused by powered craft.
(Clause 4.2 of these minutes refers.) 110 3. 10. 2013 Lyttelton/Mt Herbert Community Board 22. 8. 2013 3 Cont’d
3.3 ROWENA MACGILL – HEAD TO HEAD WALKWAY
Rowena MacGill, a resident of Teddington, spoke in favour of the Head to Head Walkway, welcoming the links it will have to the Walking Festival and other activities around the harbour basin. Ms MacGill is keen to see temporary signage erected and a simple map and walkway explanation printed now, but is also keen to avoid duplication of the organisation for the Walkway.
(Clause 5 of these Minutes refers.)
4. CORRESPONDENCE
4.1 UNIVERSITY OF CANTERBURY – HOROMAKA GEOPROJECT
The Board received correspondence from the University of Canterbury on the Horomaka Geoproject and decided to extend an invitation to Dr Hampton to address the Board on this subject.
4.2 ALI MITCHELL – CASS BAY FORESHORE
The Board received correspondence from Ali Mitchell regarding safety concerns with power boats travelling close to the Cass Bay Foreshore endangering swimmers.
4.3 DAVID BUNDY – LYTTELTON POLICE CELL BLOCK
The Board received correspondence from David Bundy on the Lyttelton Police Cell Block and decided to request an urgent briefing from staff and support for an urgent heritage assessment of the cell block and its environs.
The Board decided to write to the Minister of Police requesting a delay in any possible demolition of the Lyttelton Police Cell Block until the heritage assessment is complete to allow community discussions to be completed.
5. PETITIONS
Nil.
6. NOTICES OF MOTION
The following Notice of Motion was submitted by Paula Smith.
MOVED that the Lyttelton/Mt Herbert Community Board establish a Head to Head Working Party to support and progress the Board’s objective Head to Head Walkway up and running, in general accordance with the attached Terms of Reference and set a date for the first meeting.
The Board received the Notice of Motion.
Paula Smith, with the consent of the meeting altered the motion to read:
MOVED that the Lyttelton/Mt Herbert Community Board establish a Head to Head Working Party to support and progress the Board’s objective Head to Head Walkway up and running, in accordance with the amended attached Terms of Reference (Appendix 1). That the Community Board write to the listed organisations seeking representatives for the Head to Head Working Party and that the Community Board Adviser make arrangements for the first meeting to be held as soon as practicable. 111 3. 10. 2013 Lyttelton/Mt Herbert Community Board 22. 8. 2013 6 Cont’d
The altered Notice of Motion was seconded by Andrew Turner and being put to the meeting was declared carried.
7. MINUTES OF LYTTELTON HARBOUR/WHAKARAUPO ISSUES GROUP – 9 JULY 2013
The Board received the minutes of the Lyttelton Harbour/Whakaraupo Issues Group meeting held 9 July 2013.
8. RESERVE MANAGEMENT COMMITTEES
Nil.
9. BRIEFINGS
9.1 ROBYN GARDENER, TRANSPORT SAFETY MANAGER, ROAD CORRIDOR OPERATIONS
Robyn Gardener, Transport Safety Manager, Road Corridor Operations outlined her role and reported to the Board on some of her current projects.
10. COMMUNITY BOARD ADVISER’S UPDATE
The Board received information from the Community Board Adviser on various matters.
BANKS PENINSULA WATER MANAGEMENT ZONE COMMITTEE MINUTES – WETLANDS RESTORATION
The Board decided to discuss the leadership role with Rāpaki/Ngai Tahu and how the Community Board could be an effective partner.
LOCAL EARTHQUAKE RECOVERY CO-ORDINATION
The Board expressed concern at the continuing delay for the Port Hills Review to be completed as it had originally been promised to affected residents in December 2012.
LYTTELTON HARBOUR STORMWATER MANAGEMENT PLAN
The Board decided to request a briefing from staff with information on the timeline for dates of formal consents and opportunities that are available for community involvement regarding the Lyttelton Harbour Stormwater Management Plan.
11. ELECTED MEMBERS’ INFORMATION EXCHANGE
Specific mention was made of the following matters:
ALLANDALE RESERVE MANAGEMENT COMMITTEE
The Board expressed concern that the publicly scheduled and advertised meetings of the Allandale Reserve Management Committee had not taken place for the past four months.
NEIGHBOURHOOD SUPPORT GROUP
The Board heard of the Neighbourhood Support Group’s concern that Community Board members were not attending their meetings and agreed that the regular meetings scheduled for Monday mornings are a very difficult time for members to attend. 112 3. 10. 2013 Lyttelton/Mt Herbert Community Board 22. 8. 2013 11 Cont’d
LYTTELTON TORPEDO BOAT MUSEUM
The Board heard that there is some confusion regarding the Torpedo Boat Museum’s requirement to pay for insurance to cover a steam engine on display, which has been borrowed from the Canterbury Museum. The amount of insurance is the subject of a regular annual application to the Board’s Small Grants Fund Committee.
The Board decided to request staff to advise how the Lyttelton Torpedo Boat Museum’s insurance covering the steam engine be funded in the future. The Community Board Adviser is to confirm if the engine has been borrowed from the Canterbury Museum or the University of Canterbury and to check the loan arrangements in relation to insurance before seeking staff advice.
CHARTERIS BAY GOLF CLUB
The Board decided to request that Barry Bowater and Bill Studholme from Orton Bradley Park Trust and the Captain of the Charteris Bay Golf Club be invited to attend a Board seminar to discuss the matter of the rent review.
CITY COUNCIL SPORTS PARKS
The Board expressed concern that the new Sports Parks brochure published by the Council includes details of sports parks in Rangiora and Dunsandel but does not include the three sports parks in Banks Peninsula.
LYTTELTON SEAFARERS CENTRE
The Board decided to write a letter of support in principle, for funding of the new Seafarers Centre in Lyttelton.
CRUISE SHIPS
The Board heard that the Port Recovery Plan being lead by Environment Canterbury is planned for release by the end of 2013 and it is likely that one cruise ship berth will be available for use in two years’ time.
12. QUESTIONS UNDER STANDING ORDERS
Nil.
PART C - REPORT ON DELEGATED DECISIONS
13. CONFIRMATION OF MEETING MINUTES
12.1 ORDINARY MEETING - 18 JULY 2013
The Board resolved that the minutes of the Board’s meeting held on Thursday 18 July 2013 be confirmed.
12.1 EXTRAORDINARY MEETING - 1 AUGUST 2013
The Board resolved that the minutes of the Board’s extraordinary meeting held on Thursday 1 August 2013 be confirmed.
113 3. 10. 2013 Lyttelton/Mt Herbert Community Board 22. 8. 2013
14. LYTTELTON/MT HERBERT COMMUNITY BOARD STRENGTHENING COMMUNITIES FUNDING ALLOCATIONS 2013/14
The Board considered a report regarding the allocation of its Strengthening Communities Funding for 2013/14.
The Board resolved to approve the allocations recommended for its 2013/14 Strengthening Communities Funding as follows:
No. Group Project Committee Decision
1. Lyttelton/Mt Herbert ANZAC Day Service That the Lyttelton/Mt Herbert Community Community Board Board make a grant of $1,320 towards the costs of ANZAC Day services 2014 in Lyttelton and Diamond Harbour.
2. Lyttelton/Mt Herbert Neighbourhood Week That the Lyttelton/Mt Herbert Community Community Board Board make a grant of $2,000 for the Board’s Neighbourhood Week project.
3. Lyttelton/Mt Herbert Newsletter That the Lyttelton/Mt Herbert Community Community Board Board make a grant of $500 for the production of the Board’s newsletters for local residents.
4. Lyttelton/Mt Herbert Edible Garden Awards That the Lyttelton/Mt Herbert Community Community Board Board make a grant of $3,500 for funding of the Board’s Edible Garden Awards project.
5. Project Lyttelton Banks Peninsula Festival of That the Lyttelton/Mt Herbert Community Incorporated Walking and Project Lyttelton Board make a grant of $6,000 to Project Administration Lyttelton Incorporated for the Festival of Walking event, administration and audit fees.
6. Whakaraupo Head Carver’s Wages and That the Lyttelton/Mt Herbert Community Carving Centre Rent Board make a grant of $15,000 to the Trust Whakaraupo Carving Centre Trust towards wages for the Head Carver and rent.
7. Lyttelton Community Capacity Building for That the Lyttelton/Mt Herbert Community House Trust Lyttelton Community House Board make a grant of $12,208 to the Lyttelton Community House Trust towards wages/salaries and administration costs.
8. Lyttelton Harbour Youth Centre Coordination That the Lyttelton/Mt Herbert Community Basin Youth Council Board make a grant of $12,870 to the Incorporated Lyttelton Harbour Basin Youth Council towards staff wages, rent, administration and equipment/materials.
15. SMALL TOWN CONFERENCE 2013 – BOARD MEMBERS’ ATTENDANCE
The Board considered a report seeking approval for Board members who may be interested, to attend the 2013 New Zealand Small Town Conference.
The Board resolved to decline the attendance of any Board members at the New Zealand Small Town Conference in Balclutha from 25 to 27 September 2013. 114 3. 10. 2013 Lyttelton/Mt Herbert Community Board 22. 8. 2013
The meeting closed at 4.35pm
CONFIRMED THIS 19TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2013
PAULA SMITH CHAIRPERSON
115 3. 10. 2013 Lyttelton/Mt Herbert Community Board 22. 8. 2013 APPENDIX 1 HEAD TO HEAD WALKWAY
TERMS OF REFERENCE (AMENDED 22 AUGUST 2013)
NAME
Head to Head Walkway Working Party
OBJECTIVE
Head to Head Walkway up and running. (As per Lyttelton/Mt Herbert Community Board Objective)
STATUS
The Working Party will be a working party of the Lyttelton/Mt Herbert Community Board.
The Working Party will not have any delegated decision making powers but may make recommendations to the Community Board and the Council.
The Working Party will seek advice from the relevant Council staff in its deliberations.
COMPOSITION
Five Lyttelton/Mt Herbert Community Board members Relevant Council staff. One representative from each of the following community organisations: Lyttelton Harbour Business Association Project Lyttelton / Lyttelton Information Centre – One representative from the Lyttelton Walking Festival group. Rod Donald Banks Peninsula Trust Te Hapū o Ngāti Wheke (Rāpaki) Rūnanga
The Working Party may second others to assist for specific issues.
The Community Board will appoint the Chairperson of the Working Party.
TERM OF WORKING PARTY
The continuation of the Working Party will be reviewed by the Lyttelton/Mt Herbert Community Board at the beginning of each triennial term.
AIMS AND FUNCTIONS
To act as an advisory group to Council staff on matters relating to the Walkway including the detailed design. To decide upon an appropriate name for the walkway. To establish partnerships to support the process of forming the Head to Head Walkway. To promote the use of existing sections in accordance with Council policies.. To support the following Community Board objectives: Head to Head Walkway up and running Destination Lyttelton Harbour “on the map” for visitors To promote the Head to Head Walkway, in accordance with Council policies. To support the following action from the Lyttelton Master Plan: N4 (page 66 and 67): Encourage the realisation of the Godley Head to Adderley Head Walkway along Norwich Quay To consider/suggest other sources of funding for construction and promotion of the Walkway. To recommend priorities for construction of particular sections of the Walkway. To recommend the route of the track through Lyttelton and other settlements.
116 117 3.10. 2013 Clause 13
LYTTELTON/MT HERBERT COMMUNITY BOARD 19 SEPTEMBER 2013
Report of a meeting of the Lyttelton/Mt Herbert Community Board held on Thursday 19 September 2013 at 1.30pm in the Boardroom, Lyttelton Service Centre, 15 London Street, Lyttelton.
PRESENT: Paula Smith (Chairperson), Jeremy Agar, Ann Jolliffe, Claudia Reid and Andrew Turner.
APOLOGY: An apology for absence was received and accepted from Adrian Te Patu.
An apology for lateness was received and accepted from Claudia Reid who arrived at 1.40pm and was absent for Clauses 13 and 14.
KARAKIA: Paula Smith gave the opening karakia.
The Board reports that:
PART A – MATTERS REQUIRING A COUNCIL DECISION
1. LYTTELTON CIVIC SQUARE DESIGN – NAME
BOARD CONSIDERATION
The Lyttelton/Mt Herbert Community Board reported to the Council at its meeting on 12 September 2013, on the Lyttelton Civic Square Design, including a recommended name for the square. The Council resolved to adopt the Board’s recommendations but noted “the Lyttelton/Mt Herbert Community Board will recommend a name for the site, following further discussion with the community”.
Subsequently the Board has met with representatives from Mahaanui Kurataiao (MKT) and Te Hapü o Ngäti Wheke (Rapaki). They were concerned that the original suggestion for a name for the site of “Albion Square – Ohinehouroko” would be taken as a literal translation because of the way the names were paired. They supported the name “Albion”, being the oldest known name for the island of Great Britain and suggested that the waharoa at the entrance to the site be named Ohinehouroko, meaning a place of peace.
BOARD RECOMMENDATION
That the Council approve the name for the Lyttelton civic square site as Albion Square and that Ohinehouroko be the name of the waharoa.
PART B - REPORTS FOR INFORMATION
2. DEPUTATIONS BY APPOINTMENT
2.1 SPORT CANTERBURY – SWIM SERIES IN CORSAIR BAY
Chris Hutchinson, General Manager and Lucy Ryan, Events Coordinator from Sport Canterbury along with Scott Roberts and Stu Bryce from Surf Lifesaving New Zealand addressed the Board regarding the need to use a motorised rescue boat as part of an organised series of swim events in Corsair Bay this summer.
Motorised vessels are normally excluded from Corsair Bay, but Environment Canterbury officers had advised the Sport Canterbury organisers that a dispensation could be granted if the Community Board, as representatives of the community, agreed to the use of the vessel in these circumstances. 118 3. 10. 2013 Lyttelton/Mt Herbert Community Board 19. 9. 2013 2 Cont’d
2.2 CLAIRE FINDLAY – CORSAIR BAY
Claire Findlay addressed the Board with concerns regarding the planned swimming events and kayaking operation at Corsair Bay during the summer, including adverse effects relating to noise, parking congestion, reduction of space available to the public and the imposition on other recreational users. Ms Findlay also expressed concern at the present state of the grassed area adjacent to the beach.
(Clauses 3.2, 8.1 and 10 of these Minutes refers.)
The Board decided to support the Sport Canterbury Surf n Turf Ocean Swim Series, as proposed, for the initial six swim series before Christmas 2013, subject to the organisers not using music in conjunction with the event.
3. CORRESPONDENCE
3.1 LYTTELTON TIMES LTD – PARKING RESTRICTIONS NORWICH QUAY
The Board received correspondence from Ian Knewstubb, Lyttelton Times Ltd, expressing concern at possible all night parking restrictions proposed for Norwich Quay. The Board referred the correspondence to the staff who are dealing with the issues raised by Sergeant Gary Manch as a deputation to the Board meeting of 22 August 2013, regarding boy racer activity on Norwich Quay.
3.2 CLAIRE FINDLAY – CORSAIR BAY
The Board received correspondence from Claire Findlay expressing concerns at developments and activities in Corsair Bay and requested information from staff, particularly in relation to maintenance of the grass at Corsair Bay and issues around the deviations from the Corsair Bay Development Plan 2008.
4. PETITIONS
Nil.
5. NOTICES OF MOTION
Nil.
6. RESERVE MANAGEMENT COMMITTEES
The Board received the minutes of the following Reserve Management Committee meeting:
Lyttelton Reserves Management Committee – 5 August 2013
7. LYTTELTON/MT HERBERT COMMUNITY BOARD SMALL GRANTS FUND ASSESSMENT COMMITTEE REPORT
The Board received the minutes of the Lyttelton/Mt Herbert Community Board Small Grants Fund Assessment Committee meeting of 22 August 2013.
119 3. 10. 2013 Lyttelton/Mt Herbert Community Board 19. 9. 2013
8. BRIEFINGS
8.1 ANNA SHEEN, COMMUNITY RECREATION ADVISER
Anna Sheen, Community Recreation Adviser, briefed the Board on the kayaking operation planned for Corsair Bay again this summer, which she explained is an activity arranged by Recreation and Sport as an alternative for local residents due to the closure of the Norman Kirk Memorial Swimming Pool in Lyttelton. The Board was assured that issues such as parking congestion and overuse of public space would be addressed to lessen the impact on regular users of the Bay. The Board suggested that kayaking operations would be better suited as a school holiday activity and should be available more on weekdays and during the month of January. It also requested that advertising focus on local people.
9. COMMUNITY BOARD ADVISER’S UPDATE
The Board received information from the Community Board Adviser on various matters.
LOCAL EARTHQUAKE RECOVERY CO-ORDINATION
Staff updated the Board on details and costings for the proposed Lyttelton Skate Jam to be held in Lyttelton in December 2013, including the overall cost of $2,750.00.
(Refer Clause 9 under Part C)
10. ELECTED MEMBERS’ INFORMATION EXCHANGE
Specific mention was made of the following matters:
CORSAIR BAY
The Board decided to request a briefing from staff on the maintenance issues reported from Corsair Bay.
LOSS OF LYTTELTON FACILITIES
The Board decided to make a deputation to the Council meeting of 3 October 2013 to speak in support of the recommendations on the Norman Kirk Memorial Swimming Pool and the Lyttelton Recreation Centre.
11. QUESTIONS UNDER STANDING ORDERS
Nil.
12. VALEDICTORIES
A valedictory speech was given by retiring Board member Jeremy Agar, and Claudia Reid who is not seeking re-election for the Banks Peninsula Ward.
120 3. 10. 2013 Lyttelton/Mt Herbert Community Board 19. 9. 2013
PART C - REPORT ON DELEGATED DECISIONS
13. DECLARATION OF INTEREST
There were no declarations of interest.
14. CONFIRMATION OF MEETING MINUTES
14.1 ORDINARY MEETING – 22 AUGUST 2013
The Board resolved that the minutes of the Board’s meeting held on Thursday 22 August 2013 be confirmed.
15. APPLICATION TO LYTTELTON/MT HERBERT COMMUNITY BOARD 2013/14 DISCRETIONARY RESPONSE FUND – GOVERNORS BAY HERITAGE TRUST
The Board considered an application for funding from its 2013/14 Discretionary Response Fund from The Governors Bay Heritage Trust for $3,600 towards interpretation panels and research for the Blacksmiths Shop and Forge at Teddington.
The Board resolved to approve a grant of $3,000 from its 2013/14 Discretionary Response Fund to The Governors Bay Heritage Trust for interpretation panels and research for the Blacksmiths Shop and Forge at Teddington towards wages and materials.
16. CONSIDERATION OF NEIGHBOURHOOD WEEK FUNDING
The Board resolved to approve the allocation of Neighbourhood Week funding as follows:
Group Activity Amount Allocated Rene Macpherson, Ross Terrace, Lyttelton Street Party $140.00 Jillian Frater (Lyttelton Tennis Club), Cressy Terrace, Celebration of restored $200.00 Lyttelton clubrooms Shona McKee, Foster Terrace, Lyttelton Barbecue $110.00 Andrea Petschner, Governors Bay (Chrystalwood Barbecue $100.00 Lane Neighbourhood Support) Frances James, Lachie Griffen Rise, Governors Bay Barbecue $160.00 Laurence Anderson, Governors Bay (Neighbourhood Beach Barbecue $110.00 Support Governors Bay) Karen Presswood, Glas Brae Lane, Governors Bay Barbecue $100.00 Sheena Cox, Whero Avenue, Diamond Harbour Street Barbecue $140.00 Elfrieda Smith (Neighbourhood Support Diamond Barbecue $60.00 Harbour Group) Bruce Glennie, Church Bay (Koromiko Crescent and Barbecue $140.00 James Drive Neighbourhood Support) Jane McCulla (Cass Bay Residents’ Association) Halloween Party $350.00 Wendy Duggan, Allandale, Living Springs Samoan Umu $250.00 Kopa Lee (Rapaki Runanga) Rapaki Marae Barbecue lunch $140.00
TOTAL $2,000.00
121 3. 10. 2013 Lyttelton/Mt Herbert Community Board 19. 9. 2013
9. COMMUNITY BOARD ADVISER’S UPDATE (CONT’D)
LOCAL EARTHQUAKE RECOVERY CO-ORDINATION – SKATE-JAM
The Board considered that it had received enough information from staff for the purposes of this decision and resolved to allocate up to $1,800.00 from its Discretionary Response Fund for the purpose of holding a Skate Jam on 6 December 2013, with a request to staff that sponsorship for some of the activities be investigated.
The meeting closed at 3.35pm
SIGNED BY THE CHAIRPERSON OF THE BOARD AND THE COMMUNITY BOARD ADVISER PURSUANT TO STANDING ORDER 3.18.2.
CONFIRMED THIS 24TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2013
PAULA SMITH ELIZABETH CARTER CHAIRPERSON COMMUNITY BOARD ADVISER
122 123
3. 10. 2013 Clause 14
RICCARTON/WIGRAM COMMUNITY BOARD 3 SEPTEMBER 2013
Minutes of a meeting of the Riccarton/Wigram Community Board held on 3 September 2013 at 5.30 pm in the Community Room, Upper Riccarton Library, 71 Main South Road.
PRESENT: Mike Mora (Chairperson), Natalie Bryden, Jimmy Chen, Judy Kirk, and Peter Laloli.
APOLOGIES: Apologies for absence were received and accepted from Helen Broughton and Sam Johnson.
The Board reports that:
PART A - MATTERS REQUIRING A COUNCIL DECISION
1. HALSWELL REQUEST FOR SPEED REVIEW
The following Notice of Motion has been submitted by Peter Laloli pursuant to Standing Order 3.10.1, for the 3 September 2013 meeting of the Riccarton/Wigram Community Board, received on 27 August 2013.
That the Board request that the Council undertake a comprehensive speed review in Halswell from Templeton’s Road, Henderson’s Road, Sparks Road and Halswell Junction Road. This review is to include Halswell Road (State Highway 75)
The Notice of Motion was seconded by Natalie Bryden and when put to the meeting was declared carried.
EXPLANATORY NOTE
In view of the speed review that is currently out for consultation the Board has received a request from Halswell residents in relation to the speeds of vehicles within Halswell and the impact of the Southern Motorway Stage One. The residents believe that confusion currently exists with the inconsistent speed limits within the Halswell environs which impacts on the increasing pedestrian traffic.
PART B - REPORTS FOR INFORMATION
2. DEPUTATIONS BY APPOINTMENT
HORNBY COMMUNITY TRUST – PARKING AROUND THE HORNBY LIBRARY AND HORNBY COMMUNITY CARE TRUST BUILDING
Bob Shearing, Hornby Community Care Centre, and Mollie Howarth, Citizens’ Advise Bureau, discussed with the Board the concerns with the parking situation within the Hornby Library and Hornby Community Care Trust Building in Goulding Avenue. The availability of parking has become difficult for the volunteers of both organisations. The Board were advised that a small piece of reserve land next to the library was made available for a short period of time but that land is now needed for the upcoming housing development.
The Board agreed to seek staff advice on the future parking options within the Hornby Library/Community Trust building environs.
3. PRESENTATION OF PETITIONS
Nil. 124 3. 10. 2013 Riccarton/Wigram Community Board 3.09.2013
4. CORRESPONDENCE
Nil.
5. BRIEFINGS
6. COMMUNITY BOARD ADVISER’S UPDATE
Nil.
7. ELECTED MEMBERS’ INFORMATION EXCHANGE
The Board were advised that the Community, Recreation and Culture Committee have requested further information on the Riccarton and Hei Hei Community Centres towards having the centres repaired.
The Board were advised that the Community Board Chairpersons have held a workshop on the applications to the Capital Endowment Fund: One off Projects and made their recommendations to the Metropolitan Funding Committee for their decision.
A public meeting is to be held on Saturday 7 September 2013 with the community within the Broomfield Common area to discuss the land swap proposal by Enterprise Homes.
The Board held a discussion on the parking matters in Calverton Place, Halswell. Clause 7 (Part C) of these minutes records the Board’s delegated decision regarding this.
It was noted that street trees have been removed from Lochee Road. The Board enquired on whether the trees would be replaced.
Discussion was held on the information that is given to the Templeton Residents’ Association in relation to the proposed South West Library and Service Centre. It was confirmed that no concept plans have been developed for this project.
The Board were advised that the Henry’s Liquor Store in Yaldhurst Road hearing has been held and the licence has been renewed for 17 months. The next renewal will be made under the Sale of Liquor Act 2012.
The Board discussed the continued frustration of residents within Calverton Place, Halswell on the parking on the narrow carriageway.
The Board requested staff advice on the issue of parking in Calverton Place, Halswell.
8. MEMBERS’ QUESTIONS UNDER STANDING ORDERS
Nil.
PART C - REPORT ON DELEGATED DECISIONS TAKEN BY THE BOARD
9. CONFIRMATION OF MEETING MINUTES – 20 AUGUST 2013
The Board resolved that the minutes of its ordinary meeting of Tuesday 20 August 2013 be adopted.
125 3. 10. 2013 Riccarton/Wigram Community Board 3.09.2013
10. APPLICATION TO RICCARTON/WIGRAM 2013/14 DISCRETIONARY RESPONSE FUND – CANTERBURY FIJI SOCIAL SERVICES TRUST
The Board considered a report seeking its consideration of Canterbury Fiji Social Services Trust’s application to the Riccarton/Wigram Discretionary Response Fund for a grant of $14,000 for the After School Programme based at Riccarton Primary School.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
That the Board approves a grant of $8,000 from the Riccarton/Wigram 2013/14 Discretionary Response Fund to the Canterbury Fiji Social Services Trust for the After School Programme based at Riccarton Primary School.
BOARD CONSIDERATION
The Board considered that it would support funding the salaries and rent component of the application.
BOARD RECOMMENDATION
The Board resolved to grant of $8,690 from the Riccarton/Wigram 2013/14 Discretionary Response Fund to the Canterbury Fiji Social Services Trust for the After School Programme based at Riccarton Primary School for salaries and rent.
11. APPLICATION TO THE RICCARTON WIGRAM COMMUNITY BOARD’S YOUTH DEVELOPMENT SCHEME – ANGELA LI
The Board considered a report seeking its consideration of Angela Li’s application to the Riccarton/Wigram Community Board’s Youth Development Scheme.
The Board resolved to grant of $200 to Angelia Li from the Riccarton/Wigram 2013/14 Youth Development Scheme towards her participation in the Secondary School National Concert Band competition with the Burnside High School Concert Band.
12. APPLICATION TO THE RICCARTON/WIGRAM 2013/14 YOUTH DEVELOPMENT SCHEME – SOPHIE SHINGLETON
The Board considered a report seeking its consideration of Sophie Shingelton’s application for funding from the Riccarton Wigram 2013/14 Youth Development Scheme.
The Board resolved to grant of $300 from the Riccarton/Wigram 2013/14 Youth Development Scheme to Sophie Shingleton towards the cost of competing in the Under 21 New Zealand / Australia Championships.
13. APPLICATION TO THE RICCARTON/WIGRAM 201314 YOUTH DEVELOPMENT SCHEME – ST THOMAS OF CANTERBURY COLLEGE
The Board considered a report seeking its consideration of St Thomas of Canterbury College’s application for funding from the Riccarton/Wigram 2013/14 Youth Development Scheme.
The Board resolved to grant of $1,000 from the Riccarton/Wigram 2013/14 Youth Development Scheme to St Thomas of Canterbury College towards the costs of the school Rugby League team competing in National Secondary Schools Rugby League Tournament.
126 3. 10. 2013 Riccarton/Wigram Community Board 3.09.2013
The meeting concluded at 6.11pm.
CONFIRMED THIS 17TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2013
MIKE MORA CHAIRPERSON
127 Clause 15 3. 10. 2013
RICCARTON/WIGRAM COMMUNITY BOARD 17 SEPTEMBER 2013
Report of a meeting of the Riccarton/Wigram Community Board held on 17 September 2013 at 5.30 pm in the Community Room, Upper Riccarton Library, 71 Main South Road.
PRESENT: Mike Mora (Chairperson), Sam Johnson Jimmy Chen, Judy Kirk, and Peter Laloli.
APOLOGIES: Apologies for absence were received and accepted from Helen Broughton and Natalie Bryden.
The Board reports that:
PART A - MATTERS REQUIRING A COUNCIL DECISION
1. POUND/WATERLOO ROADS – PROPOSED REALIGNMENT, NOTICE OF REQUIREMENT AND ROAD STOPPING FOR SECTIONS OF WATERLOO ROAD AND A PARCEL OF UNFORMED ROAD
General Manager responsible: General Manager City Environment Group, DDI 941-8608 Officer responsible: Asset and Network Planning Unit Manager Author: Weng-Kei Chen
PURPOSE OF REPORT
1. The purpose of this report is to seek the Council’s approval to:give notice of requirement (NOR) for a new designation for road purposes over Barters, Pound Road and Waterloo Road and over land adjoining those roads in Christchurch City Plan pursuant to Section 168A of the Resource Management Act (RMA); as requested by the New Zealand Transport agency (NZTA); and
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
2. Staff have received a request from the New Zealand Transport Agency (NZTA) to give notice of its requirement (NOR) for a new designation for “road” purposes over Barters, Pound and Waterloo Roads in the Christchurch City Plan pursuant to Section 168A of the Resource Management Act (RMA). Specifically, the designation is necessary to provide for the construction, operation and maintenance of new sections of Pound Road and Waterloo Road leading up to their intersection and to a new intersection of State Highway 1 (SH 1) with Pound Road. The site to which the requirement applies is shown in Attachments 1 and 2.
3. The Notice of Requirement requested is necessary in order to secure the road corridor that will deliver the improvements required for the safety and efficiency for the Western By-pass route. NZTA’s proposal will have some implications for the roading network for the Waterloo Park Development (WPD), however WPD has received assurance from NZTA that the final outcome will be in accordance with the road network as shown in Attachment 2.
4. The alignment of the main road servicing the WPD (Halswell Junction Road extension) and the internal roads servicing the development were the result of a variation to the approved Outline Development Plan, as shown in Attachment 5. The main road is consistent with the Christchurch Transport Strategic Plan in delivering a section of the City Freight Network. In order to deliver a safe and efficient freight route a section of the existing Waterloo Road will need to be stopped on completion of the new Waterloo Road, as shown in Attachment 3 marked “E” and “F”. The stopped portions of Waterloo Road will also be indicated in the NOR.
5. The new main road (Halswell Junction Road extension) location at Pound Road in the WPD will replace the location of an unformed road intersection onto Pound Road (Attachment 2, marked “A”). This section of unformed road is surplus to roading requirement and road stopping is recommended. 128 3. 10. 2013 Riccarton/Wigram Community Board 17.09.2013
1 Cont’d
6. The proposed road network as shown in Appendices 1 and 2 is intended to link with a road corridor that the Council identified in 2006 as shown in the Council’s report in Attachment 4.
FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS
7. The proposed work indicated in Attachment 1 will be funded by NZTA.
8. Council’s Roading contribution to the new 14 metre wide freight route in a 20 metre legal road (Halswell Junction Road extension) is the construction of the extra 2 metres of road pavement and land required to bring the road up to a Minor Arterial Road standard. This contribution is for the wider benefit of the road network, as the road width required for an Industrial Road is only 12 metres with an 18 metre legal width. In addition, the Council will contribute to a seven metre sealed road width for the new Waterloo Road to replace the existing rural Waterloo Road carriageway. The contributions will occur at various stages of the development when sections of these two roads are vested in Council.
9. Road Stopping to the existing section of Waterloo Road (as indicated in Attachment 3) will need to occur and be replaced by the “New Waterloo Road“. The unformed section of road off Pound Road (refer Attachment 3 “A”) will be replaced by a section of the Halswell Junction Road extension. The Council’s appointed valuer has valued the road land at $50 per square metre (where no easements are required for existing utilities) and a lower value of approximately $25 per square metre where easement rights are required. These unit values will be used for the road swap as development work progresses.
10. Funding for the Council’s contribution will be provided within the Subdivision Budget WBS 542/137 in various stages of the development.
Do the Recommendations of this Report Align with 2013-16 TYP budgets?
11. Yes. This is to ensure an adequate level of service is retained for the change of use from Rural to Business zoning.
12. There is currently no funding in the TYP for the new Halswell Junction Road extension. Council staff are working on the details for this and will seek to include a future project in the Capital Programme at the next annual plan review or the next review of the LTP.
LEGAL CONSIDERATIONS
13. Notice of Requirements for roading work will require the Council’s approval. The proposed road realignments by NZTA are components of the City road network linking to the State Highway 1.
14. Road Stopping for sections of Waterloo Road and a parcel of unformed road requires the Board’s approval to comply with the Council’s Road Stopping Policy 2009. The new Waterloo Road will replace the stopped portions of Waterloo Road and the unformed road located off Pound Road will be replaced with the new Halswell Junction Road extension.
Have you considered the legal implications of the issue under consideration?
15. Yes. To ensure the works are in compliance with Council policy and City Plan
ALIGNMENT WITH LTCCP AND ACTIVITY MANAGEMENT PLANS
16. Yes. To provide a safe and efficient road network.
Do the recommendations of this report support a level of service or project in the 2013-16 TYP?
17. Yes. To provide a safe, efficient and sustainable future road network. 129 3. 10. 2013 Riccarton/Wigram Community Board 17.09.2013
1 Cont’d
ALIGNMENT WITH STRATEGIES
18. Yes. Aligned with the Christchurch Transport Strategic Plan.
Do the recommendations align with the Council’s strategies?
19. Yes. Aligned with the Christchurch Transport Strategic Plan.
CONSULTATION FULFILMENT
20. The realignment of Pound Road to State Highway 1 is indicated in the Business 7 Islington Industrial site. Outline Development Plan (refer Attachment 5)
21. Halswell Junction Road Extension was originally reported to the Council as a project to be included in the LTP on 10 October 2006 (refer Attachment 4).
22. Developers and staff have held a workshop with the Board’s members at its meeting in May 2012
23. New Zealand Rail staff have been consulted on the potential new rail crossings replacing the two existing crossings at Barters/Pound Roads and Halswell Junction/Waterloo Roads, each of which have raised significant operational safety issues for both the rail and road networks.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
It is recommended that the the Council that they proceed with the Notice of Requirement as requested by New Zealand Transport Authority and delegate authority to the General Manager, City Environment Group to give the Notice of Requirement for a new designation for “road” purposes over Barters Road, Pound Road and Waterloo Road and over land adjoining those roads in the Christchurch City Plan pursuant to Section 168A of the Resource Management Act as indicated in Attachment 1 and includes portions of existing Waterloo Road to be stopped.
BOARD RECOMMENDATION
That the staff recommendation be adopted.
2. AIDANFIELD, WIGRAM SKIES AND QUARRY HILL SUBDIVISION – NAMING OF NEW RESERVES
General Manager responsible: General Manager City Environment Group, DDI 941-8608 Officer responsible: Unit Manager, Asset and Network Planning Author: Russel Wedge, Senior Network Planner Greenspace
PURPOSE OF REPORT
1. The purpose of this report is to seek the Council’s approval for:
(a) The proposed reserve names as listed in Attachment 1 and for the Board’s recommendation to the Council for adoption.
(b) The proposed classification of the reserves as specified in Attachment 1 and for the Board’s recommendation to the Council for adoption.
2. The Council Policy Register: Naming of Reserves and Facilities, outlines the procedure for the naming of reserves, which is for the proposed reserve names to be referred to the local Community Board in the first instance, and then to the Council for adoption. 130 3. 10. 2013 Riccarton/Wigram Community Board 17.09.2013
2 Cont’d
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
3. A number of new reserves have been vested in the Council as part of subdivision developments in the Riccarton/Wigram Ward. The Council Policy Register: Naming of Reserves and Facilities states that all reserves vested in or under the control of the Council shall be given an appropriate name. New reserves are required to be allocated a name before they can be entered into the Council’s maintenance contracts.
4. Under the Reserves Act 1977, Section 16 (2A) any land that has been vested with the Council can declare that land to be a reserve providing it has been given a classification through Council resolution. The classification of the reserve will provide the basis as to how the reserve should be managed and administered e.g. a recreation reserve compared to a drainage reserve (refer Attachment One).
FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS
5. There are no direct financial implications associated with the allocation of reserve names, which is an administrative process undertaken as an operational expense.
Do the Recommendations of this Report Align with 2013-16 TYP budgets?
6. Yes, the administrative expense associated with the naming of the reserve is aligned to the administration and management of the Council’s reserves as identified in the budget.
LEGAL CONSIDERATIONS
7. The Council Policy Register: Naming of Reserves and Facilities: (4) For reserves having local or major status, naming proposals, including options, shall in the first instance be referred to the appropriate Community Board. To the extent deemed necessary, proposals will then be referred to the community for comment prior to formal adoption and recommendation, to the Council.
8. All of the reserves proposed for naming in Attachment 1, are considered to be of local status.
9. Where land has been vested with the Council through the subdivision process for a specific purpose as identified in the Reserves Act 1977 and is to be managed for that purpose, then the land should be classified through Council resolution: Reserve Act 1977, Section 16 (2A) where any reserve vested in a local authority, that local authority shall by resolution, classify the reserve according to its principal or primary purpose as defined in section 17 to 23 of this Act.
Have you considered the legal implications of the issue under consideration?
10. As above.
ALIGNMENT WITH TYP AND ACTIVITY MANAGEMENT PLANS
11. (a) Safety - by ensuring that our parks, open spaces and waterways are healthy and safe places, and by controlling and minimising flood and fire hazards.
(b) Community – by providing spaces for communities to gather and interact, and by providing community burial grounds.
(c) Environment - by enabling people to contribute to projects that improve our environment.
(d) Governance - by involving people in decision–making about parks, open spaces and waterways.
(e) Health - by providing areas for people to engage in healthy activities. By managing surface water. 131 3. 10. 2013 Riccarton/Wigram Community Board 17.09.2013
2 Cont’d
(f) Recreation - by offering a range of recreational opportunities in parks, open spaces and waterways.
Do the recommendations of this report support a level of service or project in the 2013-16 TYP?
12. Yes as above.
ALIGNMENT WITH STRATEGIES
13. Aligns with the Public Open Space Strategy 2010-2040 – To provide, develop and maintain a publicly accessible network for open space to enhance and protect health, recreation and liveability for residents and visitor to Christchurch and Banks Peninsula.
Do the recommendations align with the Council’s strategies?
14. Yes as above.
CONSULTATION FULFILMENT
15. The Council Policy Register: Naming of Reserves and Facilities states:
For reserves having local or major status, naming proposals, including options, shall in the first instance be referred to he appropriate Community Board. To the extent deemed necessary, proposals will then be referred to the community for comment prior to formal adoption and recommendation, to the Council.
16. The proposed names for the reserves in Attachment 1, are considered to have local status or are adding additional land to an existing reserve and therefore adopting the name of the existing reserve. Community consultation is not considered necessary for the proposed reserve names.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
It is recommended that the Riccarton/Wigram Community Board:
(a) Recommend to the Council the proposed reserve names as specified in Attachment 1, and
(b) Recommend to the Council the proposed classification of the reserves as per Reserves Act 1977 s16 (2A) as specified in Attachment 1.
BOARD RECOMMENDATION
That the staff recommendation be adopted.
3. DISPOSAL OF LAND AT 111 – 185 AWATEA ROAD
General Manager responsible: General Manager City Environment Officer responsible: Asset and Network Planning Manager Author: Dan Egerton Property Consultant Ext 8477
PURPOSE OF REPORT
1. The purpose of this report is to seek the Council’s approval to dispose of two portions of land, located at 111 – 185 Awatea Road, to the adjoining property owners. 132 3. 10. 2013 Riccarton/Wigram Community Board 17.09.2013
3 Cont’d
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
2. The two separate adjoining property owners have approached the Council seeking to purchase the land as part their own residential developments. The parcels are shown on the two attached scheme plans.
3. The two parcels of land have been put through the Council’s operationally redundant property process and as a result have been identified as being surplus to Council requirements. This report therefore recommends their sale.
FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS
4. We have received registered valuations for the two lots. Copies of these valuations are attached to this report.
5. Based on the advice given, agreement has been negotiated and reached as follows:
(a) Section 1 SO 19610 – Whittaker Estate Ltd to acquire approximately 1024m² for $77,000 inclusive of GST ($75 per m²).
(b) Portions of Section 1 SO 19607 and 19608 and Pt Rural Section 38290 – Ruben Blades Academy Ltd to acquire approximately 541m² for $40,600 inclusive of GST.
6. The reason for the small difference in value when compared to land size is due to an easement in favour of Council which will need to run through Section 1 SO 19608 giving Council the right to convey water. Accordingly this restricts the usability of the land and as such has a direct impact on the land valuation.
Do the Recommendations of this Report Align with 2013-16 TYP budgets?
7. Not applicable.
LEGAL CONSIDERATIONS
8. The Legal Services Unit will create the Sale and Purchase documentation for the disposal of these two parcels of land.
9. Consideration has been given to the effect of Section 40 of the Public Works Act 1981. It is considered that on reasonable grounds, the land may be sold to an owner of adjacent land at a price negotiated between the parties. The grounds are because of the size, shape, and situation, meaning that the land could not be expected to be sold to any person who did not own land adjacent to the land to be sold,
Have you considered the legal implications of the issue under consideration?
10. Yes, as above.
ALIGNMENT WITH LTCCP AND ACTIVITY MANAGEMENT PLANS
11. Not applicable.
Do the recommendations of this report support a level of service or project in the 2013-16 TYP?
12. Not applicable.
ALIGNMENT WITH STRATEGIES
13. Not applicable. 133 3. 10. 2013 Riccarton/Wigram Community Board 17.09.2013
3 Cont’d
Do the recommendations align with the Council’s strategies?
14. Not applicable.
CONSULTATION FULFILMENT
15. Not required given the location and configuration of the site.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
That the Board recommend to the Council to resolve:
(a) That the Corporate Support Unit Manager be delegated the authority to conclude the sale of:
(i) Approximately 1,024m² of the land legally described as Section 1 SO 19610; and
(ii) Subject to finalisation of plans and survey to dispose approximately 541m² of Section 1 SO 19608 & Pt Rural Section 32890 & a portion of Section 1 SO 19607 & Pt Rural Section 38290; subject to
(b) The sale price being supported by valuation advice on a pro-rata square metre basis as per the valuations contained within the report.
BOARD RECOMMENDATION
That the staff recommendation be adopted.
BACKGROUND (THE ISSUES)
16. Independent valuation advice has been obtained from Knight Frank Limited for the two lots. Section 1 SO 19610 is 1,024m²; however the exact area is subject to cadastral survey. This area has been valued at approximately $75 per square metre and any variance in land size will be reflected in the purchase price on a pro-rata basis.
17. Section 1 SO 19607 & 19608 & Pt Rural Section 38290 is slightly more complicated due to the fact that Council will need to lodge an easement over a portion of the land, accordingly this has had an impact on the value of the land, and as such a flat square metre rate is not able to be applied.
18. As shown on Attachment 3, it is proposed that a portion of the land being Section 1 SO 19607 and 19608 as well as Pt Rural Section 38290 is to be vested back to the Council as road.
19. Also as shown on Attachment 3, the portion of land shown as being retained by the Council is to protect the Council owned water main running through the land.
20. Due to the limited amount of Council meetings before the end of the year it is suggested that the finalisation of the sale of this portion of land be delegated to the Corporate Support Unit Manager.
4. AWATEA RESIDENTS ASSOCIATION - OWAKA HOLDINGS LIMITED LEGAL COSTS
The Board were updated on the outcomes of the recent legal action that the Awatea Residents’ Association took against Owaka Holdings Limited in relation to their property at 59 Owaka Road. The Association were unsuccessful in having their costs included in the judgement. The Association will receive funding from the Ministry for the Environment’s Community Environment Fund but the Association still has a shortfall of approximately $50,800. 134 3. 10. 2013 Riccarton/Wigram Community Board 17.09.2013
4 Cont’d
The Board recommend to the Council to consider reimbursing the shortfall of the funding for the Awatea Residents’ Association legal costs for their court action in relation to Owaka Holdings Limited.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
That staff prepare a report for the incoming Council.
PART B - REPORTS FOR INFORMATION
5. DECLARATION OF INTEREST
There were no declarations of interest.
6. DEPUTATIONS BY APPOINTMENT
HANSONS LANE RESERVE – REQUEST FOR BASKETBALL COURT
The deputation is deferred until November 2013.
AWATEA RESIDENTS’ ASSOCIATION – OWAKA HOLDINGS LIMITED LEGAL COSTS
Refer to Clause 4 for the Board’s recommendation in this matter
7. PRESENTATION OF PETITIONS
Nil.
8. NOTICES OF MOTION
Nil.
9. CORRESPONDENCE
Nil.
10. BRIEFINGS
10.1 EARTHQUAKE RECOVERY Joanna Corbett, Earthquake Recovery Advocate, updated the Board on her work within the Riccarton/Wigram ward. It was noted that this was the last update from Joanna; the Board thanked her for the work that she has assisted the Board with.
11. COMMUNITY BOARD ADVISER’S UPDATE
The Board received information from the Community Board Adviser on Board-related activities, including upcoming meetings and events. Specific mention was made of the following: 135 3. 10. 2013 Riccarton/Wigram Community Board 17.09.2013
11 Cont’d
11.1 DEANS AVENUE HAGLEY CROSSINGS PROJECT
The Board received a staff memorandum advising that the Deans Avenue capital project will be placed on hold which the projects are redefined. The $258,000 identified in the 2012/13 year have been carried forward into 2013/14 financial year.
12. ELECTED MEMBERS’ INFORMATION EXCHANGE
Some Board members attending the recent Positive Ageing event within the ward one of the subjects discussed was the lack of lighting with many of the new subdivisions and the width of footpaths to accommodate mobility scooters and aids. The Board requested staff advice on the specifications on street lighting in new subdivisions.
The Board had received an update on the proposal for Winchops Road, Halswell.
The Board requested that a meeting be held with the affected community of the proposed Whincops Road capital works project, staff and board members within one month of 17 September 2013.
The Board were advised that a meeting had been held with Queen’s counsel that is conducting the review of the Noble Subdivision resource consent.
The Board discussed the lack of progress that had been made for the extension of the Wigram Gymnasium on Corsair Drive.
The Board requested staff advice on the lack of progress on the extension of the Wigram Gymnasium on Corsair Drive.
13. MEMBERS’ QUESTIONS UNDER STANDING ORDERS
Nil.
14. VALEDICTORY SPEECHES
Valedictory speeches were giving by retiring Board members Dr Judy Kirk and Sam Johnson.
PART C - REPORT ON DELEGATED DECISIONS TAKEN BY THE BOARD
15. CONFIRMATION OF MEETING MINUTES – 3 SEPTEMBER 2013
The Board resolved that the minutes of its ordinary meeting of Tuesday 3 September 2013 be adopted.
16. COMMUNITY BOARD ADVISER’S UPDATE (CONTINUED)
16.1 CONFIRMATION OF THE MINUTES OF 17 SEPTEMBER 2013 MEETING
The Board resolved that the Chairperson and the Community Board Adviser approve the Minutes of the Board’s ordinary meeting of 17 September 2013 being the last meeting of the 2010/2013 electoral term. (Refer Standing Order 3.18.2).
136 3. 10. 2013 Riccarton/Wigram Community Board 17.09.2013
17. POUND/WATERLOO ROADS – PROPOSED REALIGNMENT, NOTICE OF REQUIREMENT AND ROAD STOPPING FOR SECTIONS OF WATERLOO ROAD AND A PARCEL OF UNFORMED ROAD (Cont’d)
The Board considered a report seeking the Board’s recommendation to the Council to give Notice of Requirement (NOR) for a new designation for road purposes over Barters, Pound Road and Waterloo Roads and over land adjoining those roads in Christchurch City Plan pursuant to Section 168A of the Resource Management Act (RMA); as requested by the New Zealand Transport agency (NZTA) and the Board to delegate to the Corporate Support Manger to commence Road Stopping to sections of Waterloo Road which will be redundant following the Waterloo Park Development and a small parcel of Unformed Road.
The Board resolved to approves the Stopping of Portions of Road as shown in the agenda marked “A”, “E” and “F” and delegate authority to the Unit Manager Corporate Support to negotiate and conclude all agreements with Waterloo Park Development to give effect to the Waterloo Road swap.
18. WIGRAM SKIES, WESTMORLAND HEIGHTS, WATERLOO BUSINESS PARK AND 36 SHAND ROAD SUBDIVISIONS – PROPOSED ROAD AND RIGHT OF WAY
The Board considered a report seeking the Board’s approval for ten new road names and five new Right of Way names for the Wigram Skies, Westmorland Heights, Waterloo Business Park and 36 Shands Road.
The Board resolved to approve the following road names:
Waterloo Business Park
Islington Road
Wigram Skies Subdivision
Morse Road
36 Shands Road
Lesley Keast Place
Westmorland Heights Subdivision
Dove Grove Francis Mill Grove Hawkeshead Way Langholme Lane Millbeck Place Gosforth Grove Honeyfield Close Eaglesfield Close Wythburn Lane Stonedale Lane Whitehaven Lane Langholme Lane
19. HALSWELL DOMAIN EASEMENT - 341 HALSWELL ROAD AND NEW LIBRARY
The Board considered a report for the Board’s approval under the delegated authority of the Council to grant a storm water easement over part of Halswell Domain in favour of adjoining private and in directly Council lands.
The Board resolved that
(a) Pursuant to Section 48 (1) of the Reserves Act 1977, to grant a Stormwater Easement over that part of Halswell Domain described as Lot 1 DP 81774 in favour of Lot 1 DP 461081 owned by Orchard Holdings Ltd as shown yellow on plan 501364/07 attached. 137 3. 10. 2013 Riccarton/Wigram Community Board 17.09.2013
19 Cont’d
(b) Public notification of the intended easement be waived in terms of the exemptions provided for in Section 48 (3) of the Reserves Act 1977 as Halswell Domain is not likely to be materially altered or permanently damaged and the rights of the public in respect of the reserve are not likely to be permanently affected and
(c) Subject to approval of recommendations (a) & (b) above the Community Board recommend that the Council consent acting under the delegated authority of the Minister of Conservation, to the granting of a Stormwater Easement in favour of Orchard Holdings Ltd on the terms as outlined in this report.
(d) That the Corporate Support Unit Manager is delegated authority to negotiate, manage and conclude the easement agreement and its registration instrument on the terms and conditions that are satisfactory in her sole discretion
20. NEIGHBOURHOOD WEEK – CONSIDERATION OF 2013 APPLICATIONS
The Board considered a report seeking its consideration of applications for Neighbourhood Week 2013 funding and to set in place a process should any late applications need to be considered as well as a process for apportioning any unallocated funds.
The Board resolved:
(a) To approve the allocations recommended for the Riccarton/Wigram 2013 Neighbourhood Week Fund as follows:
Numbers No. Name Activity Amount ($) Attending
1 Kevin John Bennett Street BBQ 50 $150.00
2 Lorraine Anne Mitchell Street BBQ 40 $150.00
3 Robyn Mary Peart Lunch gathering 15-20 $105.00
4 Lyn Macheal Swinburn BBQ 35 $150.00
5 Neville R Watson Not stated 50 $100.00 BBQ/Afternoon Tea with 6 Allison Gemmell Corson 70 $150.00 talk 7 Delwyn Lena Whelan BBQ lunch 18 $50.00 Mocktail Parties - Individual 60 (30 per 8 Sarah Jillian Wylie $120.00 NS Group get-togethers gathering) 32 (23 9 Bob Richmond BBQ and Get-together adults, 9 $75.00 children) Nicky Taylor and Sam Neighbourhood BBQ and 10 50+ $200.00 Fisher get-together 11 Connie Ashworth Barbeque 50 $100.00
12 Malcolm Walter Lilley NS Barbecue 25-30 $140.00
13 Bryan Hugh Pedersen Neighbourhood BBQ 16-18 $70.00
14 Lesley Frances Flutey "Meet and greet" Barbeque 60 approx. $100.00 BBQ for new families and 15 Michelle Ann Grant Approx. 80 $150.00 Playcentre Graduates 138 3. 10. 2013 Riccarton/Wigram Community Board 17.09.2013
Numbers No. Name Activity Amount ($) Attending Reunion
16 Rex Clifford Wright Barbeque 24 $102.00 Neighbourhood Watch 17 Julie Sharon Shivas 40 $200.00 barbeque 18 Liz Johnston BBQ 40 $50.00
19 Claire Frances Stephenson Street BBQ (on front lawn) 100 $260.00 Residents' meeting and 20 Jeanette Phillips mid-winter Xmas dinner 75 $250.00 BBQ To have a dinner inviting, in 21 Howard William Harvey particular, new residents in 40 $0.00 the street 22 Colin Arthur Spry Neighbourhood barbecue 30 $100.00 Rural residents/ community 23 Bob Cross 150-200 $400.00 garden party 24 Karena Finnie Not stated Approx. 90 $160.00
25 Tim and Trish Joyce Street BBQ 80 $190.00
26 Barbara Dawson Community Barbeque 50+ $300.00 Family fun event that is a 27 Wendy Weusten safe alternative to 250 $200.00 Halloween BBQ and get-together for 28 Dulcie May Tester 73 $250.00 street residents 29 Zoe Elizabeth Morey Not stated 30 $100.00
30 Una Raleqe BBQ 30-50 $0.00
31 Heather Anne Burnby Christmas Street BBQ Approx. 55 150
Total $4,522
Unallocated Balance $478
(b) That delegated authority be given to the Community Board Chairperson, or the Chairperson’s delegate, to decide on funding approval of any late applications received from the remaining funds set aside for Neighbourhood Week Funding.
(c) That the Board set aside the $478 unallocated funding for granting towards small, neighbourhood events by the Riccarton/Wigram Community Board throughout the 2013/14 financial year provided the application is made through a staff report that assesses that the event meets the Neighbourhood Week project objectives and outcomes as set out in the Strengthening Communities Funding allocations..
139 3. 10. 2013 Riccarton/Wigram Community Board 17.09.2013
21. APPLICATION TO THE RICCARTON/WIGRAM 2013/14 DISCRETIONARY RESPONSE FUND – SELWYN STARS AND ESSEX GUARDS MARCHING TEAM
The Board considered a report seeking its consideration the funding application from the Selwyn Stars and Essex Guards Marching Team for the Purchase of Second Hand Marching Uniforms for the amount of $2,000 for funding from its 2013/14 Discretionary Response Fund..
The Board resolved to grant $2,000 from the 000 from the Riccarton/Wigram 2013/14 Discretionary Response Fund to Selwyn Stars and Essex Guards Marching Team for the purchase of Second Hand Marching Uniforms.
22. APPLICATION TO THE RICCARTON/WIGRAM 2013/14 YOUTH DEVELOPMENT SCHEME – ASHEIGH O’NEILL AND BROOKE O’NEILL
The Board considered a report seeking its consideration of Ashleigh and Brook O’Neill’s application for funding from the Riccarton Wigram 2013/14 Youth Development Scheme.
The Board resolved to grant $150 each to Ashleigh O’Neill and Brooke O’Neill (total $300) towards the cost of competing in New Zealand National Gymnastics Championships from the Riccarton/Wigram 2013/14 Youth Development Scheme
23. APPLICATION TO THE RICCARTON/WIGRAM 201314 YOUTH DEVELOPMENT SCHEME – CHARLOTTE SULLIVAN
The Board considered a report seeking its consideration of Charlotte Sullivan’s application for funding from the Riccarton/Wigram 2013/14 Youth Development Scheme.
The Board resolved to grant $450 from the Riccarton/Wigram 2013/14 Youth Development Scheme to grant of $450 to Charlotte Sullivan towards the cost of competing in Kozponti Sportiskola Jubilee Gymnastics Gala from the Riccarton/Wigram 2013/14 Youth Development Scheme.
24. APPLICATION TO THE RICCARTON/WIGRAM 201314 YOUTH DEVELOPMENT SCHEME – GEORGIA TAYLOR AND PARIS TAYLOR
The Board considered a report seeking its consideration of Georgia and Paris Taylor’s application for funding from the Riccarton/Wigram 2013/14 Youth Development Scheme.
The Board resolved to grant $150 each to Georgia Taylor and Paris Taylor (total $300) towards the cost of competing in New Zealand National Gymnastics Championships from the Riccarton/Wigram 2013/14 Youth Development Scheme.
25. APPLICATION TO THE RICCARTON WIGRAM 2013/14 YOUTH DEVELOPMENT SCHEME – XAVIER MOIR
The Board were advised that the funding application had been withdrawn by the applicant.
26. APPLICATION TO THE RICCARTON WIGRAM 2013/14 YOUTH DEVELOPMENT SCHEME – CATRIONA MARY HAY
The Board considered a report seeking its consideration of Catriona Hay’s application for funding from the Riccarton/Wigram 2013/14 Youth Development Scheme.
The Board resolved to grant allocate $500 to Catriona Hay as a contribution towards the expenses for her participation with the Christchurch City Chorus in the International Sweet Adelines Convention and Competition from the Riccarton/Wigram 2013/14 Youth Development Scheme.. 140 3. 10. 2013 Riccarton/Wigram Community Board 17.09.2013
The Chairperson thanked the Board members for their work and the staff for their work with the Board during the current Board term.
The meeting concluded at 7.25pm.
SIGNED BY THE CHAIRPERSON OF THE BOARD AND THE COMMUNITY BOARD ADVISER PURSUANT TO STANDING ORDER 3.18.2.
CONFIRMED THIS 24TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2013
MIKE MORA CHAIRPERSON
LIZ BEAVEN COMMUNITY BOARD ADVISER 141 3. 10. 2013 Riccarton/Wigram Community Board 17.09.2013
ATTACHMENT 1 TO CLAUSE 1
142 3. 10. 2013 Riccarton/Wigram Community Board 17.09.2013
ATTACHMENT 1 TO CLAUSE 1 Cont’d
143 3. 10. 2013 Riccarton/Wigram Community Board 17.09.2013
ATTACHMENT 1 TO CLAUSE 1 Cont’d
144 3. 10. 2013 Riccarton/Wigram Community Board 17.09.2013
ATTACHMENT 2 TO CLAUSE 1
145 3. 10. 2013 Riccarton/Wigram Community Board 17.09.2013
ATTACHMENT 3 TO CLAUSE 1
146 3. 10. 2013 Riccarton/Wigram Community Board 17.09.2013
ATTACHMENT 4 TO CLAUSE 1
COUNCIL REPORT - 2006
147 3. 10. 2013 Riccarton/Wigram Community Board 17.09.2013
ATTACHMENT 4 TO CLAUSE 1 Cont’d
148 3. 10. 2013 Riccarton/Wigram Community Board 17.09.2013
ATTACHMENT 4 TO CLAUSE 1 Cont’d
DIAGRAM A
149 3. 10. 2013 Riccarton/Wigram Community Board 17.09.2013
ATTACHMENT 5 TO CLAUSE 1
DIAGRAM B
ATTACHMENT 1 TO CLAUSE 2 RICCARTON WIGRAM COMMUNITY BOARD 17. 9. 2013 Attachment 1: Proposed Reserve Names and Classifications
Proposed Name Address Legal Area Reserve Additional Comments Description (ha) Classification
Aidanfield Stage 8 Subdivision Aidanfield 20R Josephine Lot 334 DP 1.5523 Local Purpose Reserve (add to Crescent 454126 (Drainage) existing Reserve Aidanfield Reserve) Canice Reserve 10R Euphrasie Lot 331 DP 0.1604 Recreation Drive 454126 Reserve Fintan Reserve 28R Euphrasie Lot 332 DP 0.3137 Recreation Drive 454126 Reserve Heathcote 33R Euphrasie Lot 333 DP 1.1659 Esplanade Esplanade Drive 454126 Reserve Reserve
Wigram Skies Subdivision
Sir Henry Wigram 73R Corsair Lot 323 DP 0.1174 Local Purpose There is an interpretation Reserve Drive 447629 (Landscape) panel on this reserve on Reserve the Wigram base Bennington 27R Lot 327 DP 0. 1896 Local Purpose Named after the road Drainage Reserve Bennington 441740 (Drainage) # 1 Way Reserve Bennington 35R Lot 326 DP 0.3418 Local Purpose Named after the road Drainage Reserve Bennington 451077 (Drainage) # 2 Way Reserve Bennington 51R Lot 325 DP 0. 3031 Local Purpose Named after the road Drainage Reserve Bennington 451077 (Drainage) # 3 Way Reserve Mustang Drainage 45R Mustang Lot 322 DP 0.2524 Local Purpose Named after the road Reserve # 1 Avenue 441740 (Drainage) Reserve Mustang Drainage 65R Mustang Lot 330 DP 0.4416 Local Purpose Named after the road Reserve # 2 Avenue 441740 (Drainage) Reserve Mustang Drainage 95R Mustang Lot 331 DP 0.4237 Local Purpose Named after the road Reserve # 3 Avenue 444817 (Drainage) Reserve Kingsford Smith 32R Lot 329 DP 0.0883 Local Purpose This is the location of the Reserve Bennington 451077 (Historic) plaque commemorating Way Reserve Charles Kingsford Smith George West 40R Lot 338 DP 0.0836 Local Purpose This was the first pilot Reserve Bennington 451077 (Landscape) Ngai Tahu descent trained Way Reserve at Wigram Fanshaw Reserve 79R Corsair Lot 324 DP 0.1896 Local Purpose Named after RNZAF bear Drive 451077 (Landscape) mascot – bear in Air Reserve Force Museum Kahurangi 75 Awatea Lot 334 DP 4.2235 Local Purpose Kahurangi is the colour Drainage Reserve Road 444817 (Drainage) blue depicting the blue # 1 Reserve (storm) water ponds Kahurangi 83 Awatea Lot 335 DP 5.3954 Local Purpose Kahurangi is the colour Drainage Reserve Road 444817 (Drainage) blue depicting the blue # 2 Reserve (storm) water ponds
13/787730 ATTACHMENT 1 TO CLAUSE 2 RICCARTON WIGRAM COMMUNITY BOARD 17. 9. 2013 Attachment 1: Proposed Reserve Names and Classifications
Proposed Name Address Legal Area Reserve Additional Comments Description (ha) Classification
Wigram Skies Subdivision (Continued)
Kahurangi 91 Awatea Lot 2 DP 3.6459 Local Purpose Kahurangi is the colour Drainage Reserve Road 407112 (Drainage) blue depicting the blue # 3 Reserve (storm) water ponds Te Kahu Park 3R The Lot 1502 DP 4.4994 Recreation This a Harrier Hawk and Runway 461231 Reserve can fly for hours without fatigue Raukura Park 17R The Lot 1501 DP 1.0012 Recreation This is the feather in the Runway 461231 Reserve Wigram Logo, with reference to the vast Canterbury skyline
Quarry View Subdivision at 91 Kennedys Bush Road
Quarry View Park 29R Provincial Lot 36 DP 0.2500 Recreation Road 452601 Reserve Quarry View 33R Provincial Lot 28 DP 1.5010 Local Purpose Drainage Reserve Road 452601 (Drainage) Reserve
13/787730 154 3. 10. 2013 Riccarton/Wigram Community Board 17.09.2013
ATTACHMENT 2 TO CLAUSE 2
Attachment 2: Aidanfield Stage 8 Subdivision – Location of Reserves for Naming
Heathcote Esplanade Reserve
Fintan Reserve
Canice New stormwater pond add to existing Aidanfield Reserve
Existing Aidanfield Reserve
155 3. 10. 2013 Riccarton/Wigram Community Board 17.09.2013
ATTACHMENT 2 TO CLAUSE 2 Cont’d
Attachment 2: Wigram Skies Subdivision –North Location of Reserves for Naming
Sir Henry Wigram Reserve
Bennington Drainage Bennington Drainage Reserve # 3 Reserve # 2 Bennington Drainage Reserve # 1
156 3. 10. 2013 Riccarton/Wigram Community Board 17.09.2013
ATTACHMENT 2 TO CLAUSE 2 Cont’d
Attachment 2: Wigram Skies Subdivision – South (Continued) Location of Reserves for Naming
Mustang Drainage Reserve # 1
Raukura Park Kingsford Smith Reserve (neighbourhood park) Mustang Drainage Reserve # 2
Te Kahu Park (sports field)
Mustang Drainage Reserve # 3
Kahurangi Drainage Reserve # 1
Kahurangi Drainage Reserve # 2
Kahurangi Drainage Reserve # 3
NB: Awatea Basins proposed to be called Kahurangi Drainage 1, 2, and 3 157 3. 10. 2013 Riccarton/Wigram Community Board 17.09.2013
ATTACHMENT 2 TO CLAUSE 2 Cont’d
Attachment 2: Quarry View Subdivision at 91 Kennedys Bush Road Location of Reserves for Naming
Quarry View Park
Quarry View Drainage Reserve
158 3. 10. 2013 Riccarton/Wigram Community Board 17.09.2013
ATTACHMENT 1 TO CLAUSE 3
159 17. 09. 2013 - 33 -
ATTACHMENT 2 TO CLAUSE 3
Riccarton/Wigram Community Board 17 September 2013 Agenda
160 161 17. 09. 2013 - 34 -
ATTACHMENT 3 TO CLAUSE 3
Riccarton/Wigram Community Board 17 September 2013 Agenda
162 3. 10. 2013 Riccarton/Wigram Community Board 17.09.2013 - 35 -
ATTACHMENT 3 TO CLAUSE 3 Cont’d
163 3. 10. 2013 Riccarton/Wigram Community Board 17.09.2013 - 36 -
ATTACHMENT 3 TO CLAUSE 3 Cont’d 164 3. 10. 2013 Riccarton/Wigram Community Board 17.09.2013 - 37 -
ATTACHMENT 3 TO CLAUSE 3 Cont’d
1. Introduction
1.1 Instructions
We have been instructed by Mr D Egerton on behalf of the Christchurch City Council to assess the current market value of the within described property for possible sale purposes to be relied upon by Christchurch City Council.
This report has been prepared for the private and confidential use of the addressee for the specific purpose detailed above. It should not be reproduced in whole or part, or relied upon by any other party for any use whatsoever without the expressed written authority of Knight Frank.
We accept no liability to third parties nor do we contemplate that this report would be relied upon by third parties. We invite other parties who may come into possession of this report to seek our written consent to them relying on this report. We reserve our right to withhold consent or to review the contents of this report in the event that our consent is sought.
1.2 Date of Inspection and Valuation
14th May 2013
1.3 Compliance Statement
Our rules of professional practice require us to include a compliance statement in all our valuations advising that our valuation has been performed in accordance with International Valuation Standards and New Zealand Valuation Standards.
W e confirm that:
. The statements of fact presented in the valuation are correct to the best of our knowledge; . Our analysis and conclusions are limited only by the valuation assumptions and conditions; . W e have no interest in the subject property; . Our fee is not contingent upon any aspect of the valuation; . Our valuation has been prepared in accordance with an ethical code and performance standards; . The valuer signing the valuation has satisfied professional education requirements; . The valuer signing the valuation has experience in the location and category of the property being valued; . The valuer has made a personal inspection of the property; and . No one, except those specified in the valuation, have provided professional assistance in preparing the valuation. W e are obliged to disclose any departure from the statements listed above and provide an explanation for such a departure.
1.4 Interpretation
(a) Any references to “we”, “us” or “our” within this report means: (i) Knight Frank; (ii) offices, employees, agents, or any other persons within the control of Knight Frank; and (iii) the employee(s) of Knight Frank dealing directly with the instructing client. (b) Any references to “Knight Frank” within this report means Knight Frank only. 165 3. 10. 2013 Riccarton/Wigram Community Board 17.09.2013 - 38 -
ATTACHMENT 3 TO CLAUSE 3 Cont’d
1.5 Policies that Apply to the Valuation
You should read this document carefully as it lists the general policies on which we have prepared the valuation. These policies form part of the valuation and apply unless specifically stated otherwise elsewhere in the valuation.
W e have proceeded on the basis of there being no issues arising from any of the below which would have an effect on the valuation. If you have any questions or concerns about anything in this section, you should contact us to discuss.
If any of the valuation policies on which we have relied in preparing the valuation are incorrect, we reserve the right to review the valuation.
1.5.1 The standards that apply to the valuation The valuation has been prepared strictly in accordance with the New Zealand Institute of Valuer's Code of Ethics, International Valuation Standards and New Zealand Valuation Standards and accompanying guidance notes.
1.5.2. We hold professional indemnity insurance W e confirm that as at the date of valuation, we hold in force and effect professional indemnity insurance for our valuations.
1.5.3. The valuation is personal to you The valuation has been prepared for your private and confidential use and for the specific purpose detailed in the valuation. It should not be reproduced in whole or in part, or relied on by any other party for any use whatsoever without first obtaining our prior written consent. W e do not assume any responsibility to any other person other than you for any reason whatsoever, including breach of contract, negligence (including negligent misstatement) or wilful act or default by ourselves or by others by reason of or arising out of the provision of the valuation. Any person, other than you, who uses or relies on the valuation does so at their own risk.
1.5.4. The valuation is current at the date of valuation The valuation is current as at the date of valuation only. Values can change significantly and unexpectedly over a relatively short period (including as a result of general market movements or factors specific to the particular property). W e accept no responsibility for losses arising from such subsequent changes in value. W ithout limiting the generality of the foregoing, we accept no responsibility where the valuation is relied upon after the expiration of three months from the date of valuation, or such earlier date if you become aware of any factors that have any effect on the valuation.
1.5.5. The information relied on in the valuation Where it is stated in the valuation that information has been supplied to us by a third party, this information is believed to be reliable but we accept no responsibility if this should prove not to be so. W here information is given without being attributable to a third party, that information will have been obtained by a search of records and suitable examination of documents or by enquiry from Government and/ or other appropriate sources. W e assume that full disclosure of all relevant information has been made and we accept no responsibility if other information exists which we are unaware of.
166 3. 10. 2013 Riccarton/Wigram Community Board 17.09.2013 - 39 -
ATTACHMENT 3 TO CLAUSE 3 Cont’d
1.5.6. Planning information for the property Unless otherwise stated in the valuation, our valuation does not take into account the local authorities planning information. You may want to check this yourself or with your legal representative as it could affect the value of the property. There are two planning documents that may be useful: the Land Information Memoranda ("LIM") and/ or Project Information Memoranda ("PIM"). You can get these from your local authority for a fee. W e have not obtained the LIM or PIM and we assume there not to be any requisitions from a local authority in respect to either the land or improvements to it.
1.5.7. Inspections of the property W e undertake such inspections and conduct investigations as are, in our opinion, correct, appropriate and possible in the particular circumstances. Unless otherwise stated in the valuation, on-site inspections are limited to all readily accessible parts of the land and improvements on it.
1.5.8. Structural survey of the building While in the course of our inspection due care is taken to note building defects, we are not qualified to undertake, nor have we undertaken, a structural survey of the buildings or structures. W e accept no responsibility for any defects that may arise as a result of poor building design, construction methods or building materials. If you have any concerns, you should obtain a report from a suitably qualified person. Defects revealed by a suitable qualified person may affect the value of the property.
1.5.9. Land survey of the property W e are not qualified to undertake, nor have we undertaken environmental or geotechnical surveys to determine the suitability of ground conditions and services. Unless otherwise stated in the valuation, the valuation is prepared on the basis that these aspects are all satisfactory. In the case of properties that may have development potential, we assume that the property has a load bearing capacity suitable for the anticipated form of development without the need for additional expensive foundations or drainage systems.
1.5.10. Boundary survey of the property W e do not carry out a boundary survey of the property and assume for the purposes of the valuation that there are no encroachments by or upon the title. Any sketch, plan or map we include in the valuation is intended to assist the reader with visualisation of the property and should not be relied on as being definitive.
1.5.11. Registrations other than those on the title Unless otherwise stated, the valuation assumes that there are no detrimental or beneficial registrations affecting the value of the property other than those appearing on the title. Such registrations including W ahi Tapu and Historic Places Trust registrations may affect the valuation of the property.
1.5.12. Installed items forming part of the building Where applicable, our valuation includes those items which form part of the building. Unless otherwise stated, the valuation is prepared on the basis that items including hot and cold water systems, drainage systems, electrical systems, air conditioning or ventilation systems and other such installations are in proper working order and functioning for the purpose for which they were designed. 167 3. 10. 2013 Riccarton/Wigram Community Board 17.09.2013 - 40 -
ATTACHMENT 3 TO CLAUSE 3 Cont’d
1.5.13. Compliance with all applicable laws The valuation is prepared on the basis that the property complies with all relevant legislation, regulations and consents unless otherwise stated. Failure to comply could adversely affect the value of the property. Legislation that may be of importance includes the Building Act 2004, Resource Management Act 1991, Health and Safety in Employment Act 1992, the Fire Safety and Evacuation of Buildings Regulation 1992, and the Disabled Persons Community W elfare Act 1975.
1.5.14 Environmental issues affecting the property W e have not completed an environmental audit of the property, although any contaminants on the property that may be obvious on inspection may be noted in the valuation. No warranty is given, or is to be implied, in the valuation that the property is free from contaminants. Substances such as asbestos, other chemicals, toxic wastes, or other potentially hazardous materials could adversely affect the value of the property. The valuation is prepared on the basis that there is no material on the property that would affect its value. If you have any concerns, verification that the property is free from contaminants should be obtained from a suitably qualified environmental expert.
1.5.15. Realisation of mortgages and other security No allowances have been made in our valuation for any expenses of realisation or to reflect the balance of any outstanding mortgages or other interests secured against the property, either in respect of capital or interest accrued thereon.
1.5.16. The Consumer Guarantees Act 1993 Where there is any conflict between anything stated in the valuation and the Consumer Guarantees Act 1993, the Consumer Guarantees Act 1993 shall prevail to the extent of the conflict. W here the valuation has been obtained for business purposes, the guarantees and rights expressed or implied by the Consumer Guarantees Act 1993 will not apply.
1.5.17. Measurements used in the valuation Unless otherwise stated, all property measurements are carried out in accordance with the Guide for Measurement of Rentable Areas issued by the Property Council and Property Institute of New Zealand.
1.5.18. Goods and services tax In accordance with Property Institute of New Zealand guidance notes, and unless otherwise stated, residential property valuations are inclusive of GST (if any) and valuations of non-residential property are exclusive of GST (if any).
1.5.19. Exclusion of plant and machinery Unless otherwise stated, the valuation excludes any plant or equipment erected on or associated with the property. W e are not qualified to, nor have we undertaken engineering inspections or taken advice on any plant or equipment and we accept no responsibility for the condition or suitability thereof. 168 3. 10. 2013 Riccarton/Wigram Community Board 17.09.2013 - 41 -
ATTACHMENT 3 TO CLAUSE 3 Cont’d
1.5.20. The meaning of "Market Value" In the case of market valuations, "market value" is defined as being:
The estimated amount for which an asset should exchange on the date of valuation between a willing buyer and a willing seller in an arms length transaction after proper marketing, wherein the parties had each acted knowledgeably, prudently and without compulsion.
1.5.21. Lender's reliance on the valuation Unless otherwise stated in the valuation, a mortgage recommendation has not been requested and is not included in the valuation. If a lender is named in the valuation then that lender (and no other) may rely on the valuation for mortgage finance purposes. In that eventuality, we assume that the lender has complied with its own lending guidelines as well as prudent finance industry lending practices, and has considered all prudent aspects of credit risk for any potential borrower, including the borrower's ability to service and repay any mortgage loan.
1.5.22. Tenancies or leases affecting the property Where we have relied upon photocopies of any tenancy or lease arrangement, we assume that these are accurate copies and there are no undisclosed changes or dealings that have not been advised to us. W here no photocopies of the tenancy or lease arrangements have been sighted by us, we assume that they contain no clauses or conditions that may materially affect the valuation.
1.5.23. Earthquake damage to the property W e have prepared the valuation on the basis that the improvements and land forming the property are sound and that the effect of any earthquakes have not had any detrimental effect on the value of the property beyond any discernible market adjustments. The Building Act 2004 has increased the scope and number of buildings that may be at risk from earthquake damage and have to be re-investigated and, where necessary, strengthened. W e have prepared the valuation on the basis the property complies with local authority earthquake requirements and that no extra strengthening works are required. If you have any concerns, you should verify the earthquake status of the property with the owner (as applicable) and the local authorities.
1.5.24. Insurance and assumptions of coverage The valuation is prepared on the basis that there is full insurance available for the property. The valuation also assumes that any earthquake damage will be covered by the Earthquake Commission ("EQC") and private insurance and all damage resulting from the earthquakes will be reinstated in a manner that will not significantly alter the value of the property relative to its value before the earthquake. W e assume that EQC and private insurance claims can be transferred to the new owner.
1.5.25. Forecast valuations are a best assessment Future rental rates, costs and property values will be determined by market forces applicable at the time. W here figures are provided within the valuation in analytical or forecast nature, they are not a representation of a known or guaranteed future position and should not be relied on as such.
169 3. 10. 2013 Riccarton/Wigram Community Board 17.09.2013 - 42 -
ATTACHMENT 3 TO CLAUSE 3 Cont’d
2. Land Particulars
2.1 Title Details
Land Registration District Canterbury Land District Estate Fee Simple Legal Description Section1 Survey Office Plan 19610, Identifier CB42D/165. Canterbury Land District. Current Registered Proprietors Christchurch City Council Registered Notations . N/A
Reference Polices that Apply to the Valuation, 1.5.10, 1.5.11 and 1.5.15
2.2 Land Description
Physical Description An irregular shaped narrow site with frontages to Awatea Road. The land appears to be mostly level in contour with an area of 1024 square metres. Access Via Awatea Road CERA Zone Classification Green zone, N\A, Rural and unmapped. Refer www.cera.govt.nz/my-property for further information on this classification. Services We value on the basis that power, telecommunication, town water and sewer reticulation services are all available to the property. 170 3. 10. 2013 Riccarton/Wigram Community Board 17.09.2013 - 43 -
ATTACHMENT 3 TO CLAUSE 3 Cont’d
2 Land Particulars continued
2.3 Resource Management
Distr ict Plan Chris tchur ch Zoni ng Living G (Awatea) Zone Descripti on The Living G (Awatea) Zone provides the opportunity to plan and develop a mixed density and mixed use community comprehensively. The zone allows for and maximises the integration of activities, infrastructure, open space and green ways both internally and with the adjoining communities of Westlake to the east, Wigram to the north and Hornby to the west. The zone also provides for a flexible response to the treatment of the urban/industrial interface.
The Living G (Awatea) Zone covers approximately 130 hectares and is located on the south western edge of the urban area. The zone is generally bounded by Awatea Road, Wilmers Road, Wigram Road and Halswell Junction Road.
We value on the basis that the subject property would conform to all requirements of the District Plan in addition to the Resource Management Act 1991 and subsequent amendments.
Please note that planning information has been obtained via the internet site of the relevant local authority.
Reference Polices that Apply to the Valuation, 1.5.6
2.4 Statutory Rating Valuation
The latest Rating Valuation for the property as at 1 August 2007 is as follows:
Land Value $1,000
Value of Improvements $0,000
Capital Value $1,000
Rating Valuations are carried out under statutory criteria and may not necessarily reflect actual market value. 171 3. 10. 2013 Riccarton/Wigram Community Board 17.09.2013 - 44 -
ATTACHMENT 3 TO CLAUSE 3 Cont’d
172 3. 10. 2013 Riccarton/Wigram Community Board 17.09.2013 - 45 -
ATTACHMENT 3 TO CLAUSE 3 Cont’d
4. Market Commentary
The Christchurch residential property market was significantly affected as the city dealt with the aftermath of the seismic activity since September, 2010. The resulting loss of stock following February 2011 had a negative impact on the supply side of the equation while boosting demand from those who lost accommodation. This has resulted in an upward shift in sales volumes and median sale prices occurring in the later part of 2011 and continuing through 2012. There was a seasonal drop in January 2013 but the market has since recovered in February and March.
For the second month running the median sale price set a new record high for Christchurch. In March 2013 the median price was $384,000, representative of an 8.4% increase on the median March 2012 level of $354,250. Suburbs deemed to be less affected by ongoing earthquake issues and benefiting by being zoned TC 1 Grey and TC 2 Yellow have experienced above average increases in value, particularly so in the price bracket of around $400,000.
Buyer interest for TC3 (blue) properties returned in 2012, with a recovery in values compared to 2011, in particular in the preferred blue chip localities. However, sales volumes for TC 3 properties in 2012 are low compared to pre-earthquake events and are taking longer to sell than the Christchurch average. Buyers, banks and insurers are assessing TC3 properties on a case by case basis with a preference given to properties further away from red zones and having relevant geo-tech, building and engineering reports available.
The new year has seen an increase in activity, with buyer numbers high and continuing to place further pressure on values. The number of days to sell for the month of March was 23 compared with 26 days in February 2013. The Canterbury region continues to have the shortest number of days to sell across New Zealand. 173 3. 10. 2013 Riccarton/Wigram Community Board 17.09.2013 - 46 -
ATTACHMENT 3 TO CLAUSE 3 Cont’d
4. Market Commentary continued
The Reserve Bank is expected to hold the official cash rate at historic low levels until September 2013 at least, with the probability that current levels will remain static well into 2014 as New Zealand’s economy weakened in the second half of 2012 compared with modest growth in the first half. Recent increases in property values in Auckland and Canterbury in particular may give rise to some concern over the OCR, but other factors are expected to outweigh this and a low cash rate environment is expected to continue. A low cash rate assists those looking to borrow to purchase and thus further pressure can be expected on existing stock and price levels as a result. Investors are entering the market with increased demand for short and long term rental properties due to the rebuild which is expected to escalate this year.
The North Canterbury region, along with other outlying locations such as Prebbleton, Lincoln and Rolleston, saw a significant increase in sales activity after the March 2011 quarter, indicating some movement of population from Christchurch to these locations. These locations were generally well placed to receive population growth given existing availability of sections. 174 3. 10. 2013 Riccarton/Wigram Community Board 17.09.2013 - 47 -
ATTACHMENT 3 TO CLAUSE 3 Cont’d
5. Valuation Rationale
5.1 Valuation Methodology
We are required to assess the market value of Section1 Survey Office Plan, Identifier CB42D/165, which currently adjoins a large undeveloped residentially zoned block. We are advised that the subject land area is 1024m², zoned for residential use.
We consider the most appropriate method to the valuation of the subject property in its existing state is the Sales comparison approach to establish a rate/m² for similar, undeveloped land.
We suggest the reasonable approach is to identify the average value of subdivisable residential land on a per square metre basis, which can then be applied to the various identified areas to be transferred between the parties. Please note we make no allowance for any costs associated with the physical work such as removal or construction of roading or associated infrastructure.
To establish an appropriate land value, we have identified and analysed a range of block sales of subdividable land, generally capable of subdivision and future development. We have then made some adjustment for the modest size of the subject parcel of land, taking into account that generally smaller land parcel attract a higher per meter rate than a larger block.
Our analysis has included the following sale transactions:
A subdivisable block at Jones Road, Rolleston sold for $5,600,000 in December 2012. The block was 19.513Ha, which calculates to a rate of $286,988/Ha.
Two adjoining sites on Awatea Road were purchased by the same buyer in July 2012. The sites were 2.2035 and 2.8553 hectares and sold for $1,377,187 and $1,784,562 respectively with equates to $625,000 per hectare. Both sites are with the Living G (Awatea zoning).
There is also an interim market sale on the subject block of $6,000,000 as at March 2013. This would equate to a rate/hectare of $550,000 /hectare or $55/m².
175 3. 10. 2013 Riccarton/Wigram Community Board 17.09.2013 - 48 -
ATTACHMENT 3 TO CLAUSE 3 Cont’d
5. Valuation Rationale continued
5.2 Valuation Conclusion
We conclude that the overall value of the undeveloped land given the characteristics, size and location, is in the order of $75 per square metre including GST.
On the basis outlined above, we calculate the value of the subject proposed lots as follows:
Section 1 SO 19610 1,024m² @ $75 per square metre $76,800 Say $77,000
Therefore we conclude that the value of Section 1 SO 19610 is an amount of $77,000 inclusive of GST if any. Should the area is question be moderately amended, we would consider application of the above rate would be applicable on a pro rata basis.
This valuation is undertaken on the basis of the acquiring party meeting all costs associated with the acquisition process.
Knight Frank Valuation & Consultancy
KATE GIBSON B.Com. Grad Dip (Val) Registered Valuer Valuation & Consultancy 176 3. 10. 2013 Riccarton/Wigram Community Board 17.09.2013 - 49 -
ATTACHMENT 3 TO CLAUSE 3 Cont’d
6. Contact Details
K GIBSON, B.Com, P.G. Dip Val T 64 3 377 3700 M 021 878 441 [email protected]
Knight Frank Level 1, 145 Victoria Street PO Box 13 341 Christchurch, New Zealand T +64 (3) 377 1460 F +64 (3) 366 2972 www.knightfrank.co.nz
Simes Ltd, Licensed Agent (REAA 2008), MREINZ 177 3. 10. 2013 Riccarton/Wigram Community Board 17.09.2013 - 50 -
ATTACHMENT 3 TO CLAUSE 3 Cont’d
Appendices
Certificate of Title 178 3. 10. 2013 Riccarton/Wigram Community Board 17.09.2013 - 51 -
ATTACHMENT 3 TO CLAUSE 3 Cont’d
179 3. 10. 2013 Riccarton/Wigram Community Board 17.09.2013 - 52 -
ATTACHMENT 3 TO CLAUSE 3 Cont’d
180 3. 10. 2013 Riccarton/Wigram Community Board 17.09.2013 - 53 -
ATTACHMENT 3 TO CLAUSE 3 Cont’d
181 3. 10. 2013 Riccarton/Wigram Community Board 17.09.2013 - 54 -
ATTACHMENT 4 TO CLAUSE 3 182 3. 10. 2013 Riccarton/Wigram Community Board 17.09.2013 - 55 -
ATTACHMENT 4 TO CLAUSE 3 Cont’d 183 3. 10. 2013 Riccarton/Wigram Community Board 17.09.2013 - 56 -
ATTACHMENT 4 TO CLAUSE 3 CONT’D
Executive Summary
Sec 1 SO 19607 & Sec 1 SO 19608 & Part Rural Section 38290 Awatea Road, Christchurch Client: Christchurch City Council Parent Title Details: Section1 Survey Office Plan 19608, Identifier CB42D/163,Canterbury Land District Section1 Survey Office Plan 19607, Identifier CB42D/162,Canterbury Land District Part Rural Section 38290, Identifier CB2B/726, Canterbury Land District Zoning: Living G (Awatea) Property Description: Part of three adjoining, vacant land parcels bordering Awatea Road, subject to an easement. Land Area: Section1 Survey Office Plan 19608: 1,253 square meters Section1 Survey Office Plan 19607: 462 square meters Part Rural Section 38290: 175 square meters The areas subject to valuation are two portions of the above sites with a total area of 749 square meters. Purpose of Valuation: Possible transfer Market Value Definition: This valuation has been completed in accordance with the Australia and New Zealand Valuation and Property Standards 2009 and the International Valuation Standards 2011. Market value is defined as :
“Market value is the estimated amount for which an asset should exchange on the valuation date between a willing buyer and a willing seller in an arm’s length transaction, after proper marketing, and where the parties had each acted knowledgeably, prudently and without compulsion”. Date of Inspection / 14th May, 2013 / 29th August 2013 Valuation: Market Value – Road to be $25,000 Vested (Twenty Five Thousand Dollars) This assessment is GST inclusive (if any). Market Value – Land to be $15,600 Purchased (Fifteen Thousand, Six Hundred Dollars) This assessment is GST inclusive (if any). Additional Comments: We are not qualified to assess the stability, load bearing capacity or integrity of the land and we give no warranty as to those issues in respect of the land. You may wish to check the structural integrity of the improvements on the property and/or the stability, load bearing capacity and integrity of the land by requesting a report from a suitably qualified person.
We value on the basis that there is no major impediment to building on the subject sites. Valuer’s Details K GIBSON Registered Valuer
This Executive Summary forms a part of and should not be used or read independently from the complete report. 184 3. 10. 2013 Riccarton/Wigram Community Board 17.09.2013 - 57 -
ATTACHMENT 4 TO CLAUSE 3 Cont’d
1. Introduction
1.1 Instructions
We have been instructed by Mr D Egerton on behalf of the Christchurch City Council to assess the current market value of the within described property for possible sale purposes to be relied upon by Christchurch City Council.
This report has been prepared for the private and confidential use of the addressee for the specific purpose detailed above. It should not be reproduced in whole or part, or relied upon by any other party for any use whatsoever without the expressed written authority of Knight Frank.
We accept no liability to third parties nor do we contemplate that this report would be relied upon by third parties. We invite other parties who may come into possession of this report to seek our written consent to them relying on this report. We reserve our right to withhold consent or to review the contents of this report in the event that our consent is sought.
1.2 Date of Inspection / Valuation
14th May 2013 / 29th August 2013
1.3 Compliance Statement
Our rules of professional practice require us to include a compliance statement in all our valuations advising that our valuation has been performed in accordance with International Valuation Standards and New Zealand Valuation Standards.
W e confirm that:
. The statements of fact presented in the valuation are correct to the best of our knowledge; . Our analysis and conclusions are limited only by the valuation assumptions and conditions; . W e have no interest in the subject property; . Our fee is not contingent upon any aspect of the valuation; . Our valuation has been prepared in accordance with an ethical code and performance standards; . The valuer signing the valuation has satisfied professional education requirements; . The valuer signing the valuation has experience in the location and category of the property being valued; . The valuer has made a personal inspection of the property; and . No one, except those specified in the valuation, have provided professional assistance in preparing the
valuation. W e are obliged to disclose any departure from the statements listed above and provide an explanation
for such a departure.
1.4 Interpretation
(a) Any references to “we”, “us” or “our” within this report means: (i) Knight Frank; (ii) offices, employees, agents, or any other persons within the control of Knight Frank; and (iii) the employee(s) of Knight Frank dealing directly with the instructing client. (b) Any references to “Knight Frank” within this report means Knight Frank only. 185 3. 10. 2013 Riccarton/Wigram Community Board 17.09.2013 - 58 -
ATTACHMENT 4 TO CLAUSE 3 Cont’d
1.5 Policies that Apply to the Valuation
You should read this document carefully as it lists the general policies on which we have prepared the valuation. These policies form part of the valuation and apply unless specifically stated otherwise elsewhere in the valuation.
W e have proceeded on the basis of there being no issues arising from any of the below which would have an effect on the valuation. If you have any questions or concerns about anything in this section, you should contact us to discuss.
If any of the valuation policies on which we have relied in preparing the valuation are incorrect, we reserve the right to review the valuation.
1.5.1 The standards that apply to the valuation The valuation has been prepared strictly in accordance with the New Zealand Institute of Valuer's Code of Ethics, International Valuation Standards and New Zealand Valuation Standards and accompanying guidance notes.
1.5.2. We hold professional indemnity insurance W e confirm that as at the date of valuation, we hold in force and effect professional indemnity insurance for our valuations.
1.5.3. The valuation is personal to you The valuation has been prepared for your private and confidential use and for the specific purpose detailed in the valuation. It should not be reproduced in whole or in part, or relied on by any other party for any use whatsoever without first obtaining our prior written consent. W e do not assume any responsibility to any other person other than you for any reason whatsoever, including breach of contract, negligence (including negligent misstatement) or wilful act or default by ourselves or by others by reason of or arising out of the provision of the valuation. Any person, other than you, who uses or relies on the valuation does so at their own risk.
1.5.4. The valuation is current at the date of valuation The valuation is current as at the date of valuation only. Values can change significantly and unexpectedly over a relatively short period (including as a result of general market movements or factors specific to the particular property). W e accept no responsibility for losses arising from such subsequent changes in value. W ithout limiting the generality of the foregoing, we accept no responsibility where the valuation is relied upon after the expiration of three months from the date of valuation, or such earlier date if you become aware of any factors that have any effect on the valuation.
1.5.5. The information relied on in the valuation Where it is stated in the valuation that information has been supplied to us by a third party, this information is believed to be reliable but we accept no responsibility if this should prove not to be so. W here information is given without being attributable to a third party, that information will have been obtained by a search of records and suitable examination of documents or by enquiry from Government and/ or other appropriate sources. W e assume that full disclosure of all relevant information has been made and we accept no responsibility if other information exists which we are unaware of. 186 3. 10. 2013 Riccarton/Wigram Community Board 17.09.2013 - 59 -
ATTACHMENT 4 TO CLAUSE 3 Cont’d
1.5.6. Planning information for the property Unless otherwise stated in the valuation, our valuation does not take into account the local authorities planning information. You may want to check this yourself or with your legal representative as it could affect the value of the property. There are two planning documents that may be useful: the Land Information Memoranda ("LIM") and/ or Project Information Memoranda ("PIM"). You can get these from your local authority for a fee. W e have not obtained the LIM or PIM and we assume there not to be any requisitions from a local authority in respect to either the land or improvements to it.
1.5.7. Inspections of the property W e undertake such inspections and conduct investigations as are, in our opinion, correct, appropriate and possible in the particular circumstances. Unless otherwise stated in the valuation, on-site inspections are limited to all readily accessible parts of the land and improvements on it.
1.5.8. Structural survey of the building While in the course of our inspection due care is taken to note building defects, we are not qualified to undertake, nor have we undertaken, a structural survey of the buildings or structures. W e accept no responsibility for any defects that may arise as a result of poor building design, construction methods or building materials. If you have any concerns, you should obtain a report from a suitably qualified person. Defects revealed by a suitable qualified person may affect the value of the property.
1.5.9. Land survey of the property W e are not qualified to undertake, nor have we undertaken environmental or geotechnical surveys to determine the suitability of ground conditions and services. Unless otherwise stated in the valuation, the valuation is prepared on the basis that these aspects are all satisfactory. In the case of properties that may have development potential, we assume that the property has a load bearing capacity suitable for the anticipated form of development without the need for additional expensive foundations or drainage systems.
1.5.10. Boundary survey of the property W e do not carry out a boundary survey of the property and assume for the purposes of the valuation that there are no encroachments by or upon the title. Any sketch, plan or map we include in the valuation is intended to assist the reader with visualisation of the property and should not be relied on as being definitive.
1.5.11. Registrations other than those on the title Unless otherwise stated, the valuation assumes that there are no detrimental or beneficial registrations affecting the value of the property other than those appearing on the title. Such registrations including W ahi Tapu and Historic Places Trust registrations may affect the valuation of the property.
1.5.12. Installed items forming part of the building Where applicable, our valuation includes those items which form part of the building. Unless otherwise stated, the valuation is prepared on the basis that items including hot and cold water systems, drainage systems, electrical systems, air conditioning or ventilation systems and other such installations are in proper working order and functioning for the purpose for which they were designed. 187 3. 10. 2013 Riccarton/Wigram Community Board 17.09.2013 - 60 -
ATTACHMENT 4 TO CLAUSE 3 Cont’d
1.5.13. Compliance with all applicable laws The valuation is prepared on the basis that the property complies with all relevant legislation, regulations and consents unless otherwise stated. Failure to comply could adversely affect the value of the property. Legislation that may be of importance includes the Building Act 2004, Resource Management Act 1991, Health and Safety in Employment Act 1992, the Fire Safety and Evacuation of Buildings Regulation 1992, and the Disabled Persons Community W elfare Act 1975.
1.5.14 Environmental issues affecting the property W e have not completed an environmental audit of the property, although any contaminants on the property that may be obvious on inspection may be noted in the valuation. No warranty is given, or is to be implied, in the valuation that the property is free from contaminants. Substances such as asbestos, other chemicals, toxic wastes, or other potentially hazardous materials could adversely affect the value of the property. The valuation is prepared on the basis that there is no material on the property that would affect its value. If you have any concerns, verification that the property is free from contaminants should be obtained from a suitably qualified environmental expert.
1.5.15. Realisation of mortgages and other security No allowances have been made in our valuation for any expenses of realisation or to reflect the balance of any outstanding mortgages or other interests secured against the property, either in respect of capital or interest accrued thereon.
1.5.16. The Consumer Guarantees Act 1993 Where there is any conflict between anything stated in the valuation and the Consumer Guarantees Act 1993, the Consumer Guarantees Act 1993 shall prevail to the extent of the conflict. W here the valuation has been obtained for business purposes, the guarantees and rights expressed or implied by the Consumer Guarantees Act 1993 will not apply.
1.5.17. Measurements used in the valuation Unless otherwise stated, all property measurements are carried out in accordance with the Guide for Measurement of Rentable Areas issued by the Property Council and Property Institute of New Zealand.
1.5.18. Goods and services tax In accordance with Property Institute of New Zealand guidance notes, and unless otherwise stated, residential property valuations are inclusive of GST (if any) and valuations of non-residential property are exclusive of GST (if any).
1.5.19. Exclusion of plant and machinery Unless otherwise stated, the valuation excludes any plant or equipment erected on or associated with the property. W e are not qualified to, nor have we undertaken engineering inspections or taken advice on any plant or equipment and we accept no responsibility for the condition or suitability thereof. 188 3. 10. 2013 Riccarton/Wigram Community Board 17.09.2013 - 61 -
ATTACHMENT 4 TO CLAUSE 3 Cont’d
1.5.20. The meaning of "Market Value" In the case of market valuations, "market value" is defined as being:
The estimated amount for which an asset should exchange on the date of valuation between a willing buyer and a willing seller in an arms length transaction after proper marketing, wherein the parties had each acted knowledgeably, prudently and without compulsion.
1.5.21. Lender's reliance on the valuation Unless otherwise stated in the valuation, a mortgage recommendation has not been requested and is not included in the valuation. If a lender is named in the valuation then that lender (and no other) may rely on the valuation for mortgage finance purposes. In that eventuality, we assume that the lender has complied with its own lending guidelines as well as prudent finance industry lending practices, and has considered all prudent aspects of credit risk for any potential borrower, including the borrower's ability to service and repay any mortgage loan.
1.5.22. Tenancies or leases affecting the property Where we have relied upon photocopies of any tenancy or lease arrangement, we assume that these are accurate copies and there are no undisclosed changes or dealings that have not been advised to us. W here no photocopies of the tenancy or lease arrangements have been sighted by us, we assume that they contain no clauses or conditions that may materially affect the valuation.
1.5.23. Earthquake damage to the property W e have prepared the valuation on the basis that the improvements and land forming the property are sound and that the effect of any earthquakes have not had any detrimental effect on the value of the property beyond any discernible market adjustments. The Building Act 2004 has increased the scope and number of buildings that may be at risk from earthquake damage and have to be re-investigated and, where necessary, strengthened. W e have prepared the valuation on the basis the property complies with local authority earthquake requirements and that no extra strengthening works are required. If you have any concerns, you should verify the earthquake status of the property with the owner (as applicable) and the local authorities.
1.5.24. Insurance and assumptions of coverage The valuation is prepared on the basis that there is full insurance available for the property. The valuation also assumes that any earthquake damage will be covered by the Earthquake Commission ("EQC") and private insurance and all damage resulting from the earthquakes will be reinstated in a manner that will not significantly alter the value of the property relative to its value before the earthquake. W e assume that EQC and private insurance claims can be transferred to the new owner.
1.5.25. Forecast valuations are a best assessment Future rental rates, costs and property values will be determined by market forces applicable at the time. W here figures are provided within the valuation in analytical or forecast nature, they are not a representation of a known or guaranteed future position and should not be relied on as such. 189 3. 10. 2013 Riccarton/Wigram Community Board 17.09.2013 - 62 -
ATTACHMENT 4 TO CLAUSE 3 Cont’d
190 3. 10. 2013 Riccarton/Wigram Community Board 17.09.2013 - 63 -
ATTACHMENT 4 TO CLAUSE 3 Cont’d
191 3. 10. 2013 Riccarton/Wigram Community Board 17.09.2013 - 64 -
ATTACHMENT 4 TO CLAUSE 3 Cont’d
192 3. 10. 2013 Riccarton/Wigram Community Board 17.09.2013 - 65 -
ATTACHMENT 4 TO CLAUSE 3 Cont’d
193 3. 10. 2013 Riccarton/Wigram Community Board 17.09.2013 - 66 -
ATTACHMENT 4 TO CLAUSE 3 Cont’d
4. Market Commentary
The Christchurch residential property market was significantly affected as the city dealt with the aftermath of the seismic activity since September, 2010. The resulting loss of stock following February 2011 had a negative impact on the supply side of the equation while boosting demand from those who lost accommodation. This has resulted in an upward shift in sales volumes and median sale prices occurring in the later part of 2011 and continuing through 2012. There was a seasonal drop in January 2013 but the market has since recovered in February and March.
For the second month running the median sale price set a new record high for Christchurch. In March 2013 the median price was $384,000, representative of an 8.4% increase on the median March 2012 level of $354,250. Suburbs deemed to be less affected by ongoing earthquake issues and benefiting by being zoned TC 1 Grey and TC 2 Yellow have experienced above average increases in value, particularly so in the price bracket of around $400,000.
Buyer interest for TC3 (blue) properties returned in 2012, with a recovery in values compared to 2011, in particular in the preferred blue chip localities. However, sales volumes for TC 3 properties in 2012 are low compared to pre-earthquake events and are taking longer to sell than the Christchurch average. Buyers, banks and insurers are assessing TC3 properties on a case by case basis with a preference given to properties further away from red zones and having relevant geo-tech, building and engineering reports available.
The new year has seen an increase in activity, with buyer numbers high and continuing to place further pressure on values. The number of days to sell for the month of March was 23 compared with 26 days in February 2013. The Canterbury region continues to have the shortest number of days to sell across New Zealand.
194 3. 10. 2013 Riccarton/Wigram Community Board 17.09.2013 - 67 -
ATTACHMENT 4 TO CLAUSE 3 Cont’d
4 Market Commentary continued
The Reserve Bank is expected to hold the official cash rate at historic low levels until September 2013 at least, with the probability that current levels will remain static well into 2014 as New Zealand’s economy weakened in the second half of 2012 compared with modest growth in the first half. Recent increases in property values in Auckland and Canterbury in particular may give rise to some concern over the OCR, but other factors are expected to outweigh this and a low cash rate environment is expected to continue. A low cash rate assists those looking to borrow to purchase and thus further pressure can be expected on existing stock and price levels as a result. Investors are entering the market with increased demand for short and long term rental properties due to the rebuild which is expected to escalate this year.
The North Canterbury region, along with other outlying locations such as Prebbleton, Lincoln and Rolleston, saw a significant increase in sales activity after the March 2011 quarter, indicating some movement of population from Christchurch to these locations. These locations were generally well placed to receive population growth given existing availability of sections.
195 3. 10. 2013 Riccarton/Wigram Community Board 17.09.2013 - 68 -
ATTACHMENT 4 TO CLAUSE 3 Cont’d
5. Valuation Rationale
5.1 Valuation Methodology
We are required to assess the market value of two portions of the following sites: Section1 Survey Office Plan 19608, Section1 Survey Office Plan 19607 Part Rural Section 38290
These undeveloped sites currently adjoin a larger, undeveloped, residentially zoned block. The overall land area of the three sites is 1,890m² zoned for residential use, with the subject portions totalling 749m².
We consider the most appropriate method to the valuation of the subject property in its existing state is the Sales comparison approach to establish a rate/m² for similar, undeveloped land.
We suggest the reasonable approach is to identify the average value of subdividable residential land on a per square metre basis, which can then be applied to the various identified areas to be transferred between the parties. Please note we make no allowance for any costs associated with the physical work such as removal or construction of roading or associated infrastructure.
To establish an appropriate land value, we have identified and analysed a range of block sales of subdividable land, generally capable of subdivision and future development. We have then made some adjustment for the modest size of the subject parcel of land, taking into account that generally smaller land parcel attract a higher per meter rate than a larger block.
Our analysis has included the following sale transactions:
A subdivisable block at Jones Road, Rolleston sold for $5,600,000 in December 2012. The block was 19.513Ha, which calculates to a rate of $286,988/Ha.
Two adjoining sites on Awatea Road were purchased by the same buyer in July 2012. The sites were 2.2035 and 2.8553 hectares and sold for $1,377,187 and $1,784,562 respectively with equates to $625,000 per hectare. Both sites are with the Living G (Awatea zoning).
There is also an interim market sale on the subject block of $6,000,000 as at March 2013. This would equate to a rate/hectare of $550,000 /hectare or $55/m².
135 Claridges Road, Casebrook, currently zoned Rural 3 but subject to a Plan Change to rezone the land Living G (Upper Styx) sold in April 2012 for $3,100,000 ($462,334 per hectare). The purchaser is responsible for the cost of rezoning and the time delay. 196 3. 10. 2013 Riccarton/Wigram Community Board 17.09.2013 - 69 -
ATTACHMENT 4 TO CLAUSE 3 Cont’d
5 Valuation Rationale continued
5.2 Valuation Conclusion
We conclude that the overall value of undeveloped, residentially zoned land is in the order of $60 - $75 per square metre including GST.
Given the shape and size of the first portion of land, to be vested as road, and the placement of the easement over part of the site, we would expect a negative impact on the value given the loss of property rights and utility brought about by the easement. On the basis outlined above, we calculate the value of this portion as follows: 541m² @ $45/m² (partially compromised by the easement) = $24,345 Say $25,000 (incl of GST, if any)
The second portion of land to be purchased, located to the north of the proposed easement is not considered to be impacted and can become part of another site without restriction. On the basis outlined above, and considering the size of this portion of land, we have made our assessment of value as follows: 208m² @ $75/m² = $15,600 (incl of GST, if any)
We would note that there would be limited purchasers for the sites and it is likely to become part of a larger holding, affordability may be an issue and this should be considered as part of the negotiation process.
This valuation is undertaken on the basis of the acquiring party meeting all costs associated with the acquisition process.
Knight Frank Valuation & Consultancy
KATE GIBSON B.Com. Grad Dip (Val) Registered Valuer Valuation & Consultancy 197 3. 10. 2013 Riccarton/Wigram Community Board 17.09.2013 - 70 -
ATTACHMENT 4 TO CLAUSE 3 Cont’d
6. Contact Details
K GIBSON, B.Com, P.G. Dip Val T 64 3 377 3700 M 021 878 441 [email protected]
Knight Frank Level 1, 145 Victoria Street PO Box 13 341 Christchurch, New Zealand T +64 (3) 377 1460 F +64 (3) 366 2972 www.knightfrank.co.nz
Simes Ltd, Licensed Agent (REAA 2008), MREINZ 198 3. 10. 2013 Riccarton/Wigram Community Board 17.09.2013 - 71 -
ATTACHMENT 4 TO CLAUSE 3 Cont’d
Appendices
Certificate of Title 199 3. 10. 2013 Riccarton/Wigram Community Board 17.09.2013 - 72 -
ATTACHMENT 4 TO CLAUSE 3 Cont’d
200 3. 10. 2013 Riccarton/Wigram Community Board 17.09.2013 - 73 -
ATTACHMENT 4 TO CLAUSE 3 Cont’d
201 3. 10. 2013 Riccarton/Wigram Community Board 17.09.2013 - 74 -
ATTACHMENT 4 TO CLAUSE 3 Cont’d
202 3. 10. 2013 Riccarton/Wigram Community Board 17.09.2013 - 75 -
ATTACHMENT 4 TO CLAUSE 3 Cont’d
203 3. 10. 2013 Riccarton/Wigram Community Board 17.09.2013 - 76 -
ATTACHMENT 4 TO CLAUSE 3 Cont’d
204 3. 10. 2013 Riccarton/Wigram Community Board 17.09.2013 - 77 -
ATTACHMENT 4 TO CLAUSE 3 Cont’d
205 3. 10. 2013 Riccarton/Wigram Community Board 17.09.2013 - 78 -
ATTACHMENT 4 TO CLAUSE 3 Cont’d
206 3. 10. 2013 Riccarton/Wigram Community Board 17.09.2013 - 79 -
ATTACHMENT 4 TO CLAUSE 3 Cont’d
207 3. 10. 2013 Riccarton/Wigram Community Board 17.09.2013 - 80 -
ATTACHMENT 4 TO CLAUSE 3 Cont’d
208 209 3. 10. 2013
SHIRLEY/PAPANUI COMMUNITY BOARD Clause 16 4 SEPTEMBER 2013
Report of the meeting of the Shirley/Papanui Community Board held on Wednesday 4 September 2013 at 4pm in the Board Room Papanui Service Centre, corner Langdons Road and Restell Street, Papanui
PRESENT: Chris Mene (Chairperson), Kathy Condon, Anna Button, Pauline Cotter and Aaron Keown.
APOLOGIES: Apologies for absence were received and accepted from Ngaire Button.
The Board adjourned from 5.44pm to 6pm.
The Board reports that:
PART A – MATTERS REQUIRING A COUNCIL DECISION
1. BRIEFINGS
1.1 EARTHQUAKE RECOVERY COMMUNITY ADVOCATE
Joanna Corbett, Earthquake Recovery Community Advocate, updated the Board on her work.
The Board resolved to recommend to the Council that it:
a) Note that the Board has serious concerns regarding ongoing flooding in the Dudley Creek/ Flockton Street area since the earthquakes.
(b) Note that the Board considers that the current approach of addressing the flooding issues on a case-by-case approach is insufficient and an area-based approach to global remediation is required.
(c) Urgently work with the Canterbury Earthquake Recovery Authority, the Earthquake Commission and the Insurance Council towards global remediation of the flooding and land issues in the Dudley Creek/Flockton Street area.
(d) Report back to the Shirley/Papanui Community Board and the local community with options to achieve global remediation of the flooding and land issues in the Dudley Creek/Flockton Street area.
(e) Continue to engage with the local community to ensure that the Council fully understands the local issues relating to ongoing flooding in the Dudley Creek/Flockton Street area and the need for global remediation of the flooding and land issues.
PART B – REPORTS FOR INFORMATION
2. DEPUTATIONS BY APPOINTMENT
2.1 POSITIVE YOUTH DEVELOPMENT FUND REPORT BACK – ROSE OAKLEY
Rose Oakley reported on her attendance at the Global Young Leaders’ Conference in Washington DC and New York in July 2013. 210 3. 10. 2013 Shirley/Papanui Community Board 4. 9. 2013
2 Cont’d
The Chairperson thanked Rose Oakley for her report.
2.2 POSITIVE YOUTH DEVELOPMENT SCHEME REPORT BACK – JAMIE POOLE AND KHALIB HOME
Jamie Poole and Khalib Home reported back to the Board on their participation in the 2013 Boys Brigade National Leadership Development Courses at the Nelson Lakes in July.
The Chairperson thanked Jamie Poole and Khalib Home for their reports.
2.3 POSITIVE YOUTH DEVELOPMENT SCHEME REPORT BACK – LEVINGS SCHOOL OF DANCE
Madison and Olivia Fuller and Joshua Wadley reported back to the Board on their participation in the 2013 National Rainbow Showcase Dance Competition in Las Vegas, USA in July.
The Chairperson thanked Madison and Olivia Fuller and Joshua Wadley for their report.
2.4 POSITIVE YOUTH DEVELOPMENT FUND REPORT BACK – TE AMOKURA KAPA HAKA
Te Amokura Kapa Haka team did not attend.
2.5 PASIFIKA YOUTH LEADERSHIP AND TRANSFORMATION COUNCIL
Josiah Tualamali’i, and Ashalyna Noa of the Pasifika Youth Leadership and Transformation Council (PYLAT) made a presentation to the Board regarding PYLAT’s goals and work.
The Board noted the PYLAT ISPEAK project, which is a series of discussion events being delivered over 2013/14 where the discussion material is used to create a submission or formal statement to ensure that a Pasifika youth opinion on important issues is articulated and known.
The Chairperson thanked Mr Tualamali’i and Ms Noa for their deputation.
The Board decided to hear a late deputation from Westminster Sports Incorporated.
2.6 WESTMINSTER SPORTS INCORPORATED
Eddie Cropley and Allen Direen from Westminster Sports Incorporated (WSI) attended to update the Board on the latest developments with the proposed WSI new sports facility and express their concern over the possible delays to their project inherent in the proposed extension of the lease of 280 Westminster Street to Fletchers until 18 April 2016.
Council staff and a representative from Fletcher Earthquake Recovery were also in attendance.
At 5pm the Board resolved to suspend standing orders to facilitate discussion between all parties. It was resolved to resume standing orders at 5.25pm.
The Board decided to:
(a) Support the extension of the lease to Fletcher Earthquake Recovery for 280 Westminster Street until 18 April 2016.
(b) Indicate its continued support for:
Westminster Sports Incorporated towards the establishment of a recreational facility
211 3. 10. 2013 Shirley/Papanui Community Board 4. 9. 2013
2 Cont’d
further engagement between Westminster Sports Incorporated, Fletchers EQR and Council staff.
(c) Request that staff investigate the options for establishing a development agreement or similar (such as a public-private partnership) between the Council and Westminster Sports Incorporated.
(Note: Pauline Cotter abstained from voting on item 2.6.)
3. PRESENTATION OF PETITIONS
Nil.
4. NOTICES OF MOTION
Nil.
5. CORRESPONDENCE
5.1 SHIRLEY COMMUNITY TRUST
The Board received a letter from the Shirley Community Trust expressing its appreciation and thanks for the Strengthening Communities Grant towards a Youth Worker.
5.2 SHIRLEY COMMUNITY TRUST
The Board received a letter from the Shirley Community Trust expressing its appreciation and thanks for funding from the Small Grants Fund towards replacement Café T-shirts, wool for the Knit and Natter group, the SHINE Community Festival and the Shirley Community “Light Party”.
6. COMMUNITY BOARD ADVISER’S UPDATE
The Board received information from the Community Board Adviser on Board-related activities, including upcoming meetings and events.
6.1 SMALL GRANTS ASSESSMENT COMMITTEE
Refer to the Community Board Adviser’s Update Continued, Part C for the Board’s decision.
6.2 RESPONSE TO THE COMMUNITY, RECREATION AND CULTURE COMMITTEE
The Board noted and appreciated staff efficiency in compiling the comprehensive list of communications with the Shirley Community Centre Committee which was supplied in response to a request from the Community, Recreation and Culture Committee. . The Board decided to indicate its support that a community facility for Shirley become a Council priority and be added to the top 30 facilities programme.
6.3 REQUEST TO CONSIDER REZONING OF LAND ADJACENT TO CRANFORD STREET
At its meeting of 19 June 2013 the Board considered that there was a need to rezone the land to Business/Commercial on either side of Cranford Street from the northern end of the
212 3. 10. 2013 Shirley/Papanui Community Board 4. 9. 2013
6 Cont’d
rural section of the street to Bealey Avenue, due to the proposed four-laning of part of Cranford Street.
The Board noted staff advice that the rezoning of land will be considered within the Business Chapter of the District Plan Review.
6.4 RESPONSE TO CORRESPONDENCE FROM THE ST ALBANS RESIDENTS ASSOCIATION
On 19 June 2013, the Board received correspondence from the St Albans Residents’ Association requesting information regarding how the preferred route for the Northern Arterial Plan was selected and what consultation was undertaken on this.
The Board noted staff advice regarding the process undertaken to select the preferred route and requested that this be provided to the St Albans Residents’ Association.
6.5 PROCESS FOR LODGING REQUESTS FOR SERVICE
The Board noted staff advice that, unless there is a specific need for Board intervention, any requests for service need to be lodged through the Council's call centre (phone: 941 8999 or email: [email protected]). To lodge such requests residents’ names and contact details are required.
6.6 FINAL BOARD MEETING OF THE TERM
The Board noted that its final meeting for this term will be held on Wednesday 18 September 2013.
7. ELECTED MEMBERS’ INFORMATION EXCHANGE
The Board:
Requested an update on the progress of the Courtenay/ Roosevelt Street upgrade and that the road surface in the vicinity of the roundabout be repaired in the interests of public safety.
Received a request from Mrs Wagstaffe, a resident of Northwood subdivision, for an additional bus stop on Beechwood Drive (Route 107) near the intersection with Talbot Street and requested that staff investigate options.
Received information from a resident of Sawyers Arms Road that the bus seat on the inward bound route on Sawyers Arms Road was no longer utilised and suggesting that it be moved to the outward bound bus stop on the opposite side of Sawyers Arms Road and requested that staff provide information on the feasibility of moving the bus seat.
Received notification from members of the Edgeware Village Green that access from Trafalgar Street to the community garden had been blocked off by the drilling of a well and therefore access to the garden was limited.
The Board requested that staff provide information regarding timelines for completion of the well and resumed access to the community garden.
Received advice from local residents that disabled access to the Petrie Street bus stop was inadequate and requested an update from staff on possible improvements.
Received a complaint from the resident of 430 Innes Road opposite the BP Petrol Station that the public were parking too close to his driveway, thereby making exiting his property hazardous due to limited visibility on a busy road.
213 3. 10. 2013 Shirley/Papanui Community Board 4. 9. 2013
7 Cont’d
The Board requested that staff assess the situation and provide advice on a suitable solution.
Noted that the Shirley Stream from Hammersley Park through to Quinns Road was becoming overgrown and blocking the water flow.
The Board requested that staff report back on when maintenance is next scheduled in this location.
8. QUESTIONS UNDER STANDING ORDERS
Nil.
PART C – REPORT ON DELEGATED DECISIONS TAKEN BY THE BOARD
6. COMMUNITY BOARD ADVISER’S UPDATE (CONTINUED)
6.1 SMALL GRANTS ASSESSMENT COMMITTEE
It was resolved that the minutes of the Small Grants Assessment Committee meeting held on Tuesday 13 August 2013 be confirmed.
9. DECLARATION OF INTEREST
There were no declarations of interest.
10. CONFIRMATION OF MEETING MINUTES
The Board resolved that the minutes of its meeting of Wednesday 21 August 2013 be confirmed.
11. STYX RIVER CONSERVATION RESERVE – CHANGE OF CLASSIFICATION
The Board considered a report seeking its approval to publicly notify a proposed change of classification of Styx River Conservation Reserve from Recreation Reserve to Local Purpose (Utility) Reserve, with a view to developing a stormwater detention basin and wetland.
The Board resolved to:
(a) Approve in principle the change of classification of (2.1612 ha) Styx River Conservation Reserve being Part Lot 1 (DP 301629) shown as Section 1 on SO 373925 from Recreation Reserve to Local Purpose (Utility) Reserve.
(b) Approve the public notification of the proposed change of classification of (2.1612 ha) Styx River Conservation Reserve being Part Lot 1 (DP 301629) shown as Section 1 on SO 373925 from Recreation Reserve to Local Purpose (Utility) Reserve, for one month.
(c) Appoint Commissioner David Mountfort to hear and consider public submissions received regarding the proposed change of reserve classification (Styx River Conservation Reserve) and make a recommendation to the Board at its November 2013 meeting.
214 3. 10. 2013 Shirley/Papanui Community Board 4. 9. 2013
12. HONEYSUCKLE PLACE – PROPOSED P120 PARKING RESTRICTION AND NO STOPPING RESTRICTION
The Board considered a report seeking its approval to install P120 parking restrictions on Honeysuckle Place.
The Board resolved to:
(a) Revoke any parking restrictions on both sides of Honeysuckle Place, commencing at the intersection with Morrison Avenue and extending in a westerly direction for a distance of 147 metres.
(b) Prohibit the stopping of vehicles at any time on the north side of Honeysuckle Place, commencing at its intersection with Morrison Avenue and extending in a westerly direction for a distance of 19 metres.
(c) Prohibit the stopping of vehicles at any time on the south side of Honeysuckle Place, commencing at its intersection with Morrison Avenue and extending in a westerly direction for a distance of 19 metres.
(d) Restrict the parking of vehicles to a maximum period of 120 minutes on the south side of Honeysuckle Place, commencing at a point 48 metres west of its intersection with Morrison Avenue and extending in a westerly direction for a distance of 40 metres.
(e) Restrict the parking of vehicles to a maximum period of 120 minutes on the north side of Honeysuckle Place, commencing at a point 94 metres west of its intersection with Morrison Avenue and extending in a westerly direction for a distance of 53 metres.
13. APPLICATION TO THE SHIRLEY/PAPANUI COMMUNITY BOARD’S POSITIVE YOUTH DEVELOPMENT FUND 2013/14 – NEKHOLAS NICO KHANE THOMPSON
The Board considered a report seeking its approval of an application for funding from Nekholas Nico Khane Thompson to assist with the costs of attending the Shakedown Hip Hop championships in Nelson.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
That the Board grant $100 from the 2013/14 Positive Youth Development Fund to Zion Dance Studios to assist with the costs of Nekholas Nico Khane Thompson attending the Shakedown Hip Hop championships in Nelson from 22 to 23 September 2013.
BOARD DECISION
The Board resolved to grant $120 from the 2013/14 Positive Youth Development Fund to Zion Dance Studios to assist with the costs of Nekholas Nico Khane Thompson attending the Shakedown Hip Hop championships in Nelson from 22 to 23 September 2013.
The meeting concluded at 7.23pm.
CONFIRMED THIS 18TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2013
CHRIS MENE CHAIRPERSON
215
Christchurch City Council City Environment Group
Memorandum
Date: 25 September 2013
From: TERRY HOWES
To: MAYOR AND COUNCILLORS
cc: Jane Parfitt, Acting CEO
Attachments: Nil
REGARDING ITEM 16 (1.1): FLOODING IN DUDLEY CREEK/FLOCKTON STREET AREA
Purpose of this Memo: To provide further information to a Community Board report that is to go to Council next week.
The Shirley Papanui Community Board meeting of 4 September received a briefing on Earthquake Recovery from the Community Advocate. The Board recommended:
(e) Continue to engage with the local community to ensure that the Council fully understands the local issues relating to ongoing flooding in the Dudley Creek / Flockton Street area and the need for global remediation of the flooding and land issues.
The issue of solving the heightened flooding risk points to a global solution being the real first order solution, though that alone won't resolve all of the issues. Investigations and design work is already underway in association with the infrastructure rebuild programme to re-arrange some channels and open up some 14 culvert and 1200 private stream crossings. This will help move water quicker through the basin and address the bulk of the problem, though there will still need to be some localised and/or site-specific remediation, or other supplementary solutions put in place. Other mitigation measures are also being explored that have the potential to reduce flooding risks including stormwater storage facilities and diversion of storm flows to neighbouring catchments.
Undertaking the area-wide remediation will take a number of years, and cost significant monies just to claw back some improvements in level of service. Making the areas more resilient will cost beyond that again in cash and time.
The Department of Prime Minister and Cabinet (DPMC) has appointed James Hay to resurrect the Land Repair Steering Committee which includes Government, Council, CERA, the Insurance Council and EQC. One of the real challenges and opportunities is to get the bodies thinking about collective intervention to resolve the macro problem as well as the site specific issues. Council officers involved in this are advocating this, as is suggested, but it may require Ministerial level intervention to get some of the government parties into the space.
City Environment Group Civic Offices 53 Hereford Street PO Box 73014 Christchurch 8154 Telephone (03) 9418608 Fax (03) 941 8811 Email [email protected] 216 - 2 -
We have also floated the use of EQC monies to funding an area wide remediation. This idea has been on the table previously but EQC have steadfastly claimed that their Act requires them to deal with the individual land owner and therefore cannot use their payouts to help fund wider remediation. It is hoped that with more direct Crown involvement this position may change.
Design staff have indicated they will shortly complete their preliminary design solution. While this recognises that the land is unlikely to be capable of widespread remediation it will propose a mixture of improved conveyance along with some site specific intervention to address critical levels of risks
Staff Recommendation: To receive the information.
Terry Howes ACTING GENERAL MANAGER CITY ENVIRONMENT
City Environment Group Civic Offices 53 Hereford Street PO Box 73014 Christchurch 8154 Telephone (03) 9418608 Fax (03) 941 8811 Email [email protected]
217 3. 10. 2013
SHIRLEY/PAPANUI COMMUNITY BOARD Clause 17 18 SEPTEMBER 2013
Minutes of the meeting of the Shirley/Papanui Community Board held on Wednesday 18 September 2013 at 4pm in the Board Room Papanui Service Centre, corner Langdons Road and Restell Street, Papanui
PRESENT: Chris Mene (Chairperson), Kathy Condon, Anna Button, Ngaire Button, Pauline Cotter and Aaron Keown.
APOLOGIES: Nil.
The Board reports that:
PART A – MATTERS REQUIRING A COUNCIL DECISION
1. COMMUNITY BOARD ADVISER’S UPDATE
1.1 CRANFORD STREET/MAIN NORTH ROAD ZEBRA PEDESTRIAN CROSSING UPGRADE
In June 2013 the Board requested that staff investigate accessibility on the recently upgraded and raised zebra pedestrian crossing on the left turn slip lane from Main North Road into Cranford Street after reports that crossing of the raised sections by persons using wheelchairs was problematic.
Staff advised that work to remedy the issue has been carried out, however, the Board noted that this work has not adequately addressed the accessibility issues for people in wheelchairs.
The Board recommends to the Council that more robust engagement with the disability sector is undertaken as part of the design process to improve the accessibility of intersections and crossings.
Refer to clause 1.1 (Part B) of these minutes for the Board’s decision on this item.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
That staff prepare a report for the incoming Council.
PART B – REPORTS FOR INFORMATION
1. COMMUNITY BOARD ADVISER’S UPDATE (CONTINUED)
The Board received information from the Community Board Adviser on Board-related activities, including upcoming meetings and events.
1.1 CRANFORD STREET/MAIN NORTH ROAD ZEBRA PEDESTRIAN CROSSING UPGRADE
The Board decided to request that the accessibility of the raised zebra pedestrian crossing on the left turn slip lane from Main North Road into Cranford Street is redressed with input from the Disability Advisory Group. 218 3. 10. 2013 Shirley/Papanui Community Board 18. 9. 2013
1 Cont’d
1.2 GRASSMERE TO RUTLAND STREET PATHWAY PROJECT
In March 2013, the Board received correspondence from Kevin and Anne Barron, residents of Taunton Green, expressing concerns over the potential loss of privacy and negative issues envisaged around allowing public access on the land next to their house with establishment of a proposed pathway linking Grassmere Road to Rutland Reserve.
At its meeting of 20 March 2013, the Board decided that the letter outlining the Barron’s concerns be referred to staff for comment to come back to the Board.
The Board noted the staff response including that:
as a matter of course, a full consultation will be undertaken, including conversations with all neighbouring residents of the proposed pathway
the project is recognised in the wider community as having the potential to provide significant improvements for local and suburban active travel
staff recognise that, as a consequence of opening up new links, some neighbouring residents will have concerns about a range of potential issues.
Staff undertook to forward the staff advice to the Barrons.
1.3 ST ALBANS PARK FLOODING
On 7 August 2013 the Board requested an update on the flooding in St Albans Park.
The Board noted staff advice that the grounds are currently being prepared for an engineering assessment and once the results of this are available, funding will be sought through the next annual plan process to progress work to address the flooding problem.
1.4 CONFIRMATION OF THE MINUTES OF 18 SEPTEMBER 2013 MEETING
Refer to clause 1.4 (Part C) of these minutes for the Board’s decision.
2. DEPUTATIONS BY APPOINTMENT
2.1 POSITIVE YOUTH DEVELOPMENT FUND REPORT BACK – HAMISH CADIGAN
Hamish Cadigan reported back to the Board on his participation in the New Zealand Secondary Schools Under 19 Football Team tour of the United Kingdom and Ireland in April and May.
The Chairperson thanked Hamish Cadigan for his report.
2.2 POSITIVE YOUTH DEVELOPMENT SCHEME REPORT BACK – YASOMATI HEDEMARK
Yasomati Hedemark reported back to the Board on her attendance at the New Zealand Hip Hop Nationals in Auckland in April.
The Chairperson thanked Yasomati Hedemark for her report.
2.3 POSITIVE YOUTH DEVELOPMENT SCHEME REPORT BACK – COURTNEY FRASER
Courtney Fraser reported back to the Board on her participation in the Wellington Bands and Orchestral Festival in August.
The Chairperson thanked Courtney Fraser for her report.
219 3. 10. 2013 Shirley/Papanui Community Board 18. 9. 2013
2 Cont’d
2.4 POSITIVE YOUTH DEVELOPMENT FUND REPORT BACK – VILLA MARIA CON BRIO CHOIR
Brittany Geeves, Anastasia Loeffen, Greta Dolan, Sara Warner and Laura Burtenshaw reported back to the Board on their attendance at “Big Sing” Dunedin in August.
The Chairperson thanked the Villa Maria Con Brio Choir group for their report.
3. PRESENTATION OF PETITIONS
Nil.
4. NOTICES OF MOTION
Nil.
5. CORRESPONDENCE
5.1 STYX LIVING LABORATORY TRUST
The Board received a letter from Stephanie Humphries, Secretary/Board Member of the Styx Living Laboratory Trust expressing the Trust’s appreciation and thanks for a grant from the Strengthening Communities Fund.
5.2 ST ALBANS RESIDENTS’ ASSOCIATION
The Board received an email from Emma Twaddell on behalf of the St Albans Residents’ Association requesting further information on the Northern Arterial Plan.
The Board noted that a response from staff to the request has been sent to Ms Twaddell.
5.3 FUNDING FOR CROSSING WARDEN – ST JOSEPHS SCHOOL
The Board received an email from Andre and Corine Winkelman requesting that the Board consider ongoing funding to enable their son to continue as the Crossing Warden at the Cranford Street/Main North Road intersection for Papanui Primary and St Josephs Schools.
The Board decided to ask staff whether a safety audit has been undertaken of the raised zebra pedestrian crossing on the left turn slip lane from Main North Road into Cranford Street after its installation and, if so, could the Board be advised of the results.
6. ELECTED MEMBERS’ INFORMATION EXCHANGE
The Board:
Decided to request that staff investigate whether vehicle access (i.e. left turn only in and out) to the off-street parking area (1064A and 1064E Colombo Street) in Edgeware Village is being considered in the District Plan Review.
Received a request from residents for staff to investigate broken branches caught in the canopy of a large street tree in Tisch Place.
Noted its continued support of David Crean as the Board’s community representative on Neighbourhood Support Canterbury.
220 3. 10. 2013 Shirley/Papanui Community Board 18. 9. 2013
7. QUESTIONS UNDER STANDING ORDERS
Nil.
8. VALEDICTORY SPEECHES
Valedictory speeches were given by retiring Board members Chris Mene, Kathy Condon and Anna Button.
PART C – REPORT ON DELEGATED DECISIONS TAKEN BY THE BOARD
1. COMMUNITY BOARD ADVISER’S UPDATE (CONTINUED)
1.4 CONFIRMATION OF THE MINUTES OF 18 SEPTEMBER 2013 MEETING
The Board resolved that the Chairperson and the Community Board Adviser approve the Minutes of the Board’s ordinary meeting of 18 September 2013 being the last meeting of the 2010-2013 electoral term, pursuant of Standing Order 3.18.2.
9. DECLARATION OF INTEREST
Pauline Cotter declared an interest in the St Albans Amateur Swimming and Life Saving Club (clause 16).
Chris Mene declared an interest in the Papanui TOC H Athletics Club Incorporated (clause 17).
10. CONFIRMATION OF MEETING MINUTES
The Board resolved that the minutes of its meeting of Wednesday 4 September 2013 be confirmed, subject to the addition that Pauline Cotter had abstained from voting on Clause 2.6, Westminster Sports Incorporated.
11. KEOGHS LANE – PROPOSED NO STOPPING RESTRICTION
The Board considered a report seeking its approval that no stopping restrictions be installed on Keoghs Lane.
The Board resolved to:
(a) Revoke any parking restrictions on both sides of Keoghs Lane, commencing at the intersection with Caledonian Road and extending in a westerly direction for a distance of 104 metres.
(b) Approve that the stopping of vehicles be prohibited at any time:
(i) On the north side of Keoghs Lane commencing at the intersection with Caledonian Road and extending in a westerly direction for a distance of 104 metres.
(ii) On the south side of Keoghs Lane commencing at the intersection with Caledonian Road and extending in a westerly direction for a distance of 5 metres.
(iii) On the west side of Caledonian Road commencing at the intersection with Keoghs Lane and extending in a northerly direction for a distance of 6 metres.
221 3. 10. 2013 Shirley/Papanui Community Board 18. 9. 2013
11 Cont’d
(iv) On the west side of Caledonian Road commencing at the intersection with Keoghs Lane and extending in a southerly direction for a distance of 6 metres.
12. HERCULES STREET, HOPE STREET AND SABINA STREET – PROPOSED P120 PARKING RESTRICTION AND NO STOPPING RESTRICTION
The Board considered a report seeking its approval that time-restricted parking and no stopping restrictions be installed in accordance with the Hope Street, Hercules Street and Sabina Street Plan.
The Board resolved to:
(a) Revoke the following on Hercules Street:
(i) That all existing parking restrictions on both sides of Hercules Street between Marshland Road and Hope Street be revoked.
(b) Approve the following on Hercules Street:
(i) That the stopping of vehicles be prohibited at any time on the north side of Hercules Street commencing at its intersection with Marshland Road and extending in a westerly direction for a distance of 9.5 metres.
(ii) That the parking of vehicles be restricted to a maximum period of 120 minutes on the north side of Hercules Street commencing at a point 28.5 metres west of its intersection with Marshland Road and extending in a westerly direction for a distance of 11 metres. This restriction is to apply Monday to Sunday from 8am to 6pm.
(iii) That the parking of vehicles be restricted to a maximum period of 120 minutes on the north side of Hercules Street commencing at a point 75 metres west of its intersection with Marshland Road and extending in a westerly direction for a distance of 29 metres. This restriction is to apply Monday to Sunday from 8am to 6pm.
(iv) That the stopping of vehicles be prohibited at any time on the north side of Hercules Street commencing at a point 104 metres west of its intersection with Marshland Road and extending in a westerly direction to its intersection with Sabina Street.
(v) That the stopping of vehicles be prohibited at any time on the north side of Hercules Street commencing at its intersection with Sabina Street and extending in a westerly direction for a distance of 15.5 meters.
(vi) That the parking of vehicles be restricted to a maximum period of 120 minutes on the north side of Hercules Street commencing at a point 15.5 metres west of its intersection with Sabina Street and extending in a westerly direction for a distance of 14.5 metres. This restriction is to apply Monday to Sunday from 8am to 6pm.
(vii) That the stopping of vehicles be prohibited at any time on the south side of Hercules Street commencing at its intersection with Marshland Road and extending in a westerly direction for a distance of 8.5 metres.
222 3. 10. 2013 Shirley/Papanui Community Board 18. 9. 2013
12 Cont’d
(viii) That the parking of vehicles be restricted to a maximum period of 120 minutes on the south side of Hercules Street commencing at a point 45.5 metres west of its intersection with Marshland Road and extending in a westerly direction for a distance of 23 metres. This restriction is to apply Monday to Sunday from 8am to 6pm.
(ix) That the stopping of vehicles be prohibited at any time on the south side of Hercules Street commencing at a point 102.5 metres west of its intersection with Marshland Road and extending in a westerly direction to its intersection with Sabina Street.
(x) That the stopping of vehicles be prohibited at any time on the south side of Hercules Street commencing at its intersection with Sabina Street and extending in a westerly direction for a distance of 13 metres.
(xi) That the parking of vehicles be restricted to a maximum period of 120 minutes on the south side of Hercules Street commencing at a point 42.5 metres west of its intersection with Marshland Road and extending in a westerly direction for a distance of 25.5 metres. This restriction is to apply Monday to Sunday from 8am to 6pm.
(c) Revoke the following on Sabina Street:
(i) That all existing parking restrictions on both sides of Sabina Street be revoked.
(d) Approve the following on Sabina Street:
(i) That the parking of vehicles be restricted to a maximum period of 120 minutes on the north side of Sabina Street commencing at a point 31.5 metres east of its intersection with Hope Street and extending in an easterly direction for a distance of 30.5 metres. This restriction is to apply Monday to Sunday from 8am to 6pm.
(ii) That the stopping of vehicles be prohibited at any time on the north and then west side of Sabina Street commencing at a point 86 metres east of its intersection with Hope Street and extending in an easterly and then northerly direction for a distance of 30 metres.
(iii) That the parking of vehicles be restricted to a maximum period of 120 minutes on the west side of Sabina Street commencing at a point 175 metres east then north of its intersection with Hope Street and extending in a northerly direction for a distance of 25 metres. This restriction is to apply Monday to Sunday from 8am to 6pm.
(iv) That the stopping of vehicles be prohibited at any time on the west side of Sabina Street commencing at its intersection with Hercules Street and extending in a southerly direction for a distance of 13.5 metres.
(v) That the stopping of vehicles be prohibited at any time on the west side of Sabina Street commencing at its intersection with Hercules Street and extending in a northerly direction for a distance of 14.5 metres.
(vi) That the parking of vehicles be restricted to a maximum period of 120 minutes on the west side of Sabina Street commencing at a point 106 metres north of its intersection with Hercules Street and extending in a northerly direction for a distance of 40 metres. This restriction is to apply Monday to Sunday from 8am to 6pm.
223 3. 10. 2013 Shirley/Papanui Community Board 18. 9. 2013
12 Cont’d
(vii) That the parking of vehicles be restricted to a maximum period of 120 minutes on the east side of Sabina Street commencing at a point 42 metres north of its intersection with Hercules Street and extending in a northerly direction for a distance of 41 metres. This restriction is to apply Monday to Sunday from 8am to 6pm.
(viii) That the stopping of vehicles be prohibited at any time on the east side of Sabina Street commencing its intersection with Hercules Street and extending in a northerly direction for a distance of 15 metres.
(ix) That the stopping of vehicles be prohibited at any time on the east side of Sabina Street commencing its intersection with Hercules Street and extending in a southerly direction for a distance of 11 metres.
(x) That the parking of vehicles be restricted to a maximum period of 120 minutes on the east side of Sabina Street commencing at a point 44.5 metres south of its intersection with Hercules Street and extending in a southerly direction for a distance of 44 metres. This restriction is to apply Monday to Sunday from 8am to 6pm.
(xi) That the parking of vehicles be restricted to a maximum period of 120 minutes on the eastern and then southern side of Sabina Street commencing at a point 190.5 metres south of its intersection with Hercules Street and extending in a southerly and then westerly direction for a distance of 56.5 metres. This restriction is to apply Monday to Sunday from 8am to 6pm.
(e) Revoke the following on Hope Street:
(i) That all existing parking restrictions on both sides of Hope Street be revoked.
(f) Approve the following on Hope Street:
(i) That the stopping of vehicles be prohibited at any time on the west side of Hope Street commencing at its intersection with Shirley Road and extending in a northerly direction for a distance of nine metres.
(ii) That the parking of vehicles be restricted to a maximum period of 120 minutes on the west side of Hope Street commencing at a point 41.5 metres north of its intersection with Shirley Road and extending in a northerly direction for a distance of 44.5 metres. This restriction is to apply Monday to Sunday from 8am to 6pm.
(iii) That the stopping of vehicles be prohibited at any time on the east side of Hope Street commencing at its intersection with Shirley Road and extending in a northerly direction for a distance of nine metres.
(iv) That the parking of vehicles be restricted to a maximum period of 120 minutes on the east side of Hope Street commencing at a point 49 metres north of its intersection with Sabina Street and extending in a northerly direction for a distance of 11.5 metres. This restriction is to apply Monday to Sunday from 8am to 6pm.
(v) That the stopping of vehicles be prohibited at any time on the east side of Hope Street commencing at its intersection with Hercules Street and extending in a northerly direction for a distance of 11 metres.
224 3. 10. 2013 Shirley/Papanui Community Board 18. 9. 2013
12 Cont’d
(vi) That the parking of vehicles be restricted to a maximum period of 120 minutes on the east side of Hope Street commencing at a point 11 metres north of its intersection with Hercules Street and extending in a northerly direction for a distance of 38 metres. This restriction is to apply Monday to Sunday from 8am to 6pm.
(vii) That the stopping of vehicles be prohibited at any time on the west side of Hope Street commencing at its intersection with Hercules Street and extending in a northerly direction for a distance of 11 metres.
13. APPLICATION TO THE SHIRLEY/PAPANUI COMMUNITY BOARD 2013/14 DISCRETIONARY RESPONSE FUND – AVEBURY HOUSE COMMUNITY TRUST
The Board considered a report seeking its approval of an application for funding for the amount of $3,530 to its 2013/14 Discretionary Response Fund from Avebury House Community Trust towards the purchase of equipment and furniture.
The Board resolved to grant $1,175 from its 2013/14 Discretionary Response Fund to Avebury House Community Trust towards the purchase of equipment and furniture.
14. APPLICATION TO THE SHIRLEY/PAPANUI COMMUNITY BOARD 2013/14 DISCRETIONARY RESPONSE FUND – PAPANUI YOUTH DEVELOPMENT TRUST TOWARDS TE KORU YOUTH
The Board considered a report seeking its approval of an application for funding for the amount of $3,500 to its 2013/14 Discretionary Response Fund from the Papanui Youth Development Trust towards Te Koru Youth.
The Board resolved to decline a grant of $3,500 from its 2013/14 Discretionary Response Fund to Papanui Youth Development Trust towards Te Koru Youth.
15. APPLICATION TO THE SHIRLEY/PAPANUI COMMUNITY BOARD 2013/14 DISCRETIONARY RESPONSE FUND – NORTHWOOD RESIDENTS ASSOCIATION
The Board considered a report seeking its approval of an application for funding for the amount of $103 to its 2013/14 Discretionary Response Fund from the Northwood Residents’ Association towards the hire cost of Northwood Park for the Northwood Village Fair.
The Board resolved to approve a grant of $103 from its 2013/14 Discretionary Response Fund to Northwood Residents’ Association towards the hire cost of Northwood Park for the Northwood Village Fair.
16. APPLICATION TO THE SHIRLEY/PAPANUI COMMUNITY BOARD 2013/14 DISCRETIONARY RESPONSE FUND – ST ALBANS AMATEUR SWIMMING AND LIFE SAVING CLUB
The Board considered a report seeking its approval of an application for funding for the amount of $2,500 to its 2013/14 Discretionary Response Fund from the St Albans Amateur Swimming and Life Saving Club towards the costs of printing "The History of the St Albans Swim Club and Edgeware Pool.”
The Board resolved to approve a grant of $577 from the 2013/14 Discretionary Response Fund to St Albans Amateur Swimming and Life Saving Club towards the costs of printing "The History of the St Albans Swim Club and Edgeware Pool.”
(Note: Pauline Cotter declared an interest and did not participate in the discussion or voting on this clause.)
225 3. 10. 2013 Shirley/Papanui Community Board 18. 9. 2013
17. APPLICATION TO THE SHIRLEY/PAPANUI COMMUNITY BOARD 2013/14 DISCRETIONARY RESPONSE FUND – PAPANUI TOC H ATHLETICS CLUB INC.
The Board considered a report seeking its approval of an application for funding for the amount of $1,500 to its 2013/14 Discretionary Response Fund from the Papanui Toc H Athletics Club Incorporated towards rent and equipment for a Winter Gym project.
The Board resolved to approve a grant of $400 from its 2013/14 Discretionary Response Fund to Papanui Toc H Athletics Club Incorporated towards the hall hire for the Winter Gym project.
(Note: Chris Mene declared an interest and did not participate in the discussion or voting on this clause.)
18. APPLICATION TO THE SHIRLEY/PAPANUI COMMUNITY BOARD 2013/14 POSITIVE YOUTH DEVELOPMENT FUND – TOMO NATHANAEL ZECHARIAH DORRANCE AND JOHN DUENO CARREON
The Board considered a report seeking its approval of two applications for funding from its 2013/14 Positive Youth Development Fund for Tomo Nathanael Zechariah Dorrance and John Dueno Carreon.
The Board resolved to approve the following grants from its 2013/14 Positive Youth Development Fund:
(a) $200 to Tomo Nathanael Zechariah Dorrance to assist with the costs of attending the Scout Jamboree in Fielding from 28 December 2013 to 6 January 2014.
(b) $200 to John Dueno Carreon to assist with the costs of attending the annual Filipino Sports and Cultural tournament in Rotorua from 25 to 28 October 2013.
19. CONSIDERATION OF APPLICATIONS FOR NEIGHBOURHOOD WEEK FUNDING 2013
The Board considered applications for Neighbourhood Week funding and approval of a process should any late applications be received.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
That the Board consider the applications as set out in the circulated matrix and allocate Neighbourhood Week funds accordingly.
That delegated authority be given to the Community Board Chairperson, or the Chairperson's delegate, to decide on funding approval of any late applications received from any remaining funds set aside for Neighbourhood Week Funding.
BOARD DECISION
The Board resolved to:
(a) Allocate funds for Neighbourhood Week as follows:
Item Group Activity Date and Time Proposed Activity Expected No. Board Decision No. Location
1 Amberlee Allison Edgeware 3 November BBQ Dinner 30 $85 to Amberlee Allison Road 2013, towards the Edgeware 3pm Road BBQ Dinner.
3. 10. 2013 Shirley/Papanui Community Board 18. 9. 2013
19 Cont’d
Item Group Activity Date and Time Proposed Activity Expected No. Board Decision No. Location
2 Douglas Bennet - Hibiscus 2 or 3 Neighbourhood 25+ $85 to Douglas Bennet Hibiscus Place Place November, 12 Luncheon BBQ towards the Hibiscus Place Residents Group noon for 2pm Luncheon BBQ. luncheon 3 Margaret Bowick – Village Early Village BBQ 70-80 $90 to Margaret Bowick Northwood Villas Clubrooms November towards the Northwood Retirement Village Villas Retirement Village Inc BBQ. 4 Dorothy Bradley Connemara 3 November Gathering of 20 $20 towards the Drive 3.30-6pm neighbours Connemara Drive gathering of neighbours
5 Adela Brown Taunton 3 November BBQ 50 $155 towards the Taunton Green 2pm Green BBQ. 6 Ian Burn Jebson 3 November Neighbourhood 20 $40 towards the Jebson Street 3pm onwards Community Street Neighbourhood Market Community Market. 7 Sharyn Burnett – MacFarlane 28 October Skip Hire – to 60-100 $320 towards the Shirley Shirley Community Park (all day). help Community Trust Trust Remove skip neighbourhood MacFarlane Park Skip Hire. on 29 clean up October. 8 Suzanne Carter – Sharnbrook 10 November Street BBQ 32 $75 towards the Ashton Ashton Mews Reserve 4pm Mews Street BBQ. 9 Amanda Cartridge Ranfurly 20 October Street BBQ 40 $100 towards the Ranfurly Street 12-4pm Street BBQ. 10 Alison Coles – Farringtons 2 November Lunch 8 $60 towards the Highsted Highsted Road Tavern 12 noon Road Lunch at Farringtons Tavern. 11 Gavin Cross – Ross Place 26 October or Street BBQ 24-26 $60 towards the Ross Ross Place 2 November Place Street BBQ. 12-.230pm 12 Karen Fraser – Pascoe 2 November Sausage Sizzle 80 $100 towards the Real Real Steps Trust Camping 2pm Steps Trust Sausage Ground, Sizzle. Chaneys Corner 13 Helen Gee Creese 31 October Sausage Sizzle 25-30 $50 towards the Creese Place 6.30pm Place Sausage Sizzle.
14 Lyn Gifford Coles Place 2 or 3 Street 50-60 $130 towards the Coles November - Gathering Place Street Gathering. late afternoon 15 Heather Gladstone St Pauls 3 November Community 200 $200 towards the St Albans – St Albans Church 7pm Concert and Community Choir Community Choir Centre, Cabaret Community Concert and Harewood Cabaret. Road (Note: The staff recommendation was $0.)
3. 10. 2013 Shirley/Papanui Community Board 18. 9. 2013
19 Cont’d
Item Group Activity Date and Time Proposed Activity Expected No. Board Decision No. Location
16 Mary Grant – MacFarlane 28 October or BBQ 40 $100 towards the Skipton Skipton Street Park (Dawe 2 November Street BBQ. Street 5pm entrance)
17 Carla Heritage – Ranfurly 3 November BBQ 30 $70 towards the Ranfurly Abberfield Lane Street 4pm Street BBQ.
18 Moazzem Hossain Mahars 27 October Meeting, 42 $100 towards the Mahars Road 3pm information and Road meeting, information Neighbour- catering and catering. hood Support Group 19 Carolyn Jones Gwen Place 3 November BBQ 70-75 Up to $160 towards the 3pm Gwen Place BBQ.
20 Vicky King Redwood 2 November Community 50-60 $120 towards the Redwood Playcentre 11am–1pm Cultural Fun Playcentre Community Day Cultural Fun Day. (Note: The staff recommendation was $0.)
21 David Lees – Teagarden 27 October BBQ/Street 50 $90 towards the Teagarden Ellington Residents Close 12noon–3pm Party Close BBQ/Street Party. Association
22 Marie Lysaght Sapphire 10 November BBQ 27 $40 towards the Sapphire Street 5-7pm Street BBQ.
23 Sonya McGarvey Mendip 9 November BBQ 40-50 $90 towards the Mendip Reserve 5-7pm Reserve BBQ.
24 Bronwyn Sharnbrook 20 November BBQ 150-200 $160 towards the Styx McLennan – Styx Reserve 6-8pm Residents Association BBQ Residents at the Sharnbrook Reserve. Association
25 Vicki Meates Baldoyle 2 November Street 20-30 $60 towards the Baldoyle Way 4.30pm Gathering Way Street Gathering.
26 Wayne Miller Ballymena 27 October Street BBQ 38 $80 towards the Ballymena Drive 2pm Drive Street BBQ.
27 Fiona Moloney Dulles Place 2 or 3 BBQ/Sausage 30 $70 towards the Dulles November Sizzle Place BBQ/ Sausage Sizzle 4pm
28 Barbara Purvis Sawyers 2 or 3 Social gather 15-20 $30 towards the Sawyers Arms Road November afternoon tea Arms Road Social Gather 2-5pm Afternoon Tea.
228 3. 10. 2013 Shirley/Papanui Community Board 18. 9. 2013
19 Cont’d
Item Group Activity Date and Time Proposed Activity Expected No. Board Decision No. Location
29 Christine Rankin Weston 2 November BBQ 40 $80 towards the Weston Road 5pm Road BBQ.
30 Debbie Reeves Glen Oaks 3 November Annual 30 $70 towards the Glen Oaks Drive 5pm Neighbourhood Drive Annual Support Neighbourhood Support Meeting BBQ Meeting BBQ.
31 Jude Roche Sheraton 24 November Street BBQ 40-50 $70 towards the Sheraton Place 5pm Place Street BBQ.
32 Anne Rogers – Caroline 28 November BBQ 30 $70 towards the Caroline Caroline Way Way 4pm Way Neighbourhood Neighbourhood Support Group BBQ. Support Group
33 Helen Ross – Edgeware 2 November BBQ and 30+ $70 towards the Edgeware Edgeware Village Village 1-4pm Community Village Green BBQ and Green Inc. Green Event Community Event.
34 Nat Tatana – Te Te One 26 October Spit Roast 30 $70 towards the Te One One Place Place 12-6pm Place Spit Roast. Neighbourhood Support Group 35 Lisa Taylor – Ramore 3 November BBQ 50 $90 towards the Ramore Ramore Place Place 5pm Place BBQ. Reserve 36 Konstantin Alderney 3 November BBQ and 40 $80 towards the Alderney Tkatchenko Mews 5pm meeting Mews BBQ and meeting.
37 Linda Topp Monaghan November Get together 18 $50 towards the Monaghan Street (date to be with neighbours Street Get-together with confirmed) Neighbours.
38 Gail Turner – Rivers Edge Early BBQ Breakfast 56 $120 towards the Rivers Rivers Edge December Edge Neighbourhood Neighbourhood (date to be Support Group BBQ Support Group confirmed) Breakfast.
39 John Wallace Bennett 3 November BBQ with 37-40 $80 towards the Bennett Street 11.30am- neighbours Street BBQ with 2.30pm Neighbours.
40 Linley Wilson Innisfree 3 November Neighbourhood 25 $60 towards the Innisfree Place 11.30am- BBQ Place Neighbourhood BBQ. 2.30pm
41 Sarah Wraight Courtenay 3 November BBQ Breakfast 75-80 $120 towards the Street 10am Courtenay Street BBQ Green Breakfast.
229 3. 10. 2013 Shirley/Papanui Community Board 18. 9. 2013
19 Cont’d
Item Group Activity Date and Time Proposed Activity Expected No. Board Decision No. Location
42 Drew Garden - Haddon February/Mar Neighbourhood 33 $78 towards the Haddon Haddon Lane Lane ch (date to be Get-together Lane Neighbourhood Neighbourhood confirmed) Support Group Support Group Get-together.
(b) Delegate authority to the Community Board Chairperson, or the Chairperson's delegate, to decide on funding approval of any late applications received from any remaining funds set aside for Neighbourhood Week Funding.
The meeting concluded at 6.15pm.
SIGNED BY THE CHAIRPERSON OF THE BOARD AND THE COMMUNITY BOARD ADVISER PURSUANT TO STANDING ORDER 3.18.2.
CONFIRMED THIS 24TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2013
CHRIS MENE CHAIRPERSON
RACHAEL BROWN COMMUNITY BOARD ADVISER (ACTING)
230 231 Clause 18 3. 10. 2013
SPREYDON/HEATHCOTE COMMUNITY BOARD 3 SEPTEMBER 2013
Report of a meeting of the Spreydon/Heathcote Community Board held on 3 September 2013 at 5pm in the Board Room, Beckenham Service Centre, 66 Colombo Street, Beckenham.
PRESENT: Phil Clearwater (Chairperson), Barry Corbett, Helene Mautner, Paul McMahon, Tim Scandrett and Sue Wells
APOLOGIES: An apology for absence was received and accepted from Karolin Potter
An apology for lateness was received and accepted from Paul McMahon who arrived at 5.17pm and was absent for clause 10 and part of clause 1.
An apology for early departure was received and accepted from Barry Corbett who departed at 6.21pm and was absent for clauses 6, 7, 9, 11, 14 and 15.
The Board reports that:
PART B - REPORTS FOR INFORMATION
1. OPAWA ST/MARTINS PLUNKET TOY LIBRARY
Please refer to item 27 (3) of the Council Agenda for the Board’s recommendation on this matter.
2. DEPUTATIONS BY APPOINTMENT
2.1 ERIC TURNER – SYDENHAM SALVATION ARMY
The deputation has been deferred until the beginning of the new term of the Community Board.
2.2 MICHAEL HERMAN – PRISONERS AID
The deputation has been deferred until the beginning of the new term of the Community Board.
2.3 RICK WARDROP – SPREYDON SCHOOL
Rick Wardrop, Principal of Spreydon School addressed the Board regarding the need for an alternative entrance and exit to the school via Annex Road. Mr Wardrop feels the entrance to the school is dangerous because cars have to turn into the school carpark close to a large intersection of Hoon Hay and Curlett’s Road, which in peak traffic time is particularly hazardous.
In his opinion, removing the entrance way to Annex Road would enable cars delivering children to school safely and would take children going to school away from a dangerous and many laned intersection. The school has plans for a changed layout, changing its frontage to face Annex Road, and this would allow the school to possibly give Christchurch City Council the current car-park land, potentially providing an improved turn from Curletts Road.
Clause 4 of these minutes records a decision in relation to this matter.
232 3. 10. 2013 Spreydon/Heathcote Community Board 3. 9. 2013
2 Cont’d
2.4 SYDENHAM HERITAGE TRUST
Dorothy Hayward, Mike Jones and Linda Constable, on behalf of the Sydenham Heritage Trust, spoke to the Board regarding the Sydenham Heritage Trust loan, insurance and plans the Trust has for the future. The Trust would like the insurance money paid to them so they can make progress with their plans to clean up the site and begin work building a community facility. The Trust would like to use some of the materials from the demolished church possibly incorporating the stones, filigree cross and original windows into the architecture.
Phil Clearwater thanked Ms Hayward, Mr Jones and Ms Wells for attending the meeting and acknowledged the length and quality of service the Trust have provided to the community.
3. PETITIONS
Nil.
4. NOTICES OF MOTION
The following Notice of Motion was submitted by Karolin Potter.
The Spreydon/Heathcote Board requests that a report be prepared to discuss the Spreydon School’s request that an alternative entrance/exit to the school via Annex Road be assessed in terms of its viability including considerations such as improvement to traffic flows, children’s safety, traffic safety and a resolution of the issues around traffic to and from Linden Grove.
Explanatory Note:
Spreydon School’s address is 2 Halswell Road despite it not being on Halswell Road. This address reflects its history before the advent of the current Hoon Hay Road and Curletts Road. The changes in roading were made about 60 years ago without appropriate consideration given to the school’s situation and children’s access to the school.
Children are supervised crossing Lincoln Road to the school but the rush hour coincides with children going to school and there are six lanes of traffic one way and Curletts Road and Hoon Hay Road entering the other. Cars turning into Curletts Road from Lincoln Road always turn on the red light in rush hour and with cars attempting to brake immediately on crossing the intersection to go into a school car park through a throng of children the situation is tenuous and increasingly dangerous.
Removing the entrance way to Annex Road would enable cars delivering children to school to give ample notice of stopping and turning and would take children going to school away from a dangerous and many laned intersection. The school has plans for a changed layout to the school which would give it a lovely frame facing Annex Road and would allow the school to possibly give to Christchurch City Council land an improved turn from Curletts Road.
The Notice of Motion could not proceed in absence of the mover Karolin Potter.
The Board considered the matters raised in the deputation and the Notice of Motion.
The Board decided to request that a report be prepared to discuss the Spreydon School’s request that an alternative entrance/exit to the school via Annex Road be assessed in terms of its viability including considerations such as improvement to traffic flows, children’s safety, traffic safety and a resolution of the issues around traffic to and from Linden Grove.
233 3. 10. 2013 Spreydon/Heathcote Community Board 3. 9. 2013
5. CORRESPONDENCE
5.1 TREES AT SYDENHAM CEMETERY
The Board received and noted a letter regarding unwanted Silver Birch and Poplar trees at Sydenham Cemetery from a resident in the area.
6. BRIEFINGS
Nil.
7. EARTHQUAKE DESIGN AND CAPABILITY
The Earthquake Recovery Community Advocate briefed the Board on the following:
Off the Ground Fund
Canterbury Wellbeing Index – June 2013
Residential Advisory Service - information relating to use of their service by ward
property demand fluctuations in Christchurch - Real Estate Institution New Zealand
8. COMMUNITY BOARD ADVISER’S UPDATE
The Board received information on the following:
Supplementary Earthquake Objectives 2013
Addington Action / Lease at 26 Andrews Crescent, Jerrold Reserve
Staff advised the Board that due to time constraints they have been unable to provide the Board with further information in relation to the lease at 26 Andrews Crescent, at Jerrold Reserve. A memo will be provided to the Board at the next meeting on 17 September 2013 regarding this matter.
end of year matters - a section for valedictory speeches will be included in the agenda for the final Board meeting of the term, being 17 September 2013.
staff provided the Board with an update regarding volunteer library buildings in the ward. Clause 1 of these minutes records the Board’s recommendation on this matter.
staff updated the Board regarding Opawa Baptist Church - Waltham Spring Clean Day
9. ELECTED MEMBER’S INFORMATION EXCHANGE
Mention was made of the following matters:
new bus shelter on the corner of Hackthorne and Dyers Pass Road.
10. MEMBERS’ QUESTIONS UNDER STANDING ORDERS
Nil.
234 3. 10. 2013 Spreydon/Heathcote Community Board 3. 9. 2013
PART C - REPORT ON DELEGATED DECISIONS TAKEN BY THE BOARD
11. CONFIRMATION OF MINUTES – 23 AUGUST 2013
The Board resolved that the minutes of the Board’s ordinary meeting of 23 August 2013 be confirmed.
12. DECLARATION OF INTEREST
Paul McMahon declared a conflict of interest in item 16 regarding Opawa Baptist Church in relation to the application for funding for Neighbourhood Week from Ice Cycles.
13. FORMALISING A BUS LAYOVER AREA AND RE-LOCATED TAXI STANDS ON CASHMERE ROAD AT PRINCESS MARGARET HOSPITAL
The Board considered a report requesting their approval to formalise bus stops on Princess Margaret Hospital property, and to resolve to extend a layover area for buses on Cashmere Road and to change the location of three taxi ranks on Cashmere Road opposite Princess Margaret Hospital.
The Board resolved to lay the report on the table until the next Board meeting on 17 September 2013.
14. PROPOSED ROAD NAMING
The Board considered a report seeking their approval of one new right of way name.
The Board resolved to approve the proposed right of way name Halcyon Way as submitted.
15. APPLICATION TO SPREYDON/HEATHCOTE COMMUNITY BOARD 2013/14 DISCRETIONARY RESPONSE FUND – CITY PARK COMMUNITY PATROL CHRISTCHURCH
The Board considered an application from City Park Community Patrol Christchurch for the purchase of an in car camera for the amount of $3,000 for funding from its 2013/14 Discretionary Response Fund.
The Board resolved to approve a grant of $1,500 from the 2013/14 Discretionary Response Fund to City Park Community Patrol Christchurch for the purchase of an in car camera.
16. CONSIDERATION OF APPLICATIONS FOR NEIGHBOURHOOD WEEK FUNDING
The Board considered a report seeking approval of applications for Neighbourhood Week funding.
(a) The Board resolved to approve the following Neighbourhood Week funding applications and allocated funds: 235 3. 10. 2013 Spreydon/Heathcote Community Board 3. 9. 2013 16 Cont’d
Name Organisation Amount Board Approved $ Mara Apse N/A 120.00 Robyn Black N/A 50.00 Linda Bougen Studholme St Neighbourhood Group 75.00 Joan Boyer N/A 50.00 Adair Bruorton N/A 75.00 Christine Burrows N/A 50.00 Adrienne Carmichael Te Whare Roopu o Oterepo - Waltham Community 75.00 Cottage Ruth Caughley N/A 75.00 Jennie Chapman N/A 75.00 David Christie N/A 45.00 Meg Christie Ice Cycles 100.00 Ron Collyer N/A 105.00 Ellen Cooper N/A 0 Jane Coulter N/A 65.00 Katrina Cowie N/A 55.00 Sarah Crawford N/A 90.00 Aileen Davies Locarno Street Neighbourhood Support Group 30.00 Jaimita de Jongh N/A 50.00 David Drayton Huntsbury Community Centre 100.00 Wendy Dudson N/A 75.00 Karen Erkkila N/A 56.00 Lucy Ferris SHARP Trust 150.00 Michael Fisher N/A 50.00 Melanie Foote N/A 65.00 Maryke Fordyce Risingholme Community Centre 50.00 Julie Foster N/A 35.00 Anthea Franks N/A 90.00 Christine Gibbens Kidsfirst Kindergartens Hoon Hay 175.00 Fiona Graham Blakehall Place Neighbourhood Support Group 40.00 Chris Guerin N/A 25.00 Sandie Hazan- N/A 45.00 Browne Rachael Jamieson N/A 90.00 Rory Jones N/A 100.00 Hugh Joughin N/A 50.00 Jacinta Le Lievre Huntsbury Community Centre 65.00 Michael Limmer N/A 75.00 Karen Loveday N/A 45.00 Lyndsey McKay SHARP Trust 120.00 Bernard McMillan N/A 75.00 Keith Keith Mills N/A 85.00 Justine Mouat Risingholme Community Centre 180.00 Rebecca Phillips N/A 200.00 Anneke Pine N/A 120.00 Dennis Sloan Kidsfirst Kindergartens Hoon Hay 50.00 Nicky Temple Blakehall Place Neighbourhood Support Group 60.00 Rik Tindall Cashmere Residents' Assn 150.00 Julie Tobbell N/A 74.00 Peter Tuffley Beckenham Neighbourhood Facebook Group 75.00 Geoff Wallis Kidsfirst Kindergartens Selwyn Street 120.00 Angela Whearty N/A 50.00 Darren Whittington Roker Street Support Group 75.00 TOTAL 4000
(b) The Board resolved that delegated authority be given to the Community Board Chairperson or the Chair’s delegate, to decide on funding approval of any late applications received to a value of $1,000 from the Speydon/Heathcote Board 2013/14 Discretionary Response Fund. 236 3. 10. 2013 Spreydon/Heathcote Community Board 3. 9. 2013 16 Cont’d
(c) The Board resolved that a grant be made to Rydall Street for skip hire to the value of $300 from the Spreydon/Heathcote Community Board 2013/14 Discretionary Response Fund.
17. CONSIDERATION OF SUPPLEMENTARY ITEM
Approval was sought to submit the following item to the meeting of the Spreydon/Heathcote Community Board on 3 September 2013:
Resolution to Exclude the Public
The reason, in terms of section 46(vii) of the Local Government Official Information and Meetings Act 1987, why the item was not included on the main agenda was that it was not available at the time the agenda was prepared.
It is appropriate that the Community Board receive the item at the current meeting.
The Board resolved to accept the supplementary item (item 17 below), as detailed above.
18. RESOLUTION TO EXCLUDE THE PUBLIC
The Board resolved that the resolution to exclude the public set out on page 3 of the supplementary agenda be adopted.
The meeting concluded at 7.15pm.
CONFIRMED THIS 17TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2013
PHIL CLEARWATER CHAIRPERSON 237
3. 10. 2013 Clause 19
SPREYDON/HEATHCOTE COMMUNITY BOARD 17. 9. 2013
Report of a meeting of the Spreydon/Heathcote Community Board held on Tuesday 17 September 2013 at 5pm in the Board Room, Beckenham Service Centre, 66 Colombo Street, Beckenham
PRESENT: Phil Clearwater (Chairperson), Barry Corbett, Paul McMahon, Helene Mautner, Karolin Potter and Tim Scandrett.
APOLOGIES: An apology for absence was received and accepted from Sue Wells.
The Board reports that:
PART B - REPORTS FOR INFORMATION
1. DEPUTATIONS BY APPOINTMENT
1.1 ST JOHN AMBULANCE
Grant Dewar from St John Ambulance addressed the Board about the use of 141 Wilsons Road as an ambulance post site. Mr Dewar explained that some of the St John Ambulance buildings/post sites were damaged due to the earthquake in February 2011. The organisation has a site post in Pages Road however due to the outlying location, detours and road closures the ambulances are having difficulty achieving their eight minute response time to reach patients.
Mr Dewar told the Board of St John Ambulance’s proposal to lease 141 Wilsons Road for three years. St John Ambulance have spoken with residents in the area and reported that they have received support for 141 Wilsons Road to be used as an ambulance post site.
1.2 ANDREW SCHULTE – ADDINGTON PARKNG PLAN
Andrew Schulte from Cavell Leitch, occupants at Hazeldean Business Park, spoke to the Board regarding the Addington Parking Plan. Mr Schulte, speaking on behalf of staff from Cavell Leitch expressed concerns they have about the extent of the parking restrictions and the impact this may have on all day available car parking.
Refer to Part C Clause 18 for a decision in relation to this matter.
1.3 SUSAN YU – ADDINGTON PARKING PLAN
Susan Yu, dairy owner at 290 Lincoln Road, addressed the Board regarding the Addington Parking Plan, specifically the proposed P120 parking restriction outside her dairy at 290 Lincoln Road. Mrs Yu feels that a P120 restriction will impact on her business because dairies require convenient, short-term parking directly outside the shop. Mrs Yu requested that this parking restriction be reduced to P10.
Refer to Part C Clause 18 for a decision in relation to this matter.
2. PETITIONS
Nil.
238 3. 10. 2013 Spreydon/Heathcote Community Board 17.9.2013
3. NOTICES OF MOTION
Nil.
4. CORRESPONDENCE
Nil.
5. BRIEFINGS
Nil.
6. EARTHQUAKE DESIGN AND CAPABILITY
Nil.
7. VALEDICTORIES / POROPOROAKI
Barry Corbett delivered a valedictory. The Board thanked Barry for his excellent work on behalf of the community and the Community Board in his role as a Councillor and wished him well for the future.
8. COMMUNITY BOARD ADVISER’S UPDATE
The Board received information on the following:
SUPPLEMENTARY EARTHQUAKE OBJECTIVES 2013
SMARTLEA STREET COMMUNITY GARDEN
The Board discussed the information provided in the staff memorandum.
The Board decided that in order to assist building community resilience, that staff find a proactive solution so a community garden can be located on the Smartlea Street Road reserve between Glynne Crescent and the bridge over the Heathcote River leading to Smartlea Street and report back to the Board early in the next term.
SIMEON PARK PLAYCENTRE
The Board considered the information provided in the staff memorandum.
The Board decided that to assist building community resilience for Addington parents, that staff find a proactive solution so a play-centre can be located on Simeon Park.
JERROLD RESERVE BUILDING
The Board decided to note that the Council has resolved to waive the lease to the Model Engineering Club and to open the rooms for community activity.
BRADFORD PARK RESERVE 239 3. 10. 2013 Spreydon/Heathcote Community Board 17.9.2013 8 Cont’d
CONFIRMATION OF MINUTES OF 17 SEPTEMBER 2013 MEETING
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
The Board were advised by staff of the need to delegate authority to the Chairperson and the Community Board Adviser to approve the Minutes of the Board’s ordinary meeting of 18 September 2013 being the last meeting of the 2010-2013 electoral term. (Refer Standing Order 3.18.2).
Part C Clause 14 records a decision in relation to this matter.
9. ELECTED MEMBER’S INFORMATION EXCHANGE
Nil.
10. QUESTIONS UNDER STANDING ORDERS
Nil.
11. CHAIRPERSONS REPORT - INTERIM POLICY PSYCHOACTIVE SUBSTANCE ACT 2013
The Board considered a report by the Chairperson seeking their approval to make recommendations to the Council regarding an interim policy under the Psychoactive Substance Act 2013.
CHAIRPERSON’S RECOMMENDATION:
That the Board recommend to the Council, as a way of moving forward during this transition period since the Psychoactive Substances Act 2013 was passed, that the Board have the Spreydon/Heathcote Ward declared as a “Synthetic Drug free Zone” as part of interim Council policy.
It is also recommended that to assist monitoring and policing of the sale of Synthetic drugs from R18 outlets, that these be allowed only in the central city.
The Board’s recommendation will be taken to the Council’s last meeting of the term and recommended as an interim Council policy.
BOARD CONSIDERATION:
The Board considered this matter and concluded that they required further information.
BOARD RECOMMENDATION
The Board decided to request staff to report to the Board on a policy (similar to the Local Alcohol Policy) or a bylaw under the Psychoactive Substances Act 2013 and report back in February 2014. Further that a speaker from the Canterbury District Health Board be invited to address the Board about psychoactive substances in the context of other addictive substances including alcohol.
PART C - REPORT ON DELEGATED DECISIONS TAKEN BY THE BOARD
12. DECLARATION OF INTEREST
Nil.
240 3. 10. 2013 Spreydon/Heathcote Community Board 17.9.2013
13. CONFIRMATION OF MINUTES – 3 SEPTEMBER 2013
The Board resolved that the minutes (both open and public excluded) of the Board’s ordinary meeting of 3 September 2013 be confirmed subject to the following amendment:
Addition of the words ‘ Opawa Baptist Church in relation to’ and deletion of the words ‘Meg Christie” to be replaced with ‘Ice Cycles’ in clause 12, paragraph one, line two (Declaration of Interest) and the paragraph to now read:
Paul McMahon declared a conflict of interest in item 16 regarding Opawa Baptist Church in relation to the application for funding for Neighbourhood Week from Ice Cycles.
14. CONFIRMATION OF MINUTES OF 17 SEPTEMBER 2013 MEETING
The Board resolved that the Chairperson and the Community Board Adviser approve the Minutes of the Board’s ordinary meeting of 17 September 2013 being the last meeting of the 2010-2013 electoral term. (Refer Standing Order 3.18.2).
15. FORMALISING A BUS LAYOVER AREA AND RE-LOCATED TAXI STANDS ON CASHMERE ROAD AT PRINCESS MARGARET HOSPITAL
The Board considered a report seeking their approval to formalise bus stops on Princess Margaret Hospital property, and to resolve to extend a layover area for buses on Cashmere Road and to change the location of three taxi ranks on Cashmere Road opposite Princess Margaret Hospital.
The Board resolved to:
(a) Revoke the following parking restrictions on Cashmere Road:
(i) That any existing parking and stopping restrictions on the north side of Cashmere Road commencing at a point 145 metres west of its intersection with Fairview Street and extending in a westerly direction for a distance of 47 metres be revoked.
(b) Approve the following parking restrictions on Cashmere Road:
(i) That a taxi stand marked at 90 degree angle parking be installed on the north side of Cashmere Road commencing at a point 145 metres west of its intersection with Fairview Street and extending in a westerly direction for a distance of 9 metres.
(ii) That the stopping of vehicles be prohibited at any time on the north side of Cashmere Road commencing at a point 154 metres west of its intersection with Fairview Street and extending in a westerly direction for a distance of four metres.
(iii) That a parking area for buses only be installed on the north side of Cashmere Road commencing at a point 158 metres west of its intersection with Fairview Street and extending in a westerly direction for a distance of 29 metres.
(iv) That the stopping of vehicles be prohibited at any time on the north side of Cashmere Road commencing at a point 187 metres west of its intersection with Fairview Street and extending in a westerly direction for a distance of eight metres.
241 3. 10. 2013 Spreydon/Heathcote Community Board 17.9.2013
16. 60 MINUTE PARKING RESTRICTION ON BROUGHAM STREET
The Board considered a report seeking their approval that parking be restricted to a maximum period of 60 minutes outside of number 237 Brougham Street.
The Board resolved to approve that the parking of vehicles be restricted to a maximum period of 60 minutes on the northern side of Brougham Street commencing at a point 83 metres west of its intersection with Colombo Street and extending in a westerly direction for a distance of 18 metres.
17. SPREYDON/HEATHCOTE 2012/13 YOUTH ACHIEVEMENT FUNDING APPLICATION – LARS GABRIEL DALLEY
The Board considered a report seeking their approval for funding assistance from the Spreydon/Heathcote 2013/14 Youth Achievement Scheme fun for Lars Dalley, 12 years old from Huntsbury, to take part in the Hatch Cup National Hockey Tournament as a member of the Canterbury Hockey Primary Boys A Team from 6-13 October 2013 in Hamilton.
The Board resolved to approve Lars Gabriel Dalley $250 from the 2013/14 Youth Achievement Scheme fund to take part in the Hatch Cup National Hockey Tournament from 6 – 13 October 2013 in Hamilton.
18. ADDINGTON PARKING PLAN
The Board considered a report seeking their approval of the new Addington area parking plan.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
It is recommended that the Spreydon/Heathcote Community Board approve the Addington Parking Plan.
BOARD CONSIDERATION
The Board considered the information presented to them in the deputations. The Board acknowledged that although 400 parking spaces will be removed, 400 parks will be created by use of the parking lot areas as proposed in the Addington Parking Plan. The Board further considered that more car parking areas would be beneficial in Addington, given the potential future development and expansion of businesses.
The Board also considered the need for short term parking spaces on Lincoln Road particularly outside businesses where residents only need to stop for very short times. The Board recognised that short time parking restrictions are an important factor for businesses in this situation.
BOARD RECOMMENDATION
The Board resolved to approve the Addington Parking Plan as follows, subject to the following inclusions :
1. That the deeds land at the end of Bernard Street near the railway line (known in part as Walsall Street) be allocated for car parking as part of the Addington Parking Plan.
2. That staff be requested to contact Calder Stewart regarding land for parking.
3. That the parking outside 290 Lincoln Road be P10 and delegate to staff the authority to change to P10 other parks when approached by a business. 242 3. 10. 2013 Spreydon/Heathcote Community Board 17.9.2013 18 Cont’d
Selwyn Street
(a) That all parking restrictions on the west side of Selwyn Street from Harman Street to Ward Street be revoked.
(b) That the parking of vehicles to be prohibited at any time on the western side of Selwyn Street commencing at its intersection with Harman Street and extending in a southerly direction for a distance 28 metres.
(c) That the parking of vehicles be restricted to a maximum period of 30 minutes on the west side of Selwyn Street commencing at a point 28 metres south of its intersection with Harman Street and extending in a southerly direction for a distance 18 metres.
(d) That the parking of vehicles be restricted to a maximum period of 120 minutes from 11am to 3pm, Monday to Friday only on the western side of Selwyn Street commencing at a point 46 metres south of its intersection with Harman Street and extending in a southerly direction for a distance 29 metres.
(e) That the parking of vehicles be prohibited at any time on the west side of Selwyn Street commencing at a point 75 metres south of its intersection with Harman Street and extending in a southerly direction for a distance 8 metres.
(f) That a bus stop be installed on the west of Selwyn Street commencing at a point 83 metres south of its intersection with Harman Street and extending in a southerly direction for a distance 14 metres.
(g) That the parking of vehicles to be prohibited at any time on the western side of Selwyn Street commencing at a point 97 metres south of its intersection with Harman Street and extending in a southerly direction for a distance 4 metres.
(h) That the parking of vehicles be restricted to a maximum period of 120 minutes from 11am to 3pm, Monday to Friday only on the west side of Selwyn Street commencing at a point 107 metres south of its intersection with Harman Street and extending in a southerly direction for a distance 97 metres.
(i) That the parking of vehicles to be restricted to a maximum period of 10 minutes on the west side of Selwyn Street commencing at a point 6 metres north of its intersection with Poulson Street and extending in a northerly direction for a distance 19 metres.
(j) That the parking of vehicles to be prohibited at any time on the western side of Selwyn Street commencing at its intersection with Poulson Street and extending in a northerly direction for a distance 6 metres.
(k) That the parking of vehicles be prohibited at any time on the west side of Selwyn Street commencing at its intersection with Poulson Street and extending in a southerly direction for a distance 6 metres.
(l) That the parking of vehicles be restricted to a maximum period of 120 minutes from 11am to 3pm, Monday to Friday only on the west side of Selwyn Street commencing at a point 6 metres south of its intersection with Poulson Street and extending in a southerly direction for a distance 29 metres.
(m) That the parking of vehicles be restricted to a maximum period of 120 minutes from 11am to 3pm, Monday to Friday only on the west side of Selwyn Street commencing at a point 66 metres south of its intersection with Poulson Street and extending in a southerly direction for a distance 71 metres.
(n) That the parking of vehicles be prohibited at any time on the west side of Selwyn Street commencing at its intersection with Ward Street and extending in a southerly direction for a distance 6 metres. 18 Cont’d
243 3. 10. 2013 Spreydon/Heathcote Community Board 17.9.2013 Cotterill Street
(o) That all parking restrictions on the west side of Cotterill Street from Harmans Street to Poulson Street be revoked.
(p) That all parking restrictions on the east side of Cotteriil Street from Harmans Street to Poulson Street be revoked.
(q) That the parking of vehicles be prohibited at any time on the west side of Cotterill Street commencing at its intersection with Harman Street and extending in a southerly direction for a distance of 8 metres.
(r) That the parking of vehicles be restricted to a maximum period of 120 minutes from 11am to 3pm, Monday to Friday only on the west side of Cotterill Street commencing at a point 8 metres south of its intersection with Harman Street and extending in a southerly direction for a distance of 198 metres.
(s) That the parking of vehicles be prohibited at any time on the west side of Cotterill Street commencing at its intersection with Poulson Street and extending in a northerly direction for a distance of 8 metres.
(t) That the parking of vehicles be prohibited at any time on the east side of Cotterill Street commencing at its intersection with Harman Street and extending in a southerly direction for a distance of 8 metres.
(u) That the parking of vehicles be prohibited at any time on the east side of Cotterill Street commencing at its intersection with Poulson Street and extending in a northerly direction for a distance of 8 metres.
Collins Street
(v) That all parking restrictions on the north west side of Collins Street from Church Square to MacAulay Street be revoked.
(w) That the parking of vehicles be restricted to a maximum period of 120 minutes from 11am to 3pm, Monday to Friday only on the south east side of Collins Street commencing at a point 5 metres south of its intersection with Church Square and extending in a south westerly direction for a distance of 70 metres.
(x) That the parking of vehicles be prohibited an any time on the north west side of Collins Street commencing at its intersection with Emerson Street and extending in a north easterly direction for a distance of 6 metres.
(y) That the parking of vehicles be prohibited an any time on the north west side of Collins Street commencing at its intersection with Emerson Street and extending in a south westerly direction for a distance of 6 metres.
(z) That the parking of vehicles be restricted to a maximum period of 120 minutes from 11am to 3pm, Monday to Friday only on the north west side of Collins Street commencing at a point 6 metres south west of its intersection with Emerson Street and extending in a south westerly direction for a distance of 90 metres.
(aa) That the parking of vehicles be prohibited at any time on the north west side of Collins Street commencing at its intersection with MacAulay Street and extending in a north easterly direction for a distance of 9 metres.
(ab) That the parking of vehicles be prohibited at any time on the west side of Collins Street commencing at its intersection with MacAulay Street and extending in a southerly direction for a distance of 8 metres.
18 Cont’d
Emerson Street
244 3. 10. 2013 Spreydon/Heathcote Community Board 17.9.2013 (ac) That all parking restrictions on the east side of Emerson Street from Poulson Street to Collins Street be revoked.
(ad) That all parking restrictions on the west side of Emerson Street from Poulson Street to Collins Street be revoked.
(ae) That the parking of vehicles to be prohibited at any time on the west side of Emerson Street commencing at its intersection with Collins Street and extending in a northerly direction for a distance of 15 metres.
(af) That the parking of vehicles to be prohibited at any time on the east side of Emerson Street commencing at its intersection with Collins Street and extending in a northerly direction for a distance of 14 metres.
(ag) That the parking of vehicles be restricted to a maximum period of 120 minutes from 11am to 3pm, Monday to Friday only on the east side of Emerson Street commencing at a point 14 metres north of its intersection with Collins Street and extending in a northerly direction for a distance of 84 metres.
(ah) That the parking of vehicles to be prohibited at any time on the west side of Emerson Street commencing at a point 99 metres north of its intersection with Collins Street and extending in a northerly direction for a distance of 10 metres.
(ai) That the parking of vehicles to be prohibited at any time on the east side of Emerson Street commencing at a point 98 metres north of its intersection with Collins Street and extending in a northerly direction for a distance of 10 metres.
Poulson Street
(aj) That all parking restrictions on the north side of Poulson Street from Spencer Street to Selwyn Street be revoked.
(ak) That all parking restrictions on the south side of Poulson Street from Spencer Street to Selwyn Street be revoked.
(al) That the parking of vehicles be prohibited at any time on the north side of Poulson Street commencing at its intersection with Church Square and extending in a westerly direction for a distance of 5 metres.
(am) That the parking of vehicles be prohibited at any time on the south side of Poulson Street commencing at its intersection with Emerson Street and extending in a easterly direction for a distance of 15 metres.
(an) That the parking of vehicles be restricted to a maximum period of 120 minutes from 11am to 3pm, Monday to Friday only on the south side of Poulson Street commencing at a point 15 metres east of its intersection with Emerson Street and extending in a easterly direction for a distance of 18 metres.
(ao) That the parking of vehicles to be prohibited at any time on the south side of Poulson Street commencing at a point 33 metres east of its intersection with Emerson Street and extending in a easterly direction for a distance of 12 metres.
(ap) That the parking of vehicles be prohibited at any time on the north side of Poulson Street commencing at its intersection with Church Square and extending in an easterly direction for a distance of 8 metres. 245 3. 10. 2013 Spreydon/Heathcote Community Board 17.9.2013 18 Cont’d
(aq) That the parking of vehicles be prohibited at any time on the south side of Poulson Street commencing at its intersection with Church Square and extending in an easterly direction for a distance of 8 metres.
(ar) That the parking of vehicles be restricted to a maximum period of 120 minutes from 11am to 3pm, Monday to Friday only on the north side of Poulson Street commencing at a point 8 metres east of its intersection with Church Square and extending in an easterly direction for a distance of 134 metres.
(as) That the parking of vehicles be prohibited on the north side of Poulson Street commencing at a point 142 metres east of its intersection with Church Square and extending in an easterly direction for a distance of 6 metres.
(at) That the parking of vehicles be restricted at any time on the north side of Poulson Street commencing at its intersection with Cotterill Street and extending in an easterly direction for a distance of 6 metres.
(au) That the parking of vehicles be restricted to a maximum period of 120 minutes from 11am to 3pm, Monday to Friday only on the north side of Poulson Street commencing at a point 6 metres east of its intersection with Cotterill Street and extending in an easterly direction for a distance of 67 metres.
(av) That the parking of vehicles be restricted to a maximum period of 10 minutes on the north side of Poulson Street commencing at a point 9 metres west of its intersection with Selwyn Street and extending in a westerly direction for a distance of 16 metres.
(aw) That the parking of vehicles be prohibited at any time on the north side of Poulson Street commencing at its intersection with Selwyn Street and extending in a westerly direction for a distance of 9 metres.
(ax) That the parking of vehicles be prohibited at any time on the south side of Poulson Street commencing at a point 6 metres west of its intersection with Selwyn Street and extending in a westerly direction for a distance of 6 metres.
(ay) That the parking of vehicles be prohibited at any time on the south side of Poulson Street commencing at its intersection with Spencer Street and extending in an easterly direction for a distance of 13 metres.
(az) That the parking of vehicles be restricted to a maximum period of 120 minutes from 11am to 3pm, Monday to Friday only on the south side of Poulson Street commencing at a point 13 metres east of its intersection with Spencer Street and extending in an easterly direction for a distance of 42 metres.
(ba) That the parking of vehicles be prohibited at any time on the south side of Poulson Street commencing at a point 55 metres east of its intersection with Spencer Street and extending in an easterly direction for a distance of 16 metres.
(bb) That the parking of vehicles be restricted to a maximum period of 120 minutes from 11am to 3pm, Monday to Friday only on the south side of Poulson Street commencing at a point 71 metres east of its intersection with Spencer Street and extending in an easterly direction for a distance of 50 metres.
(bc) That the parking of vehicles be prohibited at any time on the south side of Poulson Street commencing at a point 121 metres east of its intersection with Spencer Street and extending in an easterly direction for a distance of 33 metres.
(bd) That the parking of vehicles be restricted to a maximum period of 120 minutes from 11am to 3pm, Monday to Friday only on the south side of Poulson Street commencing at a point 154 metres east of its intersection with Spencer Street and extending in an easterly direction for a distance of 52 metres. 18 Cont’d
246 3. 10. 2013 Spreydon/Heathcote Community Board 17.9.2013 (be) That the parking of vehicles be prohibited at any time on the south side of Poulson Street commencing at a point 206 metres east of its intersection with Spencer Street and extending in an easterly direction for a distance of 6 metres.
(bf) That the parking of vehicles be prohibited at any time on the south side of Poulson Street commencing at its intersection with Feast Place and extending in an easterly direction for a distance of 22 metres.
(bg) That the parking of vehicles be restricted to a maximum period of 120 minutes from 11am to 3pm, Monday to Friday only on the south side of Poulson Street commencing at a point 22 metres east of its intersection with Feast Place and extending in an easterly direction for a distance of 23 metres.
(bh) That the parking of vehicles be prohibited at any time on the south side of Poulson Street commencing at a point 45 metres east of its intersection with Feast Place and extending in an easterly direction for a distance of 10 metres.
(bi) That a P5 Loading Zone (Restricted to Goods Vehicles Only) be installed on the south side of Poulson Street commencing at a point 55 metres east of its intersection with Feast Place and extending in an easterly direction for a distance of 12 metres.
(bj) That the parking of vehicles be restricted to a maximum period of 120 minutes from 11am to 3pm, Monday to Friday only on the south side of Poulson Street commencing at a point 67 metres east of its intersection with Feast Place and extending in an easterly direction for a distance of 20 metres.
(bk) That the parking of vehicles be prohibited at any time on the south side of Poulson Street commencing at a point 87 metres east of its intersection with Feast Place and extending in an easterly direction for a distance of 25 metres.
(bl) That the parking of vehicles be prohibited at any time on the south side of Poulson Street commencing at its intersection with Emerson Street and extending in a westerly direction for a distance of 6 metres.
(bm) That the parking of vehicles be prohibited at any time on the north side of Poulson Street commencing at its intersection with Spencer Street and extending in an easterly direction for a distance of 14 metres.
(bn) That the parking of vehicles be prohibited at any time on the north side of Poulson Street commencing at a point 79 metres east of its intersection with Spencer Street and extending in an easterly direction for a distance of 13 metres.
(bo) That the parking of vehicles be prohibited at any time on the north side of Poulson Street commencing at its intersection with Parlane Street and extending in a westerly direction for a distance of 6 metres.
(bp) That the parking of vehicles be prohibited at any time on the north side of Poulson Street commencing at its intersection with Parlane Street and extending in an easterly direction for a distance of 14 metres.
(bq) That the parking of vehicles be prohibited at any time on the north side of Poulson Street commencing at a point 83 metres east of its intersection with Parlane Street and extending in an easterly direction for a distance of 11 metres.
(br) That the parking of vehicles be prohibited at any time on the north side of Poulson Street commencing at its intersection with Dickens Street and extending in a westerly direction for a distance of 11 metres. 247 3. 10. 2013 Spreydon/Heathcote Community Board 17.9.2013 18 Cont’d
(bs) That the parking of vehicles be prohibited at any time on the north side of Poulson Street commencing at its intersection with Dickens Street and extending in a easterly direction for a distance of 12 metres.
Church Square
(bt) That all parking restrictions on the both sides of Church Square from Poulson Street to Collins Street be revoked.
(bu) That the parking of vehicles be prohibited at any time on the north side of Church Square commencing at a point of 30 metres east of its intersection with Collins Street and extending in an easterly direction for a distance of 25 metres.
(bv) That the parking of vehicles be prohibited at any time on the south side of Church Square commencing at its intersection with Ward Street and extending in an easterly direction for a distance of 8 metres.
(bw) That the parking of vehicles be prohibited at any time on the south side of Church Square commencing at its intersection with Ward Street and extending in a westerly direction for a distance of 10 metres.
(bx) That the parking of vehicles be prohibited at any time on the west side of Church Square commencing at its intersection with Poulson Street and extending in a northerly direction for a distance of 5 metres.
(by) That the parking of vehicles be prohibited at any time on the east side of Church Square commencing at its intersection with Poulson Street and extending in a northerly direction for a distance of 13 metres.
(bz) That the parking of vehicles be restricted to a maximum period of 120 minutes from 11am to 3pm, Monday to Friday only on the west side of Church Square commencing at a point 5 metres north of its intersection with Poulson Street and extending in a northerly direction for a distance of 26 metres.
(ca) That the parking of vehicles be prohibited at any time on the west side of Church Square commencing at a point 31 metres north of its intersection with Poulson Street and extending in a northerly direction alone the kerb for a distance of 23 metres.
(cb) That the parking of vehicles be prohibited at any time on the east side of Church Square commencing at a point 39 metres north of its intersection with Poulson Street and extending in a northerly direction alone the kerb for a distance of 9 metres.
(cc) That the parking of vehicles be prohibited at any time on the north side of Church Square commencing at its intersection with Grove Road and extending in a westerly direction for a distance of 11 metres.
(cd) That the parking of vehicles be prohibited at any time on the south side of Church Square commencing at its intersection with Grove Road and extending in a westerly direction for a distance of 18 metres.
(ce) That the parking of vehicles be restricted to a maximum period of 120 minutes from 11am to 3pm, Monday to Friday only on the north side of Church Square commencing at a point 11 metres west of its intersection with Grove Road and extending in a westerly direction for a distance of 25 metres.
(cf) That the parking of vehicles be prohibited at any time on the north side of Church Square commencing at its intersection with Grove Road and extending in an easterly direction for a distance of 12 metres. 248 3. 10. 2013 Spreydon/Heathcote Community Board 17.9.2013 18 Cont’d
(cg) That the parking of vehicles be prohibited at any time on the south side of Church Square commencing at a point 6 metres south of its intersection with Grove Road and extending in a westerly direction along the kerb for a distance of 35 metres.
(ch) That the parking of vehicles be restricted to a maximum period of 120 minutes from 11am to 3pm, Monday to Friday only on the north side of Church Square commencing at a point 17 metres east of its intersection with Grove Road and extending in a westerly direction along the kerb for a distance of 48 metres.
(ci) That the parking of vehicles be prohibited at any time on the east side of Church Square commencing at its intersection with Poulson Street and extending in an easterly direction along the kerb for a distance of 21 metres.
(cj) That the parking of vehicles be prohibited at any time on the south side of Church Square commencing at its intersection with Poulson Street and extending in a westerly direction along the kerb for a distance of 22 metres.
(ck) That the parking of vehicles be prohibited at any time on the east side of Church Square commencing at a point 40 metres south of its intersection with Poulson Street and extending in a southerly direction along the kerb for a distance of 17 metres.
Grove Road
(cl) That all parking restrictions on the west side of Grove Road from Harman Street to Church Square be revoked.
(cm) That all parking restrictions on the east side of Grove Road from Harman Street to Church Square be revoked.
(cn) That the parking of vehicles be prohibited at any time on the east side of Grove Road commencing at its intersection with Church Square and extending in a northerly direction for a distance of 8 metres.
(co) That the parking of vehicles be prohibited at any time on the east side of Grove Road commencing at its intersection with Harman Street and extending in a southerly direction for a distance of 30 metres.
(cp) That the parking of vehicles be restricted to a maximum period of 120 minutes from 11am to 3pm, Monday to Friday only on the east side of Grove Road commencing at a point 30 metres south of its intersection with Harman Street and extending in a southerly direction for a distance of 123 metres.
(cq) That the parking of vehicles be prohibited at any time on the west side of Grove Road commencing at its intersection with Harman Street and extending in a southerly direction for a distance of 16 metres.
Ward Street
(cr) That all parking restrictions on the both sides of Ward Street from Church Square to Selwyn Street be revoked.
(cs) That the parking of vehicles be prohibited at any time on the west side of Ward Street commencing at its intersection with Church Square and extending in a southerly direction for a distance of 20 metres.
(ct) That the parking of vehicles be prohibited at any time on the east side of Ward Street commencing at its intersection with Church Square and extending in a southerly direction for a distance of 19 metres. 249 3. 10. 2013 Spreydon/Heathcote Community Board 17.9.2013 18 Cont’d
(cu) That the parking of vehicles be prohibited at any time on the north side of Ward Street commencing at its intersection with Selwyn Street and extending in a westerly direction for a distance of 6 metres.
(cv) That the parking of vehicles be restricted to a maximum period of 120 minutes from 11am to 3pm, Monday to Friday only on the north side of Ward Street commencing at a point 6 metres west of its intersection with Selwyn Street and extending in a westerly direction alone the kerb for a distance of 352 metres.
(cw) That the parking of vehicles be prohibited at any time on the south side of Ward Street commencing at its intersection with Selwyn Street and extending in a westerly direction for a distance of 6 metres.
Harman Street
(cx) That all parking restrictions on the south sides of Harman Street from Grove Road to Lincoln Road be revoked.
(cy) That the parking of vehicles be prohibited at any time on the south side of Harman Street commencing at its intersection with Grove Road and extending in a westerly direction for a distance of 30 metres.
(cz) That the parking of vehicles be restricted to a maximum period of 120 minutes from 11am to 3pm, Monday to Friday only on the south side of Harman Street commencing at a point 30 metres west of its intersection with Grove Road and extending in a westerly direction for a distance of 18 metres.
(da) That the parking of vehicles be prohibited at any time on the south side of Harman Street commencing at a point 48 metres west of its intersection with Grove Road and extending in a westerly direction for a distance of 20 metres.
(db) That the parking of vehicles be restricted to a maximum period of 120 minutes from 11am to 3pm, Monday to Friday only on the south side of Harman Street commencing at a point 68 metres west of its intersection with Grove Road and extending in a westerly direction for a distance of 34 metres.
(dc) That the parking of vehicles be restricted to a maximum period of 120 minutes from 11am to 3pm, Monday to Friday only on the south side of Harman Street commencing at a point 102 metres west of its intersection with Grove Road and extending in a westerly direction for a distance of 24 metres.
(dd) That the parking of vehicles be prohibited on the west side of Harman Street commencing its intersection with Lincoln Road and extending in a southerly direction for a distance of 50 metres.
(de) That the parking of vehicles be restricted to a maximum period of 120 minutes from 11am to 3pm, Monday to Friday only on the west side of Harman Street commencing at a point 50 metres south of its intersection with Lincoln Road and extending in a southerly direction for a distance of 20 metres.
MacAulay Street
(df) That all parking restrictions on the both sides of MacAulay Street from Collins Street to Spencer Street be revoked.
(dg) That the parking of vehicles be prohibited at any time on the north side of MacAulay Street commencing at its intersection with Collins Street and extending in a westerly direction for a distance of 18 metres. 250 3. 10. 2013 Spreydon/Heathcote Community Board 17.9.2013 18 Cont’d
(dh) That the parking of vehicles be prohibited at any time on the south side of MacAulay Street commencing at its intersection with Collins Street and extending in a westerly direction for a distance of 18 metres.
(di) That the parking of vehicles be restricted to a maximum period of 120 minutes from 11am to 3pm, Monday to Friday only on the north side of MacAulay Street commencing at a point 18 metres west of its intersection with Collins Street and extending in a westerly direction for a distance of 217 metres.
(dj) That the parking of vehicles be prohibited at any time on the north side of MacAulay Street commencing at its intersection with Spencer Street and extending in an easterly direction for a distance of 6 metres.
(dk) That the parking of vehicles be prohibited at any time on the south side of MacAulay Street commencing at its intersection with Spencer Street and extending in an easterly direction for a distance of 6 metres.
Spencer Street
(dl) That all parking restrictions on the both sides of Spencer Street from MacAulay Street to Meredith Street be revoked.
(dm) That the parking of vehicles be prohibited at any time on the north east side of Spencer Street commencing at its intersection with MacAulay Street and extending in a north westerly direction for a distance of 6 metres.
(dn) That the parking of vehicles be prohibited at any time on the north east side of Spencer Street commencing at its intersection with MacAulay Street and extending in a south westerly direction for a distance of 6 metres.
(do) That the parking of vehicles be restricted to a maximum period of 120 minutes from 11am to 3pm, Monday to Friday only on the north east side of Spencer Street commencing at a point 6 metres north east of its intersection with MacAulay Street and extending in a north easterly direction for a distance of 35 metres.
(dp) That the parking of vehicles be prohibited at any time on the north east side of Spencer Street commencing at its intersection with Poulson Street and extending in a south easterly direction for a distance of 13 metres.
(dq) That the parking of vehicles be prohibited at any time on the north east side of Spencer Street commencing at its intersection with Poulson Street and extending in a north westerly direction for a distance of 14 metres.
(dr) That the parking of vehicles be prohibited at any time on the north east side of Spencer Street commencing at its intersection with Lincoln Road and extending in a south easterly direction for a distance of 8 metres.
(ds) That the parking of vehicles be prohibited at any time on the south west side of Spencer Street commencing at its intersection with Lincoln Road and extending in a south easterly direction for a distance of 8 metres.
(dt) That the parking of vehicles be restricted to a maximum period of 120 minutes from 11am to 3pm, Monday to Friday only on the north east side of Spencer Street commencing at a point 8 metres south of its intersection with Lincoln Road and extending in a south easterly direction for a distance of 50 metres.
(du) That the parking of vehicles be prohibited at any time on the north east side of Spencer Street commencing at a point 58 metres south east of its intersection with Lincoln Road and extending in a south easterly direction for a distance of 35 metres. 251 3. 10. 2013 Spreydon/Heathcote Community Board 17.9.2013 18 Cont’d
(dv) That the parking of vehicles be prohibited at any time on the south west side of Spencer Street commencing at a point 55 metres south east of its intersection with Lincoln Road and extending in a south easterly direction for a distance of 20 metres.
(dw) That the parking of vehicles be prohibited at any time on the north east side of Spencer Street commencing at its intersection with Feilding Street and extending in a north westerly direction for a distance of 6 metres.
(dx) That the parking of vehicles be restricted to a maximum period of 120 minutes from 11am to 3pm, Monday to Friday only on the north east side of Spencer Street commencing at a point 6 metres north west of its intersection with Feilding Street and extending in a north westerly direction for a distance of 20 metres.
(dy) That the parking of vehicles be prohibited at any time on the north east side of Spencer Street commencing at its intersection with Feilding Street and extending in a south easterly direction for a distance of 6 metres.
(dz) That the parking of vehicles be restricted to a maximum period of 120 minutes from 11am to 3pm, Monday to Friday only on the north east side of Spencer Street commencing at a point 6 metres south east of its intersection with Feilding Street and extending in a south easterly direction alone the kerb for a distance of 108 metres.
Feast Place
(ea) That the parking restrictions commencing from its eastern kerbline’s intersection with Poulson Street and extending around the cul-de-sac head in a clockwise direction to its western kerbline’s intersection with Poulson Street be revoked.
(eb) That the parking of vehicles be prohibited at any time on the west side of Feast Place commencing at its intersection with Poulson Street and extending in a southerly direction for a distance of 6 metres.
(ec) That the parking of vehicles be restricted to a maximum period of 120 minutes from 11am to 3pm, Monday to Friday only commencing at a point 56 metres from the eastern kerbline’s intersection with Poulson Street and extending around the cul-de-sac head in a clockwise direction to a point 6 metres from the western kerbline’s intersection with Poulson Street.
(ed) That the parking of vehicles be prohibited at any time on the east side of Feast Place commencing from its intersection with Poulson Street and extending a southerly direction for a distance of 56 metres.
Dickens Street
(ef) That all parking restrictions on the both sides of Dickens Street from Lincoln Road to Poulson Street be revoked.
(eg) That the parking of vehicles be prohibited at any time on the south west side of Dickens Street commencing at its intersection with Lincoln Road and extending in a south easterly direction for a distance of 19 metres.
(eh) That the parking of vehicles be restricted to a maximum period of 120 minutes from 11am to 3pm, Monday to Friday only on the south west side of Dickens Street commencing at a point 19 metres south east of its intersection with Lincoln Road and extending in a south easterly direction for a distance of 65 metres.
(ei) That the parking of vehicles be prohibited at any time on the south west side of Dickens Street commencing at a point 84 metres south east of its intersection with Lincoln Road and extending in a south easterly direction for a distance of 25 metres. 252 3. 10. 2013 Spreydon/Heathcote Community Board 17.9.2013 18 Cont’d
(ej) That the parking of vehicles be restricted to a maximum period of 120 minutes from 11am to 3pm, Monday to Friday only on the south west side of Dickens Street commencing at a point 109 metres south east of its intersection with Lincoln Road and extending in a south easterly direction for a distance of 15 metres.
(ek) That the parking of vehicles be prohibited at any time on the south west side of Dickens Street commencing at a point 124 metres south east of its intersection with Lincoln Road and extending in a south easterly direction for a distance of 19 metres.
(el) That the parking of vehicles be restricted to a maximum period of 120 minutes from 11am to 3pm, Monday to Friday only on the south west side of Dickens Street commencing at a point 143 metres south east of its intersection with Lincoln Road and extending in a south easterly direction for a distance of 45 metres.
(em) That the parking of vehicles be prohibited at any time on the south west side of Dickens Street commencing at a point 188 metres south east of its intersection with Lincoln Road and extending in a south easterly direction for a distance of 20 metres.
(en) That the parking of vehicles be restricted to a maximum period of 120 minutes from 11am to 3pm, Monday to Friday only on the south west side of Dickens Street commencing at a point 208 metres south east of its intersection with Lincoln Road and extending in a south easterly direction for a distance of 37 metres.
(eo) That the parking of vehicles be prohibited at any time on the west side of Dickens Street commencing its intersection with Poulson Street and extending in a northerly direction for a distance of 18 metres.
(ep) That the parking of vehicles be restricted to a maximum period of 120 minutes from 11am to 3pm, Monday to Friday only on the west side of Dickens Street commencing at a point 18 metres north of its intersection with Poulson Street and extending in a northerly direction for a distance of 16 metres.
(eq) That the parking of vehicles be prohibited at any time on the north east side of Dickens Street commencing at its intersection with Lincoln Road and extending in a south easterly direction for a distance of 9 metres.
(er) That the parking of vehicles be prohibited ay any time on the north east side of Dickens Street commencing at a point 89 metres south of its intersection with Lincoln Road and extending in a south easterly direction for a distance of 19 metres.
(es) That the parking of vehicles be prohibited at any time on the north east side of Dickens Street commencing at a point 190 metres south east of its intersection with Lincoln Road and extending in a south easterly direction for a distance of 18 metres.
(et) That the parking of vehicles be prohibited at any time on the east side of Dickens Street commencing at its intersection with Poulson Street and extending in a northerly direction for a distance of 18 metres.
Parlane Street
(eu) That all parking restrictions on the both sides of Parlane Street from Lincoln Road to Poulson Street be revoked.
(ev) That the parking of vehicles be prohibited at any time on the north east side of Parlane Street commencing at its intersection with Lincoln Road and extending in a south easterly direction for a distance of 12 metres. 253 3. 10. 2013 Spreydon/Heathcote Community Board 17.9.2013 18 Cont’d
(ew) That the parking of vehicles be restricted to a maximum period of 120 minutes from 11am to 3pm, Monday to Friday only on the north east side of Parlane Street commencing at a point 12 metres south east of its intersection with Lincoln Road and extending in a south easterly direction for a distance of 49 metres.
(ex) That the parking of vehicles be prohibited at any time on the north east side of Parlane Street commencing at a point 61 metres south east of its intersection with Lincoln Road and extending in a south easterly direction for a distance of 23 metres.
(ey) That the parking of vehicles be restricted to a maximum period of 120 minutes from 11am to 3pm, Monday to Friday only on the north east side of Parlane Street commencing at a point 84 metres south east of its intersection with Lincoln Road and extending in a south easterly direction for a distance of 98 metres.
(ez) That the parking of vehicles be prohibited at any time on the north east side of Parlane Street commencing at a point 182 metres south east of its intersection with Lincoln Road and extending in a south easterly direction for a distance of 25 metres.
(fa) That the parking of vehicles be restricted to a maximum period of 120 minutes from 11am to 3pm, Monday to Friday only on the north east side of Parlane Street commencing at a point 207 metres south east of its intersection with Lincoln Road and extending in a south easterly direction for a distance of 36 metres.
(fb) That the parking of vehicles be prohibited at any time on the south east side of Parlane Street commencing at its intersection with Poulson Street and extending in a north westerly direction for a distance of 13 metres.
(fc) That the parking of vehicles be prohibited at any time on the south west side of Parlane Street commencing at its intersection with Lincoln Road and extending in a south easterly direction for a distance of 12 metres.
(fd) That the parking of vehicles be prohibited at any time on the south west side of Parlane Street commencing at a point 61 metres south east of its intersection with Lincoln Road and extending in a south easterly direction for a distance of 23 metres.
(fe) That the parking of vehicles be prohibited at any time on the south west side of Parlane Street commencing at its intersection with Feilding Street and extending in a north westerly direction for a distance of 6 metres.
(ff) That the parking of vehicles be prohibited at any time on the south west side of Parlane Street commencing at its intersection with Feilding Street and extending in a south easterly direction for a distance of 6 metres.
(fg) That the parking of vehicles be prohibited at any time on the south west side of Parlane Street commencing at a point 182 metres south east of its intersection with Lincoln Road and extending in a south easterly direction for a distance of 25 metres.
(fh) That the parking of vehicles be prohibited at any time on the south west side of Parlane Street commencing at its intersection with Poulson Street and extending in a north westerly direction for a distance of 13 metres.
Feilding Street
(fi) That all parking restrictions on the both sides of Feilding Street from Parlane Street to Spencer Street be revoked.
(fj) That the parking of vehicles be prohibited at any time on the north west side of Feilding Street commencing at its intersection with Parlane Street and extending in a south westerly direction for a distance of 6 metres. 254 3. 10. 2013 Spreydon/Heathcote Community Board 17.9.2013 18 Cont’d
(fk) That the parking of vehicles be prohibited at any time on the south east side of Feilding Street commencing at its intersection with Parlane Street and extending in a south westerly direction for a distance of 6 metres.
(fl) That the parking of vehicles be restricted to a maximum period of 120 minutes from 11am to 3pm, Monday to Friday only on the north west side of Feilding Street commencing at a point 6 metres south west of its intersection with Parlane Street and extending in a south westerly direction for a distance of 142 metres.
(fm) That the parking of vehicles be restricted to a maximum period of 120 minutes from 11am to 3pm, Monday to Friday only on the south east side of Feilding Street commencing at a point 6 metres south west of its intersection with Parlane Street and extending in a south westerly direction for a distance of 130 metres.
(fn) That the parking of vehicles be prohibited at any time on the north west side of Feilding Street commencing at its intersection with Spencer Street and extending in a north easterly direction for a distance of 6 metres.
(fo) That the parking of vehicles be prohibited at any time on the south east side of Feilding Street commencing at its intersection with Spencer Street and extending in a north easterly direction for a distance of 6 metres.
Meredith Street
(fp) That all parking restrictions on the both sides of Meredith Street from Spencer Street to the end of Meredith Street be revoked.
(fq) That the parking of vehicles be prohibited at any time on the west side of Meredith Street commencing at its intersection with Spencer Street and extending in a southerly direction for a distance of 20 metres.
(fr) That the parking of vehicles be restricted to a maximum period of 120 minutes from 11am to 3pm, Monday to Friday only on the west side of Meredith Street commencing at a point 20 metres south of its intersection with Spencer Street and extending in a southerly direction for a distance of 55 metres.
(fs) That the parking of vehicles be prohibited at any time on the west side of Meredith Street commencing at a point 75 metres south of its intersection with Spencer Street and extending in a southerly direction for a distance of 20 metres.
(ft) That the parking of vehicles be prohibited at any time on the east side of Meredith Street commencing at its intersection with Spencer Street and extending in a southerly direction for a distance of 18 metres.
Lincoln Road
(fu) That all parking restrictions on the south side of Lincoln Road from Harman Street to Spencer Street be revoked.
(fv) That all parking restrictions on the north side of Lincoln Road from Clarence Street South to Bernard Street be revoked.
(fw) That the parking of vehicles be prohibited at any time on the south side of Lincoln Road commencing at of its intersection with Harman Street and extending in a westerly direction for a distance of 49 metres.
(fx) That the parking of vehicles be restricted to a maximum period of 60 minutes on the south side of Lincoln Road commencing at a point 49 metres west of its intersection with Harman Street and extending in a westerly direction for a distance of 12 metres. 255 3. 10. 2013 Spreydon/Heathcote Community Board 17.9.2013 18 Cont’d
(fy) That the parking of vehicles be prohibited at any time on the south side of Lincoln Road commencing at of its intersection with Dickens Street and extending in an easterly direction for a distance of 6 metres.
(fz) That the parking of vehicles be prohibited at any time on the south side of Lincoln Road commencing at of its intersection with Dickens Street and extending in a westerly direction for a distance of 6 metres.
(ga) That the parking of vehicles be restricted to a maximum period of 60 minutes on the south side of Lincoln Road commencing at a point 6 metres west of its intersection with Dickens Street and extending in a westerly direction for a distance of 16 metres.
(gb) That the parking of vehicles be prohibited at any time on the south side of Lincoln Road commencing at a point 22 metres west of its intersection with Dickens Street and extending in a westerly direction for a distance of 34 metres.
(gc) That a bus stop be installed on the south side of Lincoln Road commencing at a point 56 metres west of its intersection with Dickens Street and extending in a westerly direction for a distance of 21 metres.
(gd) That the parking of vehicles be restricted to a maximum period of 60 minutes on the south side of Lincoln Road commencing at a point 88 metres west of its intersection with Dickens Street and extending in a westerly direction for a distance of 35 metres.
(ge) That the parking of vehicles be restricted to a maximum period of 60 minutes on the south side of Lincoln Road commencing at a point 138 metres west of its intersection with Dickens Street and extending in a westerly direction for a distance of 6 metres.
(gf) That the parking of vehicles be restricted to a maximum period of 10 minutes on the south side of Lincoln Road commencing at a point 153 metres west of its intersection with Dickens Street and extending in a westerly direction for a distance of 12 metres.
(gg) That the parking of vehicles be restricted to a maximum period of 60 minutes on the south side of Lincoln Road commencing at a point 7 metres east of its intersection with Parlane Street and extending in an easterly direction for a distance of 18 metres.
(gh) That the parking of vehicles be prohibited at any time on the south side of Lincoln Road commencing its intersection with Parlane Street and extending in an easterly direction for a distance of 7 metres.
(gi) That the parking of vehicles be prohibited at any time on the south side of Lincoln Road commencing its intersection with Parlane Street and extending in a westerly direction for a distance of 18 metres.
(gj) That the parking of vehicles be restricted to a maximum period of 60 minutes on the south side of Lincoln Road commencing at a point 18 metres west of its intersection with Parlane Street and extending in a westerly direction for a distance of 45 metres.
(gk) That the parking of vehicles be prohibited at anytime on the south side of Lincoln Road commencing at a point 63 metres east of its intersection with Parlane Street and extending in an easterly direction for a distance of 29 metres.
(gl) That the parking of vehicles be restricted to a maximum period of 60 minutes on the south side of Lincoln Road commencing at a point 92 metres west of its intersection with Parlane Street and extending in a westerly direction for a distance of 12 metres.
(gm) That the parking of vehicles be restricted to a maximum period of 60 minutes on the south side of Lincoln Road commencing at a point 114 metres west of its intersection with Parlane Street and extending in a westerly direction for a distance of 19 metres. 256 3. 10. 2013 Spreydon/Heathcote Community Board 17.9.2013 18 Cont’d
(gn) That the bus stop on the south side of Lincoln Road commencing at a point 133 metres west of its intersection with Parlane Street and extending in a westerly direction for a distance of 19 metres.
(go) That the parking of vehicles be restricted to a maximum period of 60 minutes on the south side of Lincoln Road commencing at a point 11 metres east of its intersection with Spencer Street and extending in a easterly direction for a distance of 36 metres.
(gp) That the parking of vehicles be prohibited on the south side of Lincoln Road commencing at its intersection with Spencer Street and extending in an easterly direction for a distance of 11 metres.
(gq) That the parking of vehicles be prohibited on the north side of Lincoln Road commencing at its intersection with Clarence Street South and extending in an easterly direction for a distance of 14 metres.
(gr) That the bus stop on the north side of Lincoln Road commencing at a point 14 metres west of its intersection with Clarence Street South and extending in an easterly direction for a distance of 23 metres.
(gs) That the parking of vehicles be prohibited on the north side of Lincoln Road commencing at a point 37 metres east of its intersection with Clarence Street South and extending in an easterly direction for a distance of 48 metres.
(gt) That the parking of vehicles be restricted to a maximum period of 60 minutes on the north side of Lincoln Road commencing at a point 6 metres west of its intersection with Wise Street and extending in a westerly direction for a distance of 11 metres.
(gu) That the parking of vehicles be prohibited at any time on the north side of Lincoln Road commencing at its intersection with Wise Street and extending in a westerly direction for a distance of 6 metres.
(gv) That the parking of vehicles be prohibited at any time on the north side of Lincoln Road commencing at its intersection with Wise Street and extending in an easterly direction for a distance of 6 metres.
(gw) That the parking of vehicles be restricted to a maximum period of 60 minutes on the north side of Lincoln Road commencing at a point 6 metres east of its intersection with Wise Street and extending in an easterly direction for a distance of 165 metres.
(gx) That the parking of vehicles be prohibited at any time on the north side of Lincoln Road commencing at its intersection with Bernard Street and extending in a westerly direction for a distance of 27 metres.
Bernard Street
(gy) That all parking restrictions on the south west side of Bernard Street from Lincoln Road to the end of Bernard Street be revoked.
(gz) That the parking of vehicles be prohibited at any time on the south west side of Bernard Street commencing at its intersection with Lincoln Road and extending in a north westerly direction for a distance of 16 metres.
(ha) That the parking of vehicles be restricted to a maximum period of 60 minutes from 11am to 3pm, Monday to Friday only on the south west side of Bernard Street commencing at a point 16 metres north west of its intersection with Lincoln Road and extending in a north westerly direction for a distance of 137 metres. 257 3. 10. 2013 Spreydon/Heathcote Community Board 17.9.2013 18 Cont’d
(hb) That the parking of vehicles be prohibited at any time on the south west side of Bernard Street commencing at a point 153 metres north west of its intersection with Lincoln Road and extending in a north westerly direction for a distance of 6 metres.
Selwyn Street Additional
(hc) That the parking of vehicles be prohibited at any time on the west side of Selwyn Street commencing at a point 137 metres south of its intersection with Poulson Street and extending in a southerly direction for a distance of 10 metres.
The meeting concluded at 7.40pm.
CONFIRMED THIS 24TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2013
PHIL CLEARWATER CHAIRPERSON
JENNY HUGHEY BOARD ADVISER 258 259 3. 10. 2013
AKAROA/WAIREWA COMMUNITY BOARD Clause 20 21 AUGUST 2013
Report of a meeting of the Akaroa/Wairewa Community Board held on Wednesday 21 August 2013 at 9.30 am in the Akaroa Sports Complex, Akaroa Recreation Ground, 28 Rue Jolie, Akaroa
PRESENT: Pam Richardson (Chairman), Lyndon Graham, Leigh Hickey, Stewart Miller and Claudia Reid.
APOLOGIES: An apology for absence was received and accepted from Bryan Morgan and an apology for lateness from Claudia Reid who was not present for part of Clause 1.1 and Clause 11. Following an adjournment Claudia Reid returned to the meeting at 11.05am and was not present for part of Clause 13.
DECLARATION Board Member Leigh Hickey declared an interest in Clause 8 in OF INTEREST: relation to the Akaroa District Promotions Incorporated Strengthening Communities Fund application and withdrew from the discussion and voting thereon.
The Board reports that:
PART B – REPORTS FOR INFORMATION
1. DEPUTATIONS BY APPOINTMENT
1.1 AKAROA POLICE – SENIOR CONSTABLE TIMOTHY JOHNSON
Senior Constable Timothy Johnson, recently appointed to Akaroa, introduced himself to the Board.
1.2 JOHN OLIVER – AKAROA MEN’S SHED TRUST
John Oliver addressed the Board regarding the difficulties in acquiring accommodation for a Men’s Shed in Akaroa. He informed the Board that the Trust had been looking for a suitable site in Akaroa and surrounding areas since June 2012 but without success. He said the Trust was prepared to look into purchasing containers or a garage from a Red Zoned area in Christchurch, however a site would still be required and he asked for the Board’s support in finding a suitable location.
The Board decided to ask staff if a suitable site could be made available for a Men’s Shed and suggested that the Takamatua Reserve could be investigated as an option.
1.3 SAM HAMPTON – HOROMAKA GEOPROJECT
Dr Sam Hampton gave a presentation to the Board, in support of his correspondence under Clause 6.2 of the Agenda. He outlined the concept of a GeoPark and the benefits it would bring to Banks Peninsula, stating this would be New Zealand’s first GeoPark. He asked for the Board’s support to assist in the organisation of a Road Show event to educate and inform the public on the proposal.
The Board supported the concept of a GeoPark and suggested ideas on how it could be promoted in the public arena through upcoming events, such as the French Festival. The Board also suggested that the GeoPark group work with other established groups, such as Orton Bradley Park and the Rod Donald Trust to utilise existing information and expertise.
2. PRESENTATION OF PETITIONS
Nil.
260 3. 10. 2013 Akaroa/Wairewa Community Board 21. 8. 2013
3. NOTICES OF MOTION
Nil.
4. CORRESPONDENCE
4.1 RODNEY LAREDO
Mr Laredo had written to the Board offering to donate a red, old style, phone box to the Akaroa community.
The Board received the correspondence and asked that it be referred to staff with a request that they work with Mr Laredo on the idea of installing the phone box in Akaroa, in liaison with other relevant groups including the Akaroa Design and Appearance Advisory Committee.
4.2 UNIVERSITY OF CANTERBURY – HOROMAKA GEOPARK PROJECT
Dr Sam Hampton had written to the Board seeking the Board’s support to assist in the organisation of a Road Show event for a Geopark Project, being the first of its type in New Zealand.
The Board received the correspondence.
(Clause 1.3 of these Minutes refers)
5. RESERVE MANAGEMENT COMMITTEES
5.1 OKAINS BAY RESERVE MANAGEMENT COMMITTEE
The Board requested that staff meet with the Okains Bay Reserve Management Committee to discuss the following matters:
(a) Wages (b) Capital Expenditure – ablution block (c) Siting of new toilet block (d) Safety of trees in the reserve.
The Board was concerned that many trees on reserves may pose health and safety risks and decided to request that Council’s arborists work with all the Banks Peninsula Reserve Management Committees to identify any dangerous trees that should be removed, with the trees in the camping area at Okains Bay being given first priority.
The Board received the minutes of the following Reserve Management Committee meetings:
- Le Bons Bay Reserve Management Committee – 21 July 2013 - Okains Bay Reserve Management Committee – 11 June 2013
6. BRIEFINGS
6.1 TRANSPORT SAFETY MANAGER
Robyn Gardener, Transport Safety Manager, Road Corridor Operations, introduced herself and her role, and reported on some of the projects she is working on to assist road safety.
261 3. 10. 2013 Akaroa/Wairewa Community Board 21. 8. 2013
7. COMMUNITY BOARD ADVISERS’ UPDATE
The Board received information from the Community Board Adviser on various matters.
Selwyn/Waihora Zone Water Committee
Board members wished to recognise the significant contribution that Stewart Miller had made as the Council representative to the Selwyn/Waihora Zone Water Committee during his term of office.
8. ELECTED MEMBERS’ INFORMATION EXCHANGE
Board members received information on various matters.
WiFi
The Board decided to ask staff to investigate options for providing additional WiFi coverage in the Akaroa township during the cruise ship season, to alleviate the demand in the area of the Akaroa Library, and to consider this as an item in Cruise Ship Planning processes.
Grehan Valley Road
The Board decided to ask staff for information on the cost of sealing Grehan Valley Road, compared to the current practice of grading and metalling it a number of times a year. The Board also asked for information from staff on whether this road is included on the sealing extension programme for Banks Peninsula.
Duvauchelle Reserve Management Committee – Overnight Camping
The Board decided to ask staff to reply to the Duvauchelle Reserve Management Committee regarding its request for no overnight camping signs to be erected on Seafield Road, Duvauchelle.
Duvauchelle Reserve Management Committee – Sealing of Drain, Seafield Road
The Board decided to ask staff to liaise with the Duvauchelle Reserve Management Committee regarding the sealing of the drain on Seafield Road in front of the Duvauchelle Camping Ground.
Opara Stream Catchment
The Board decided to ask staff for information on the Opara Stream catchment area regarding rating and what maintenance is carried out in the area.
Birdlings Flat Water Supply
The Board was given an update on the salinity problems with the Birdlings Flat water supply and members acknowledged the work of Council staff who were working hard to resolve the problem.
Birdlings Flat Road Speeds
The Board decided to ask staff to investigate the possibility of a deterrent, such as speed bumps, to encourage lower speeds and create a safer traffic environment near the new community building in Birdlings Flat.
9. QUESTIONS UNDER STANDING ORDERS
Nil.
262 3. 10. 2013 Akaroa/Wairewa Community Board 21. 8. 2013 PART C – DELEGATED DECISIONS
10. CONFIRMATION OF MEETING MINUTES
10.1 Ordinary Minutes – 17 July 2013
The Board resolved that the minutes of its ordinary meeting held on Wednesday 17 July 2013 be confirmed.
10.2 Ordinary Minutes – 27 June 2013
The Board noted a correction to the 27 June 2013 minutes (confirmed on 17 July 2013) in terms of process, in that Part A matters were reported to the Council on 25 July 2013 as part of the Board minutes, not by way of a Chairmans Report.
It was also noted that the report in the 27 June 2013 minutes referred to as “BP Meats Site – Potential Short Term Uses” “, should have correctly been entitled “Surrender of Agreement – 67 Rue Lavaud, Akaroa – BP Meats Site”.
11. AKAROA/WAIREWA COMMUNITY BOARD 2013/14 STRENGTHENING COMMUNITIES FUND ALLOCATIONS
The Board considered a report to allocate the Akaroa/Wairewa Strengthening Communities Fund for 2013/14.
The Board allocated $29,865 from its 2013/14 Strengthening Communities Fund as follows:
No. Organisation Project Board Decision
1. Akaroa/Wairewa Community To purchase lights and other The Board resolved to make a Board Christmas decorations for use grant of $1,000 towards the in the main streets of Akaroa Akaroa/Wairewa Community and Little River. Board’s Christmas Lighting and Decorations project. Note: Staff recommendation was $2,000.
2. Akaroa/Wairewa Community Neighbourhood Week. The Board resolved to make a Board grant of $1,000 to the Akaroa/Wairewa Community Board towards Neighbourhood Week.
3. Akaroa/Wairewa Community For the Community Board to The Board resolved to make a Board host ANZAC Day citizens grant of $1,650 towards the ceremonies in Akaroa and Little Akaroa/Wairewa Community River. Board hosting the 2014 ANZAC Day Services.
4. Akaroa/Wairewa Community Community Board Newsletter The Board resolved to make a Board and Other Media grant of $1,000 towards Board newsletters and other media. Note: Staff recommendation was $1,500. 263 3. 10. 2013 Akaroa/Wairewa Community Board 21. 8. 2013 11 Cont’d
No. Organisation Project Board Decision
5. Akaroa District Promotions ADP Events Programme, The Board resolved to make a Incorporated Akaroa Spring School, grant of $8,000 to the Akaroa Seaweek, Akaroa Harvest District Promotions towards the Festival and Cruise Ship ADP Events Programme and volunteer Ambassadors. Volunteer Recognition. Note: Staff recommendation was $7,000.
6. Little River Craft Station Little River Information Centre The Board resolved to make a Incorporated grant of $7,715 to the Little River Craft Station Incorporated towards the Little River Information Centre. Note: Staff recommendation was $6,215.
7. Little River Craft Station Arts and Crafts Winter The Board resolved to make a Incorporated Workshops grant of $4,000 to the Little River Craft Station towards Winter Workshops. Note: Staff recommendation was $5,000.
8. The Little River Wairewa Little River Wairewa The Board resolved to make a Community Trust Community Trust Operations grant of $5,500 to the Little and Projects River Wairewa Community Trust towards the Trust’s 2013/14 projects as prioritised by the Trust.
12. REVISED REPORT – PROPOSED DEED OF LEASE AND DEED OF LICENCE – AKAROA RESOURCE COLLECTIVE TRUST – TENNIS/NETBALL PAVILION ON AKAROA RECREATION GROUND
The Board considered a report to alter the Akaroa/Wairewa Community Board resolution dated 22 September 2010 to grant the Akaroa Resource Collective Trust (ARCT) a Deed of Lease and Deed of Licence over part of the Akaroa Recreation Ground being the former tennis/netball pavilion.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
That the Akaroa/Wairewa Community Board under delegated authority from the Council and in accordance with the Chairperson’s recommendation in this report alter the resolution made at a meeting on 22 September 2010, and grants under Section 12 of the Local Government Act 2002:
(a) By adding that the Deed of Lease shall refer to the Council’s Smoke Free Policy and prohibit smoking in the Building.
(b) By adding that the Lessee shall not permit any smoking within the Building and ensure that appropriate signage is in place within the premises and on the netball courts.
(c) By adding that the Deed of Lease or Deed of Licence may be terminated by either party on one calendar months notice.
(d) By altering the following resolution dated 22 September 2010 “14(c) the Granting of the lease licence for a period of 33 years, broken into three periods of 11 years each” to read: 264 3. 10. 2013 Akaroa/Wairewa Community Board 21. 8. 2013 12 Cont’d
(i) A Deed of Lease and Deed of Licence be granted for a term of three years. ARCT shall be given the right to request two rights of renewal for a period of three years each. Renewal of the Deed of Lease and Deed of Licence will only be granted upon approval from the Akaroa/Wairewa Community Board following consideration by a staff report.
(e) By adding that the Deed of Lease and Deed of Licence be amended to permit the use of the tennis/netball pavilion on the Akaroa Recreation Ground by other community groups when not being used by ARCT.
BOARD RECOMMENDATION
The Board resolved in accordance with the Christchurch City Council Standing Orders dated July 2008 Order 3.9.18 that the resolution made at a meeting by the Akaroa/Wairewa Community Board on 22 September 2010 be altered in accordance with the Staff Recommendation detailed above.
13. SMALL TOWN CONFERENCE 2013 – BOARD MEMBERS ATTENDANCE
The Board considered a report seeking approval for Board members who may be interested, to attend the 2013 New Zealand Small Town Conference.
There was no Board member wishing to attend this conference.
The meeting concluded at 1.05pm.
CONFIRMED THIS 18TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2013.
PAM RICHARDSON CHAIRMAN 265
AKAROA/WAIREWA COMMUNITY BOARD Clause 21 21 AUGUST 2013
Report of a meeting of the Akaroa/Wairewa Community Board’s Small Grants Fund Assessment Committee held on Wednesday 21 August 2013 at 3pm in the Akaroa Sports Complex, 28 Rue Jolie, Akaroa.
PRESENT: Pam Richardson (Chairperson), Lyndon Graham, Leigh Hickey, Stewart Miller, Gaye Jameson and Mario Downes.
APOLOGIES: Apologies for absence were received and accepted from Kerry Little and Bryan Morgan.
DECLARATION Committee Member Mario Downes declared an interest in the application from the OF INTEREST: Little River Wairewa Community Trust and withdrew from the discussion and voting thereon.
The Committee reports that:
PART C - DELEGATED DECISIONS
1. AKAROA/WAIREWA SMALL GRANTS FUND 2013/14 ALLOCATIONS
The Committee considered a report and its attached matrix which set out applications made to the Akaroa/Wairewa Small Grants Fund for 2013/14.
Detailed information on each applicant’s project was presented in a decision matrix attached to the report. The matrix named the organisation applying for the funding and clearly described the individual project applied for. Details of alignment with the Council strategies and Board objectives were provided as well as historical background to projects and applications where applicable.
COMMITTEE DECISION
The Akaroa/Wairewa Small Grants Fund Assessment Committee resolved:
(a) To approve allocations from the 2013/14 Akaroa/Wairewa Small Grants Fund as follows:
No. Group Project Committee Decision 1. Akaroa Playcentre – Purchase of Equipment That the Akaroa/Wairewa Small Grants Canterbury Fund Assessment Committee make a grant Playcentre Assn. of $1,200 to Akaroa Playcentre – Canterbury Playcentre Association, towards the cost of two safety mats. 2. Beautify Birdlings Welcome to Birdlings Flat – That the Akaroa/Wairewa Small Grants planting Fund Assessment Committee make a grant of $900 to Beautify Birdlings towards the Welcome to Birdlings project. 3. Little River Craft Little River Flower Power That the Akaroa/Wairewa Small Grants Station Incorporated Garden Trail Fund Assessment Committee make a grant of $626 to Little River Craft Station Incorporated towards the Flower Power Garden Trail project. 4. Little River Support Pool Funding 2013/14 That the Akaroa/Wairewa Small Grants Group Fund Assessment Committee make a grant of $3,000 to Little River Support Group towards pool attendant costs. 5. The Little River Seniors Hui and Reunion That the Akaroa/Wairewa Small Grants Wairewa Fund Assessment Committee make a grant Community Trust of $1,100 to Little River Wairewa Community Trust towards the Seniors’ Hui and Reunion.
266 Akaroa/Wairewa Community Board Small Grants Fund Assessment Committee 21.8.2013
1 Cont’d
(b) That it delegate authority to the Committee Chairman, Pam Richardson and Committee member, Gaye Jameson, to confirm the minutes of the meeting.
The meeting concluded at 3.33pm.
CONFIRMED THIS TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2013
PAM RICHARDSON GAYE JAMESON COMMITTEE CHAIRMAN COMMITTEE MEMBER SMALL GRANTS FUND ASSESSMENT COMMITTEE
2 267 3. 10. 2013 Clause 22 AKAROA/WAIREWA COMMUNITY BOARD 18 SEPTEMBER 2013
Report of a meeting of the Akaroa/Wairewa Community Board held on Wednesday 18 September 2013 at 9.30 am in the Little River Service Centre, 4238 Christchurch-Akaroa Road, Little River
PRESENT: Pam Richardson (Chairman), Lyndon Graham, Leigh Hickey, Stewart Miller, Bryan Morgan and Claudia Reid.
APOLOGIES: Nil.
DECLARATION Board Member Bryan Morgan declared an interest in Clause 14 in relation to the OF INTEREST: Reserve Fund Application by the Little River Wairewa Community Trust and left the meeting during the Board’s discussion and voting on this item (10.23am - 10.31am). Board Member Pam Richardson declared an interest in Clause 18 in relation to the Duvauchelle Agricultural and Pastoral Association’s Funding Application and withdrew from the discussion and voting thereon.
The Board reports that:
PART A – MATTERS REQUIRING A COUNCIL DECISION
1. APPLICATION FOR A NEW LEASE AND A LICENCE – THE CHISNALLWOOD INTERMEDIATE SCHOOL OUTDOOR RECREATION FACILITY AT TAKAMATUA RECREATION RESERVE
General Manager responsible: Acting General Manager City Environment DDI 941 8608 Officer responsible: Transport and Greenspace Unit Manager Author: Tony Hallams, Leasing Consultant
PURPOSE OF REPORT
1. That the Council, under delegated authority from the Minister of Conservation, grant a new lease to the Chisnallwood Intermediate School over their existing leased area at Takamatua Recreation Reserve, within which they maintain seven buildings for the purposes of an outdoor recreation centre, and to grant a new licence to enable the Chisnallwood Intermediate School to continue maintaining the grounds.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
2. The lease previously granted to the Chisnallwood Intermediate School has expired.
3. The School has requested new lease arrangements over their existing total leased area site of 7944m2, upon which seven structures occupy a total area of 336m2, associated with the storage of outdoor recreation materials, accommodation and ablutions, and for conducting instruction in outdoor pursuits and allowing meetings of groups in the community. The main meeting hall area of 100 m2 is owned by the Council but maintained by the School.
4. Council officers from the Network Planning Unit support a new lease being entered into for a period of up to 33 years, broken into three 11-year periods with rights of renewal at the end of the each term.
5. Following the major earthquake events of 2011 the School undertook detailed engineering assessments on the buildings that it owns. The Council is currently assessing the main hall on site as part of its own Detailed Engineering Assessment process. The buildings have appeared sound and been in regular use during and since the earthquake events, and there are no known factors which prevent their ongoing use.
FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS
6. There are no financial implications to the Council in granting a new lease. The School currently holds insurance on the buildings they own on the site. 268 3. 10. 2013 Akaroa/Wairewa Community Board 18. 9. 2013 1 Cont’d
7. The School has submitted copies of its audited financial accounts dating back the last five years. Officers have formed the view that the Chisnallwood School accounting relating to the Outdoor Recreation Facility is financially sound the School having sufficient funds to undertake the maintenance of the site.
8. The School currently pays an annual rental of $115 (including GST) per annum. It is currently being reviewed in accordance with the Council’s Sports Club Leases Charging Policy. Under this Policy the School will be required to pay an annual rental of $215.11 (including GST) to lease the existing building footprint areas of 336m2 in total. If a new licence is approved for the School to maintain the grounds it is envisaged that a nominal annual licence fee of $1 plus GST is charged.
Do the Recommendations of this Report Align with 2013-16 TYP budgets?
9. The proposal to put a lease in place will not impinge on LTP budgets. The Council has publicly advertised the proposal within the provisions of Sections 119 and 120 of the Reserves Act 1977, the applicant meeting these costs. The applicant has also agreed to meet any Council Legal Services costs in putting a new lease and licence in place.
LEGAL CONSIDERATIONS
10. The Board has delegated authority from Council to authorise the granting of any new lease or licence arrangements at the site.
11. There is an obligation on the Council when granting a new lease to grant it only if it considers there is sufficient need to continue to allow the facilities to be used as an outdoor recreation centre, and that there is not a greater demand for some other sport or recreational activity and that in the public interest some other sport, game, or recreational activity should not have priority that will provide a greater public benefit. There have been approximately 450 student visits using the site each year over recent years, with the school estimate of approximately 15,750 students having used the site since it came under Chisnallwood Intermediate School care in 1977. Current use of the buildings and recreation ground support new lease and licence arrangements being put in place.
12. The subject land is held as recreation reserve but is impracticable in size to be considered as a sport field. It is considered that the public should have access to use this land for informal recreation purposes, but under the stewardship of the school who have maintained the grounds since 1977. It is recommended that a new Deed of Lease is approved to cover the existing building footprints which amount to approximately 336m2 in total, and a separate Deed of Licence at a nominal rental to cover the remaining land area of 7272m2 for the School to continue maintaining the recreation ground at the site.
13. The subject land being recreational reserve is subject to the provisions of the Reserves Act 1977. Territorial authorities have been delegated by the Minister of Conservation, pursuant to section 10 of the Reserves Act 1977, authority to grant or decline leases or licences of land under section 54(1)(a), (b), (c), and (d) where the effects of the proposed use will be the same or similar in character, intensity and scale. There will be no changes to these effects by granting new lease arrangements, and therefore the Minister of Conservation’s delegation can be exercised.
14. As part of that delegation it is necessary for the Council to fulfil the requirements of section 4 of the Conservation Act 1987, that being to consider it’s obligations to give effect to the Treaty of Waitangi. Council records indicate the site being listed as "Sacred". The Council has consulted with Ngai Tahu through a request made to Mahannui Kuritaiao Limited (MKT), Tangata Whenua Advisory and Facilitation Services to the Christchurch City Council. After the original request to MKT for comment on the proposal on 11 December 2012, and further communications to MKT, no objections have been received to the proposal. 269 3. 10. 2013 Akaroa/Wairewa Community Board 18. 9. 2013 1 Cont’d
Have you considered the legal implications of the issue under consideration?
15. Yes. Refer paragraphs 10-14 above.
ALIGNMENT WITH LTP AND ACTIVITY MANAGEMENT PLANS
16. Yes. The Council has affirmed under the Parks, Open Spaces and Waterways category Council Activities and Services its commitment to provide leisure and recreational opportunities, including spaces for recreational sport. The LTP is applicable to the subject land.
Do the recommendations of this report support a level of service or project in the 2013-16 TYP?
17. Yes. Refer to paragraph 16 above.
ALIGNMENT WITH STRATEGIES
18. This application is aligned with the Christchurch Active Living Strategy, by supporting school participants’ mental stimulation, physical exercise, and enabling them to gain another experience in life by engaging in outdoor recreation activities.
19. The approval of this application is in alignment with the Council’s Strategic Direction to support Strong Communities. It encourages school participants to enjoy living in the Christchurch City Council territorial area, namely the Chisnallwood School catchment, to have fun, thereby supporting Takamatua as being a good place to enjoy the outdoors.
20. Chisnallwood School supports the local Takamatua community by permitting the hall on site to be used for meetings by community groups from Takamatua and its surrounds
Do the recommendations align with the Council’s strategies?
21. Yes. Refer to paragraphs 18 – 20 above.
CONSULTATION FULFILMENT
22. Because the subject land that forms the proposed lease and licence areas is classified as recreation reserve the application has been subject to the consultation provisions of the Reserves Act 1977. The Council has followed this process. The Council has publicly advertised the fact that it is considering the proposal. No objections or submissions have been received within the statutory time frame of one calendar month. The Council has also consulted with Ngai Tahu within the provisions of Section 4 of the Conservation Act 1987 which requires the Council to give weight to the principles of the Treaty of Waitangi 1840, refer to paragraph 14.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
That the Akaroa/Wairewa Community Board under delegated authority from the Council:
(a) Approve the granting of a new Deed of Lease to the Chisnallwood Intermediate School over approximately 336m2 on Recreation Reserve, being Lot 1 DP 11774 contained in the Canterbury Electronic Land Registry as CPR CB 464/287 which existing buildings are located, for a period of up to 33 years, broken into three 11-year periods with rights of renewal at the end of the first two periods of 11 years, these rights of renewal being subject to the Council being satisfied that the terms and conditions of the lease have been complied with, and that there is sufficient need for the sports, games, or other recreational activity specified in the lease, and that in the public interest some other sport, game, or recreational activity should not have priority. 270 3. 10. 2013 Akaroa/Wairewa Community Board 18. 9. 2013 1 Cont’d
(b) Approve the granting of a new Deed of Licence to the Chisnallwood Intermediate School, excluding the building footprints on site, of approximately 7272m2, in which the Chisnallwood Intermediate School shall maintain the grounds and allocate them for any informal sports activity.
(c) Authorise the Corporate Support Manager to conclude and administer the terms of the lease and licence.
(d) Resolve that the Council’s obligations under section 4 of the Conservation Act 1987 have been considered.
That the Akaroa/Wairewa Community Board recommend to Council under delegated authority from the Minister of Conservation:
(e) Approve the granting of a new Deed of Lease to the Chisnallwood Intermediate School over approximately 336m2 on Recreation Reserve, being Lot 1 DP 11774 contained in the Canterbury Electronic Land Registry as CPR CB 464/287 which existing buildings are located, for a period of up to 33 years, broken into three 11-year periods with rights of renewal at the end of the first two periods of 11 years, these rights of renewal being subject to the Council being satisfied that the terms and conditions of the lease have been complied with, and that there is sufficient need for the sports, games, or other recreational activity specified in the lease, and that in the public interest some other sport, game, or recreational activity should not have priority.
(f) Approve the granting of a new Deed of Licence to the Chisnallwood Intermediate School, excluding the building footprints on site, of approximately 7272m2, in which the Chisnallwood Intermediate School shall maintain the grounds and allocate them for any informal sports activity.
Refer to Clause 1 (cont’d) in Part C of this report for a decision made under delegated authority.
BOARD CONSIDERATION
The Board questioned what steps the Chisnallwood School took to make the public aware that the reserve could be used by them, and suggested that the School could have better communication with the community so that there was no perception that the School had exclusive use of the site.
During discussion when considering its delegated decision on this matter, the Board requested that staff investigate whether a Men’s Shed could also be accommodated on this site.
The Board did not wish the lease with the Chisnallwood School to be delayed but suggested that appropriate wording be included in the lease that would cover use of the reserve outside of the times it is used by the school.
BOARD RECOMMENDATION
That the staff recommendation be adopted.
PART B – REPORTS FOR INFORMATION
2. DEPUTATIONS BY APPOINTMENT
2.1 RICHARD PATTON
Richard Patton, Principal, Chisnallwood Intermediate School, addressed the Board on the renewal of the lease over an area at Takamatua Recreation Reserve, formerly the Takamatua School. 271 3. 10. 2013 Akaroa/Wairewa Community Board 18. 9. 2013 1 Cont’d
Mr Patton gave a comprehensive report on the history of the site and the improvements made over the years that it has been leased by the Chisnallwood Intermediate School. The School has strived to retain it as place of learning and respect its historic value to the community. In relation to a suggestion a Men’s Shed could be established on the site, Mr Patton said although the School did not expect exclusive use of the site it felt that other proposals needed to be carefully considered so it could be retained as a learning centre, and the safety of the children was not compromised.
Refer Clause 1 under Part A and Part C for the Board’s comments in relation to this item.
3. PRESENTATION OF PETITIONS
Nil.
4. NOTICES OF MOTION
Nil.
5. CORRESPONDENCE
Nil.
6. AKAROA/WAIREWA COMMUNITY BOARD SMALL GRANTS FUND ASSESSMENT COMMITTEE REPORT – 21 AUGUST 2013
The Board received the minutes of the Akaroa/Wairewa Community Board Small Grants Fund Assessment Committee held on Wednesday 21 August 2013.
7. RESERVE MANAGEMENT COMMITTEES
The Board decided to ask staff if Council policy permitted Reserve Management Committees to use internet banking for payment of accounts and the transferring of funds, after it was noted that Committees were still making manual transactions.
The Board received the minutes of the following Reserve Management Committee meetings:
- Duvauchelle Reserve Management Committee – 8 July 2013 - Duvauchelle Reserve Management Committee – 12 August 2013
8. BRIEFINGS
Nil.
9. COMMUNITY BOARD ADVISERS’ UPDATE
The Board received information from the Community Board Adviser on various matters.
Duvauchelle Reserve Management Committee
The Duvauchelle Reserve Management Committee had written to the Board expressing its appreciation for the support it had given to progressing the reopening of the Duvauchelle Community Centre.
The correspondence was received.
272 3. 10. 2013 Akaroa/Wairewa Community Board 18. 9. 2013
10. ELECTED MEMBERS’ INFORMATION EXCHANGE
Specific mention was made on the following matters:
Birdlings Flat Water Supply
The Board decided to request that staff regularly update the Board on issues regarding the Birdlings Flat water supply and how resolution of the salinity issue is progressing, after it was noted that updates were being provided to the Banks Peninsula ZIP Committee but not the Board.
Cruise Ship Traffic Management Plan
The Board decided to ask staff to investigate the siting of signage put in place as part of the Cruise Ship Traffic Management Plan after it was reported that the “Events” signs were significantly narrowing the carriageway.
Akaroa Seawall – Childrens Playground
The Board decided to ask staff for an update on the current condition of the seawall at the Akaroa Childrens Playground to ensure that the historic wall was not deteriorating beyond repair, while waiting for permanent repairs to be carried out in 2014, as the Board suggested that re-prioritisation of the project may be required to ensure that the historic wall was saved.
Rock Wall – Beach Road
The Board decided to ask staff to liaise with Board member Lyndon Graham regarding a contact for a dry-wall stonemason to repair the rock wall at the entrance to the Stanley Park walking track.
Navigational Safety Bylaw
The Board decided to request a briefing from Environment Canterbury staff on the process to amend the Navigation Bylaw to allow cruise ships to enter the Akaroa Harbour outside daylight hours after Board members expressed concern about the possible hazards of allowing this to occur, particularly if it became regular practice.
Ngaio Point – Storm Damage
The Board decided to ask the New Zealand Transport Agency for an update on the reconstruction/repair of the Christchurch-Akaroa Road at Ngaio Point, which was damaged in a recent storm, and whether there was any danger posed to adjacent houses or the highway.
Britomart Toilets
The Board decided to ask staff for an explanation of why the Britomart toilets would not be completed in time for the cruise ship season, as plans for the project had been presented to the Akaroa Design and Appearance Advisory Committee at its meeting on 7 February 2013 and staff had given an undertaking that the renovated toilets would be completed prior to the cruise ship season commencing. It had recently been reported to the Board that the work had not yet commenced and would not now be completed until early December. Board members questioned why the Board had not been informed of this delay earlier.
11. QUESTIONS UNDER STANDING ORDERS
Nil.
273 3. 10. 2013 Akaroa/Wairewa Community Board 18. 9. 2013
12. VALEDICTORY SPEECHES
Valedictory speeches were giving by retiring Board member Stewart Miller and Claudia Reid who was not standing for re-election in the Banks Peninsula Ward.
PART C – DELEGATED DECISIONS
13. CONFIRMATION OF MEETING MINUTES
13.1 Ordinary Minutes – 21 August 2013
The Board resolved that the minutes of its ordinary meeting held on Wednesday 21 August 2013 be confirmed.
14. AKAROA/WAIREWA COMMUNITY BOARD 2013/14 DISCRETIONARY RESPONSE FUND – LITTLE RIVER TRAP LIBRARY
The Board considered a report seeking approval for funding from its 2013/14 Discretionary Response Fund from Okuti Valley Recreation and Sports Club Incorporated for $2,050 for costs of the Little River Trap Library.
The Board resolved to approve a grant of $1,500 from its 2013/14 Discretionary Response Fund to Okuti Valley Recreation and Sports Club Incorporated towards costs of the Little River Trap Library.
15. APPLICATIONS TO AKAROA/WAIREWA COMMUNITY BOARD – AKAROA/WAIREWA RESERVE FUND - LITTLE RIVER WAIREWA COMMUNITY TRUST
The Board considered two applications for funding from its Akaroa/Wairewa Reserve Fund, from the Little River Wairewa Community Trust for $4,000 towards relocation of the living streams nursery in Little River; and $13,743 to the Okuti Valley - Reserve Road - French Peak Road walking and cycling track.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
It is recommended that the Akaroa/Wairewa Community Board:
(a) Approve a grant of $4,000 from its 2013/14 Akaroa/Wairewa Reserve Fund to the Little River Wairewa Community Trust for Relocation of the Living Streams Nursery Project.
(b) Approve a grant of $13,743 from its 2013/14 Akaroa/Wairewa Reserve Fund to the Little River Wairewa Community Trust for development of the Okuti Valley - Reserve Road - French Peak Road walking and biking track.
BOARD CONSIDERATION
The Board questioned whether the projects had been approved by the relevant Council Unit, as in both cases it was proposed that Council property would be used by an outside organisation.
BOARD RECOMMENDATION
The Board resolved to allow this application to lay on the table until further information was provided to show that the relevant Council Unit was aware of, and had approved, the proposed use of Council property and road reserve.
274 3. 10. 2013 Akaroa/Wairewa Community Board 18. 9. 2013
16. APPLICATION TO THE DISCRETIONARY RESPONSE FUND – YOUTH DEVELOPMENT SCHEME FOR MATTHEW BAYLEY
The Board considered a report seeking approval for youth development funding from its 2013/14 Discretionary Response Fund for Matthew Bayley.
The Board resolved to approve a grant of $500 from its 2013/14 Discretionary Response Fund to Matthew Bayley towards the cost of his being part of the New Zealand Optimist Development team and participation in the New Caledonian National Optimist Championship.
17. APPLICATION TO AKAROA/WAIREWA COMMUNITY BOARD 2013/14 DISCRETIONARY RESPONSE FUND – LITTLE RIVER WAIREWA COMMUNITY TRUST
The Board considered a report seeking approval for funding from its 2013/14 Discretionary Response Fund from Little River Wairewa Community Trust for $2,100 towards volunteer nurses in Little River.
The Board resolved to approve a grant of $2,100 from its 2013/14 Discretionary Response Fund to the Little River Wairewa Community Trust towards equipment and materials, for volunteer nurses in Little River, subject to the equipment being retained in community ownership.
18. APPLICATION TO AKAROA WAIREWA COMMUNITY BOARD 2013/14 DISCRETIONARY RESPONSE FUND – DUVAUCHELLE AGRICULTURAL AND PASTORAL ASSOCIATION INC.
The Board considered a report seeking approval for funding from its 2013/14 Discretionary Response Fund from Duvauchelle Agricultural and Pastoral Association Inc. for $2,327 for a 100th show celebration.
The Board resolved to approve a grant of $2,000 from its 2013/14 Discretionary Response Fund to the Duvauchelle Agricultural and Pastoral Association Inc. for a 100th show celebration towards display materials.
The Board requested that the applicant be asked to use display boards that could be reused for other occasions or by other groups.
19. CONSIDERATION OF APPLICATIONS FOR NEIGHBOURHOOD WEEK FUNDING
The Board considered a report on applications for Neighbourhood Week funding.
The Board resolved to approve the allocation of Neighbourhood Week funding as follows:
Group Activity Amount Allocated Joanne Cameron – Birdlings Flat Birdlings Flat Community BBQ $ 162.50 Vanessa Mitchell (Little River Neighbourhood Breakfast $ 225.00 Wairewa Community Trust) Sue Mather Western Valley Road BBQ $ 100.00 Geoffrey Carter Bayview Crescent Street Party $ 200.00 Fay Miller Residents morning tea/lunch $ 137.50 David Kearns Gebbies Valley to Birdlings Flat $ 175.00 BBQ/movie night
275 3. 10. 2013 Akaroa/Wairewa Community Board 18. 9. 2013
1. APPLICATION FOR A NEW LEASE AND A LICENCE – THE CHISNALLWOOD INTERMEDIATE SCHOOL OUTDOOR RECREATION FACILITY AT TAKAMATUA RECREATION RESERVE (CONT’D)
The Board considered a report to seek its approval to grant a new lease to the Chisnallwood Intermediate School over their existing leased area at Takamatua Recreation Reserve, within which they maintain seven buildings for the purposes of an outdoor recreation centre, and to grant a new licence to enable the Chisnallwood Intermediate School to continue maintaining the grounds.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
That the Akaroa/Wairewa Community Board under delegated authority from the Council:
(a) Approve the granting of a new Deed of Lease to the Chisnallwood Intermediate School over approximately 336m2 on Recreation Reserve, being Lot 1 DP 11774 contained in the Canterbury Electronic Land Registry as CPR CB 464/287 which existing buildings are located, for a period of up to 33 years, broken into three 11-year periods with rights of renewal at the end of the first two periods of 11 years, these rights of renewal being subject to the Council being satisfied that the terms and conditions of the lease have been complied with, and that there is sufficient need for the sports, games, or other recreational activity specified in the lease, and that in the public interest some other sport, game, or recreational activity should not have priority.
(b) Approve the granting of a new Deed of Licence to the Chisnallwood Intermediate School, excluding the building footprints on site, of approximately 7272m2, in which the Chisnallwood Intermediate School shall maintain the grounds and allocate them for any informal sports activity.
(c) Authorise the Corporate Support Manager to conclude and administer the terms of the lease and licence.
(d) Resolve that the Council’s obligations under section 4 of the Conservation Act 1987 have been considered.
BOARD CONSIDERATION
The Board had previously been approached by a group seeking a site on which to establish a Men’s Shed, and staff had suggested that this site may be able to accommodate that.
The Board requested that staff investigate whether a Men’s Shed could also be accommodated on the site, and prepare a scoping report to come back to the Board.
BOARD RECOMMENDATION
The Board resolved that the staff recommendation be adopted.
Refer Part A Clause 1 with reference to (e) and (f) in Clause 16 of the agenda, that required a Council decision.
The meeting concluded at 12.30pm.
SIGNED BY THE CHAIRMAN OF THE BOARD AND THE COMMUNITY BOARD ADVISER PURSUANT TO STANDING ORDER 3.18.2.
CONFIRMED THIS 24TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2013
LIZ CARTER PAM RICHARDSON COMMUNITY BOARD ADVISER CHAIRMAN
276 3. 10. 2013 Akaroa/Wairewa Community Board 18. 9. 2013 ATTACHMENT TO CLAUSE 1
277 Clause 23 COUNCIL 3. 10. 2013
ENVIRONMENT AND INFRASTRUCTURE COMMITTEE 5 SEPTEMBER 2013
A meeting of the Environment and Infrastructure Committee was held in the No. 1 Committee Room on Thursday 5 September 2013 at 9am.
PRESENT: Councillor Claudia Reid (Chairperson) Councillors Sally Buck, Jimmy Chen, Barry Corbett, Aaron Keown, and Sue Wells.
IN ATTENDANCE: Councillor Johanson
APOLOGIES: Nil.
The Committee reports that:
PART A - MATTERS REQUIRING A COUNCIL DECISION
1. INFRASTRUCTURE REBUILD MONTHLY REPORT
General Manager responsible: General Manager Capital Programme Officer responsible: Infrastructure Rebuild Client Manager Author: Will Doughty
PURPOSE OF REPORT
1. To provide the Council with a monthly update on the infrastructure rebuild.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
2. At its April 2011 meeting, Council gave approval for an Alliance to be formed to deliver the reinstatement of the City’s damaged infrastructure. It was also agreed that the Chief Executive would report regularly to the Council on progress with regard to the reinstatement work.
3. The report (Attachment 1) is the 20th of what will be a regular monthly report that is provided to the Environment and Infrastructure Committee, Council and the Canterbury Earthquake Recovery Authority (CERA).
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
It is recommended that the Council receives the Infrastructure Rebuild Monthly Report for August 2013.
COMMITTEE CONSIDERATION
The Committee request that staff investigate the opportunities of aligning the proposed cycleway with the Rutland Street repairs being undertaken by Stronger Christchurch Infrastructure Rebuild Team (SCIRT).
The Environment and Infrastructure Committee has been receiving reports from SCIRT on the infrastructure rebuild programme. There is an ongoing tension arising from the gap between the work which SCIRT is able to do, and work which communities may wish to achieve through the rebuild. 278 COUNCIL 3. 10. 2013 Environment and Infrastructure Committee 5. 9. 2013
1 Cont’d
The Council will need to consider funding mechanisms to support those projects; for example it may be additional funding or reconsidering the repair and renewals programme, or reviewing the capital works programme.
COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION
That the staff recommendation be adopted.
The Committee recommends that the incoming Council develop a process with the community boards to identify existing or new directions or projects that should be considered for fast-tracking in conjunction with SCIRT works when they are due to be delivered.
2. OCCUPATION OF AIRSPACE – HEREFORD HOLDINGS LIMITED
General Manager responsible: General Manager City Environment Group, DDI 941-8608 Officer responsible: Unit Manager, Asset and Network Planning Author: Jeff Woodham, Leasing Consultant
PURPOSE OF REPORT
1. The purpose of this report is to seek a resolution from the Council:
(a) To approve in principle the Occupation of Airspace proposed by Hereford Holdings Limited above Cashel Mall and Oxford Terrace; and
(b) To grant the Chief Executive, or nominated manager, the delegation to grant licences for the use of road airspace as stated in the Policy for Structures on Roads 2010 - Clause 2.3 Use of airspace over roads for increasing the floor area of a building for future applications.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
2. Hereford Holdings Limited are seeking approval in principle from the Council to occupy airspace with respect to external terraces that are proposed along the Oxford Terrace frontage of their property as depicted in Attachment 1.
3. The Council does not generally grant rights to use the airspace above roads for additional floor space. However, in the case of the proposal by Hereford Holdings, the activity will revitalise the central city with a view to creating new places of interest for people to gather. Clause 2.3 of the Policy sets out the details to be followed and the Corporate Support Unit is authorised to negotiate terms and conditions for using the airspace over roads for increasing floor areas.
4. The Council must be satisfied that a request to grant the right to use the airspace over the road meets with the Policy on Structures on Roads 2010. The decision making authority as per Clause 6 of the Policy is exercised by the Council, advised by the relevant Community Board. As the property is within the central city, staff are seeking the recommendation of the Environment and Infrastructure Committee to recommend to the Council that the delegation be granted to the Chief Executive, or nominated manager, to conclude negotiations subject to:
(a) Engineering plans being approved by the Asset and Network Planning Unit Manager;
(b) Approval from the Urban Design Panel; and
(c) A formal Deed of Licence for the Occupation Of Airspace being entered into. 279 COUNCIL 3. 10. 2013 Environment and Infrastructure Committee 5. 9. 2013
2 Cont’d
5. Resource Consent has been granted by the regulatory arm of the Council for this development which is designed to create active frontage along Oxford Terrace and Cashel Street. The occupation of air space at Level 1 of the building is consistent with the design principle and has the support of the Urban Design Panel.
6. The impending re-build of the central city environment is likely to give rise to an increased occurrence of the use of airspace to increase the net area of a building. Staff are recommending that any applications covered by clause 2.3 Use of airspace over roads for increasing the floor area of a building of the Policy on Structures on Roads 2010 and is currently delegated at clause 6 Delegations to the Council, be to the Chief Executive or nominated manager to conclude negotiations subject to:
(a) Engineering plans being approved by the Asset and Network Planning Unit Manager;
(b) Approval from the Urban Design Panel; and
(c) A formal Deed of Licence for the Occupation Of Airspace being entered into.
FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS
7. Licence Fee revenue will be received from occupation of public space for hospitality and from use of airspace for commercial activity.
Do the Recommendations of this Report Align with 2013-16 TYP budgets?
8. This is not a budgeted activity, however it will have a positive effect by providing revenue to the Council.
LEGAL CONSIDERATIONS
9. The proposed development is consistent with the Council‘s Structures on Roads 2010 policy and the arrangement will be documented by a Deed of Licence to Occupy Airspace.
Have you considered the legal implications of the issue under consideration?
10. Yes.
CONSULTATION FULFILMENT
11. Hereford Holdings have met with the Urban Design Panel in June 2013 and a resource consent has been granted for the activity. Officers are satisfied that consultative obligations have been met.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
That the Council pass the following resolutions:
(a) Grant approval as landowner of the legal road (being Cashel Mall and Oxford Terrace) for the proposed construction by Hereford Holdings Limited encompassing the occupation of airspace, subject to:
(i) Engineering plans being approved by the Asset and Network Planning Unit Manager;
(ii) Approval from the Urban Design Panel; and
(iii) A formal Deed of Licence for the Occupation Of Airspace being entered into.
(b) Grant delegation to the Road Corridor Operations Manager authority to approve the terms and conditions negotiated by the Corporate Support Unit (including Licence fee) under Clause 2.3. 280 COUNCIL 3. 10. 2013 Environment and Infrastructure Committee 5. 9. 2013
2 Cont’d Use of the airspace over roads for the increasing the floor area of a building of the Policy on Structures on Roads 2010.
(c) Grant a general delegation to the Chief Executive or nominated manager to negotiate terms and conditions (including Licence fee) for the duration of the re-build of the central city for any other application that is covered under Clause 2.3 Use of the airspace over roads for the increasing the floor area of a building of the Policy on Structures on Roads 2010 subject to:
(i) Engineering plans being approved by the Asset and Network Planning Unit Manager;
(ii) Approval from the Urban Design Panel; and
(iii) A formal Deed of Licence for the Occupation of Airspace being entered into.
COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION
That staff recommendations (a) and (b) be adopted.
That the recommendation to:
(c) Grant a general delegation to the Chief Executive or nominated manager to negotiate terms and conditions (including Licence fee) for the duration of the re-build of the central city for any other application that is covered under Clause 2.3 Use of the airspace over roads for the increasing the floor area of a building of the Policy on Structures on Roads 2010 subject to:
(i) Engineering plans being approved by the Asset and Network Planning Unit Manager;
(ii) Approval from the Urban Design Panel; and
(iii) A formal Deed of Licence for the Occupation of Airspace being entered into.
be referred to the incoming Council.
BACKGROUND
12. Hereford Holdings Limited have an exciting new project for the now bare land bordered by Cashel Mall, Oxford Terrace and Hereford Street.
13. The proposal has been designed to create active frontages along Oxford Terrace and Cashel Mall rather than monolithic building line. The design reflects multiple buildings that utilise approximately 50 percent of the total permitted development density across the Terrace site.
14. Consideration has been given to ensure seamless integration with the proposed Avon River precinct project. Following the February 2011 earthquake and the demise of “The Strip” this will see the re-establishment in the new guise to be known as “The Terraces”.
15. Hereford Holding Limited met with the Urban Design Panel in June 2013 and are progressing their designs and vision with them.
16. Council Officers have provided a “letter of support” (subject to formal Council approval) which was presented to the Urban Design Panel discussions in June 2013.
17. Hereford Holdings Limited are also seeking approval in principle for the following (which are covered by existing Policy and Delegation): 281 COUNCIL 3. 10. 2013 Environment and Infrastructure Committee 5. 9. 2013
2 Cont’d (a) Hereford Holdings Limited proposal has occupation of public pavement for the provision of hospitality on Oxford Terrace. They are proposing a six metre zone extending from their boundary into Oxford Terrace. This proposed zone is similar to that which existed prior to the February 2011 Earthquake. Occupation of public space for hospitality is covered by the Public Street Enclosures Policy and is licensed by delegation to the Chief Executive, sub delegated to the Road Corridor Operations Manager.
(b) Verandahs and canopies are proposed along parts of the frontages in Cashel Mall and Oxford Terrace. This is covered by clause 2.1 Verandahs in business areas of the Policy on Structures on Roads 2010 and is delegated at clause 6 Delegations to the Chief Executive , or nominated manager in the Policy.
(c) External Balconies and solar shading elements are proposed. This is covered by clause 2.2 Use of airspace over roads for architectural features on buildings including balconies, oriel windows, egress facilities and building service plants of the Policy on Structures on Roads 2010 and is delegated at clause 6 Delegations to the Chief Executive, or nominated manager in the Policy.
3. LAND FOR ROAD – LINK ROAD BETWEEN GREYWACKE ROAD AND SAWYERS ARMS ROAD
General Manager responsible: General Manager City Environment Group , DDI 941-8608 Officer responsible: Unit Manager, Transport and Greenspace Author: Lewis Burn , Property Consultant
PURPOSE OF REPORT
1. The purpose of this report is to seek the Council’s approval on the declaration of Council land as road by agreement under the Public Works Act 1981. The report also seeks a delegated authority from the Council to the Corporate Support Unit Manager to conclude the terms of the agreement.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
2. New Zealand Transport Agency (NZTA) in the four laning of a section of Johns Road between the Groynes entrance and Sawyers Arms Road, need to modify the Greywacke Road intersection to left in/left out only. To cater for right turn demands, NZTA are proposing to construct a new link road between Greywacke Road and Sawyers Arms Road.
3. The alignment of the proposed link road affects a relatively small portion of the Council’s land . The total area to be purchased is approximately 1380 square metres which includes land required for road and a severance area of approximately 110 square metres. (refer parcels shown as Sections 3, 3A and 3B on MWH Land Requirement Drawings , Attachment 1 )
4. NZTA are intending to commence construction of the Link road in January 2014 so that this road is in place in advance of the SH 1 (Johns Road) widening works.
5. The Council’s land is part of the former Waimiari Tip site and is currently held as a Local Purpose (Refuse Reserve) zoned Open Space 3. The Council’s land is located on the eastern side of Sawyers Arms Road and forms part of a large reserve collectively known as Roto Kohatu recreation reserve. Given the location of the land required by NZTA, it is considered the loss of these areas will not significantly affect the shape or utilisation of the balance of the Council’s land holding.
6. A number of services including water, sewerage, power telecommunications (including computer data) are to be installed in the new road which adjoining owners will have the ability to connect to subject to the usual regulatory and service provider requirements. 282 COUNCIL 3. 10. 2013 Environment and Infrastructure Committee 5. 9. 2013
3 Cont’d
7. Discussions are being held with The Property Group as agents for NZTA over the terms of the agreement and at the time of writing this report, while agreement is held in principle, the NZTA design had not been finalised and consequently the agreement has not been concluded including the amount compensation to apply. A delegation is being sought to authorise the Corporate Support Unit Manager to conclude the agreement.
FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS
8. The Council’s valuer Ford Baker, has assessed the amount of compensation at $9,500 plus GST (if any) but this assessment has been based on a total area to be acquired of 1408 square metres (Refer attachment 2 for valuer’s report). Since this assessment, the land requirement has been reviewed with a lesser area of some 1380 square metres in three parcels required.
9. In accordance with the Department of Conservation’s policy on disposal of reserve land that came from the Crown’s estate, 50 percent of the agreed compensation will be paid to the Department on settlement date.
10 Costs to the Council are insignificant. As part of the purchase agreement, NZTA are offering to reimburse the Council’s reasonable legal and valuation fees. NZTA will be responsible for carrying out at its cost, the required survey to enable the land to be vested as Road which will be an addition to Council Road network.
Do the Recommendations of this Report Align with 2013-16 TYP budgets?
11. Not applicable.
LEGAL CONSIDERATIONS
12. The Property Group on behalf of the Crown (LINZ) will attend to the gazettal action on completion of survey to declare the Council’s land taken for road. Section 114 of the Public Works Act 1981 provides that the Minister of Lands with the consent of the owner, may by notice in the New Zealand Gazette, declare any land whether owned by the Crown or not to be road.
13. The land shall not be declared to be road without the written consent of the body in whom the land or its control is vested in this case the Council as owner. The Minister of Conservation will also need to consent to this taking and the Crown is responsible for obtaining this consent.
Have you considered the legal implications of the issue under consideration?
14. Yes, as above.
ALIGNMENT WITH LTCCP AND ACTIVITY MANAGEMENT PLANS
15. This project is funded by NZTA to mitigate the effect of Johns Road Four Laning project to City Road network.
Do the recommendations of this report support a level of service or project in the 2013-16 TYP?
16. The project will enhance the current network on completion.
ALIGNMENT WITH STRATEGIES
17. The project will deliver the level of service appropriate for the City. 283 COUNCIL 3. 10. 2013 Environment and Infrastructure Committee 5. 9. 2013
3 Cont’d
Do the recommendations align with the Council’s strategies?
18. Yes. It will support the growth in the City.
CONSULTATION FULFILMENT
19. There are no statutory requirements or obligations on Council to consult over this transaction.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
It is recommended that the Council:
(a) Consent pursuant to Section 114 of the Public Works Act 1981 to the land shown as sections 3, 3A and 3B on MWH drawings 80501885-01-001-L001 & L003 at Attachment 1 being declared road and vested in the Crown.
(b) Authorise the Unit Manager Corporate Support approve the terms of the agreement.
COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION
That the staff recommendation be adopted.
4. SALE OF LINK STRIP 198 SPRINGS ROAD – MARGARET EGGERS DRIVE CHRISTCHURCH
General Manager responsible: General Manager City Environment DDI Officer responsible: Unit Manager Asset and Network Planning Author: David Rowland Property Consultant DDI 941 8053
PURPOSE OF REPORT
1. The purpose of this report is to seek the Council’s approval to dispose of a 0.20 metre strip of land adjoining 198 Springs Road and sell it to the adjoining owner Bushnell Nominees Limited thereby permitting them access out onto Margaret Eggers Drive.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
2. The owner of 198 Springs Road Bushnell Nominees Limited has approached the Council seeking to acquire a strip of land 0.20 metres in width being Lot 6 DP 404845 having an area of 36 square metres (Attachment 1).
3. Margaret Eggers Drive was formed in 2009 and as part of its construction adjoining owners were invited to contribute financially to its formation and ultimately access. Bushnell Nominees at that time declined to avail themselves of that opportunity and have continued to access their property directly off Springs Road.
4. To protect that position a 0.20 metre strip held in a separate title was created. This prohibits access out to Margaret Eggers Drive. These strips are held so that at any time in the future, if circumstances change it can be sold at market value enabling owners access on to the adjoining legal road. This is shown on the locality plan attached.
5. Bushnell Nominees Limited have embarked on a redevelopment of their site and new two storey units are proposed near Margaret Eggers Drive. To facilitate economic utilisation and traffic movement around the site they have determined that access off Margaret Eggers Drive is now a desirable option. 284 COUNCIL 3. 10. 2013 Environment and Infrastructure Committee 5. 9. 2013
4 Cont’d
FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS
6. A market valuation of the 0.20 metre strip has been undertaken by Telfer Young, initially on the premise that the Council would be responsible for providing access over the stormwater culverts and more recently on the basis that the cost of access would rest with the applicant. They conclude that the 0.20 metre strip has a current market valuation of $51,000 plus GST (Attachment 2).
7. Discussions have been held with the applicant and the subjectivity of the valuation advice has been fully explored and discussed to ensure that the correct valuation methodology and its application are applied. A negotiated contract value of $62,500 plus GST has been agreed but remains subject to the Council’s approval.
Do the Recommendations of this Report Align with 2013-16 TYP budgets?
8. N/A.
LEGAL CONSIDERATIONS
9. The Council’s Legal Services Team have prepared the necessary Sale & Purchase Agreement. There are no legal reasons why this land should not be disposed of.
Have you considered the legal implications of the issue under consideration?
10. Yes as above.
ALIGNMENT WITH LTCCP AND ACTIVITY MANAGEMENT PLANS
11. N/A.
Do the recommendations of this report support a level of service or project in the 2013-16 TYP?
12. N/A.
ALIGNMENT WITH STRATEGIES
13. N/A.
Do the recommendations align with the Council’s strategies?
14. N/A.
CONSULTATION FULFILMENT
15. There is no requirement to consult on the sale of this small area of land. Bushnell Nominees Limited is the only purchaser of this land.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
That the Council dispose of Lot 6 DP 404845 having an area of 36 squared metres located in Margaret Eggers Drive to the adjoining owners Bushnell Nominees Limited for the consideration of $62,500 plus GST.
COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION
That the staff recommendation be adopted.
285 COUNCIL 3. 10. 2013 Environment and Infrastructure Committee 5. 9. 2013
5. WEIGHT AND SPEED RESTRICTIONS ON UNDER STRENGTH ROAD BRIDGES
General Manager responsible: General Manager City Environment Group, DDI 941-8608 Officer responsible: Unit Manager, Transport and Greenspace Author: Ryan Rolston, Network Engineer
PURPOSE OF REPORT
1. The primary purpose of this report is to seek the Council’s approval of weight and speed restrictions on certain Council road bridges that are under strength or have been damaged by earthquakes. The secondary purpose of this report is to seek the Environment and Infrastructure Committee’s recommendation to the Council that it delegate its powers for the implementation of weight and speed restrictions on road bridges to the Transport and Greenspace Unit Manager.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
2. The Council owns and maintains 367 road bridges. Of these, some ten per cent do not meet full structural standards. Some of these bridges have suffered structural damage as a result of the earthquakes and some through natural decline. A number of older bridges (particularly in rural areas on Banks Peninsula) were not constructed to present standards.
3. All bridges are routinely inspected by engineers to identify structural deficiencies. If an identified structural deficiency is severe, it may be necessary to close the bridge until it is repaired. This has the potential to have a significant severance effect, particularly on the peninsula as there are a number of bridges on no exit rural roads. This type of deficiency would normally occur as a result of a natural event, and be repaired through emergency maintenance budgets.
4. It is more common, however, that identified structural deficiencies are minor. In such instances, the load carrying capacity of the bridge may only be neared by vehicles at the upper limit of legal weight limits. The engineer may specify weight and speed restrictions to be imposed on the bridge by the Road Controlling Authority under the Heavy Motor Vehicles Regulations 1974, enabling continued use of the bridge for vehicles that do not pose a risk of further decline to the bridge structure. The majority of these road bridges are located on non-strategic roads that carry a negligible volume of heavy vehicle traffic. In the best of circumstances it may be a matter of months before suitable remedial improvements can be designed and implemented, requiring weight and speed controls as an interim measure.
5. Appendix A (Attachment 1) lists Council bridges with existing or required weight and speed restrictions. This report recommends the approval of the specified weight and speed restrictions on these bridges for the subsequent 12 month period.
6. Many of the present restrictions expire on 10 November 2013, noting that the Heavy Motor Vehicles Regulations 1974 only enables bridge weight and speed restrictions to be implemented for a maximum of 12 months and the present restrictions were notified on 10 November 2012.
7. Public notification is required to give legal effect to the restrictions. It is proposed to publically notify the restrictions through the public notices in “The Press” newspaper. Following notification, the New Zealand Transport Agency (NZTA) will be informed of the restrictions in accordance with the requirements of the Heavy Motor Vehicles Regulations 1974.
8. When an engineer recommends weight and speed restrictions it is necessary for the restrictions to be implemented urgently. It is considered that this is best achieved through Council staff being empowered to implement such restrictions. 286 COUNCIL 3. 10. 2013 Environment and Infrastructure Committee 5. 9. 2013
5 Cont’d
FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS
9. The remediation of bridges to full Class 1 standard may require significant repair costs or full replacement. Funding allocated to bridge renewals within the 2013-16 Christchurch City Three Year Plan is insufficient to remediate all bridges currently identified as being below Class 1 standard. As such, there is a reliance on weight and speed restrictions to enable the continued operation of bridges with existing deficiencies and any bridge where new deficiencies are identified.
10. The implementation costs of weight and speed restrictions include signage installation, public advertising costs and staff time.
Do the Recommendations of this Report Align with 2013-16 TYP budgets?
11. As above.
LEGAL CONSIDERATIONS
12. Regulation 11(3) of the New Zealand Government Heavy Motor Vehicles Regulations 1974 empowers the Council to impose weight and speed restrictions on Council road bridges.
13. Regulation 11(13) of the New Zealand Government Heavy Motor Vehicles Regulations 1974 states that any weight or speed limit fixed on a bridge by the road controlling authority shall remain in place (unless revoked or amended sooner) for no longer than is required and for a maximum period of 12 months.
14. Regulation 11(5) & 11(7) of the New Zealand Government Heavy Motor Vehicles Regulations 1974 require public notification of bridge weight and speed restrictions through a local newspaper, deemed in this instance to be “The Press”. The restrictions become effective upon public notification.
15. Regulation 11(13) of the New Zealand Government Heavy Motor Vehicles Regulations 1974 requires that Central Government is informed of restrictions being implemented via the New Zealand Transport Agency (NZTA) the details per a legal gazetting process.
16. The design and construction of all road structures classified as buildings under the terms of the Building Act 2004 shall comply with the Building code. The definition of building includes road bridges. For compliance with the Building Code a chartered professional engineer may specify weight and speed restrictions for a bridge and certify that he is of the opinion that the use of the bridge by vehicles exceeding these limits would cause its ultimate failure.
17. Regulation 39 (c) of the Local Government Act sets out that a local authority should ensure that responsibility and processes for decision-making in relation to regulatory responsibilities is separated from responsibility and processes for decision-making for non-regulatory responsibilities.
18. Regulation 42 (2) of the Local Government Act sets out that the Chief Executive is responsible for ensuring that all responsibilities imposed or conferred by an Act are properly exercised.
DELEGATIONS
19. Pursuant to paragraph 32 of the 7th Schedule of the Local Government Act 2002 the Council has the legal ability to delegate its powers. Powers delegated by the Council are specified in the Christchurch City Council Register of Delegations. 287 COUNCIL 3. 10. 2013 Environment and Infrastructure Committee 5. 9. 2013
5 Cont’d
20. The Register of Delegations sets out the Council’s statutory responsibilities (ie those powers that may not be delegated) and powers that have been delegated by the Council to a person, community board, panel or subcommittee. It also states that a matter which does not fall within any of the delegations listed in the register is a matter for the full Council to make a decision on. The Register of Delegations does not reference the power to impose weight and speed restrictions on road bridges.
21. There are compelling reasons why the Council would delegate Council staff the power to impose weight and speed restrictions on road bridges. These are as follows:
The prescribed format of Public Notification under the Regulations explicitly requires the identification of an Authorising Officer as well as the Designation of the Authorised Officer. Such a position does not exist unless a staff member is delegated authority to impose weight and speed restrictions.
The capacity for urgently implementing weight and speed restrictions on road bridges is best achieved directly through Council staff.
If a need to implement weight and speed restrictions is identified, there are no alternatives that the Council could explore that would prevent the immediate need to impose restrictions.
The implementation of weight and speed restrictions is financially insignificant.
There are generally no associated significant strategic issues.
Consistency in decision-making across the city and peninsula.
The Heavy Motor Vehicle Regulations sets obligatory consultation requirements
The status quo is contrary to the Local Government Act as obligations under the Building Act and Heavy Motor Vehicles Regulations are not separated from political decision- making processes.
22. It is recommended that the Council delegate authority to implement bridge weight and speed restrictions to staff based on the reasons outlined above. Historically, the Transport & Greenspace Unit Manager has been identified as the Authorising Officer on public notices for the implementation restrictions and this is considered the appropriate position on which to place the delegated responsibilities.
Have you considered the legal implications of the issue under consideration?
23. As above.
ALIGNMENT WITH TYP AND ACTIVITY MANAGEMENT PLANS
24. Not applicable
Do the recommendations of this report support a level of service or project in the 2013-16 Christchurch City Three Year Plan?
25. Not applicable
ALIGNMENT WITH STRATEGIES
26. Not applicable 288 COUNCIL 3. 10. 2013 Environment and Infrastructure Committee 5. 9. 2013
5 Cont’d
Do the recommendations align with the Council’s strategies?
27. Not applicable
CONSULTATION FULFILMENT
28. The restrictions are required to be notified within a local newspaper to have effect. It is proposed that the restrictions are notified within “The Press”. Following public notification, Council staff will forward the NZTA a copy of the newspaper containing the notification.
29. Consultation procedures for the implementation of weight and speed restrictions would not alter under the proposed delegation of powers.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
That the Council:
(a) In accordance with the Heavy Motor Vehicle Regulations 1974, the “Schedule of Required Weight and Speed Restrictions on Under Strength Road Bridges (2013)”, which forms Attachment 1 of this report, is approved for public notification.
(b) Power as a Road Controlling Authority to fix to a bridge weight limits or a speed limit or both weight limits and a speed limit for heavy motor vehicles, and combinations of vehicles including a heavy motor vehicle, under the Heavy Motor Vehicle Regulations 1974 be delegated to the Christchurch City Council Transport & Greenspace Unit Manager.
COMMITTEE CONSIDERATION
The Committee request that staff brief the Akaroa community on the 2013-2014 proposed bridge works.
COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION
That the staff recommendation be adopted.
6. HELMORES LANE BRIDGE
General Manager responsible: General Manager City Environment, DDI 941-8608 Officer responsible: Unit Manager Asset and Network Planning Author: Richard Holland
PURPOSE OF REPORT
1. To seek the Council’s approval (from the options provided), for a repair solution for Helmores Lane Bridge which suits the transport network function of Helmores Lane and preserves the heritage value of the nineteenth-century bridge.
289 COUNCIL 3. 10. 2013 Environment and Infrastructure Committee 5. 9. 2013
6 Cont’d
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
2. Prior to the temporary closure of Helmores Lane Bridge due to earthquake damage, the lane and bridge were essentially used as a commuter road for light vehicles, with the main advantage to local residents, as a ‘short-cut’ to avoid congested roads, being mainly Fendalton Road and Rossall Street. It was considered a low volume road at around 1000 vehicles per day and was restricted to light vehicles under 2000 kg. Continuation of Helmores Lane to Harper Avenue is not considered necessary for traffic flow purposes, and there are traffic safety issues associated with the ingress and egress from Harper Avenue for commuter traffic. Helmores Lane is used also as a road to access to Hagley Park for recreational purposes and this has continued for pedestrians and cyclists with the road being closed
3. Helmores Lane Bridge is listed in the Christchurch City Plan as a Group 3 heritage item of regional or metropolitan significance, the protection of which is seen as important where this can be reasonably achieved and registered with Historic Places Trust as a Category 2 place of historical or cultural heritage significance or value which should be taken into consideration in any proposed changes. It is of wooden construction and was built to provide a crossing over the Avon river to open up the area to the north for subdivision in 1866. The Helmores Lane Bridge is significant as the only surviving nineteenth-century timber bridge in Christchurch.
4. The section of Helmores Lane between Harper Avenue and the Avon River was closed by Council Resolution on 20 May 1967 although the road has never been “stopped”. The Council at its meeting to approve the Hagley Park/Botanic Gardens Master Plan on 16 August 2007, resolved to decline to adopt project 19 (Closure of Helmores Lane Bridge through Little Hagley Park) effectively maintaining the status quo of light vehicle access.
5. There is a recommended change in level of service for the preferred option to repair the bridge to allow pedestrian/cycle only access and a parking area to the south of the bridge. To ensure retention of the existing timber construction (heritage) with some remedial works to allow pedestrian/cycle access across the bridge, will cost $104,972. There are three other options to also consider.
FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS
6. Infrastructure Rebuild budget. Should any betterment be approved as part of this report, this would have to come from the Building and Infrastructure Improvement Allowance. At the time of writing this report the uncommitted balance of the Building and Infrastructure Improvement Allowance was $74,574,499.
Do the Recommendations of this Report Align with 2013-16 TYP budgets?
7. The repair of the bridge is being conducted as part of the infrastructure rebuild being undertaken by Stronger Christchurch Infrastructure Rebuild Team (SCIRT). SCIRT will perform these works as part of the infrastructure packages of work with any betterment to be funded from the Council Building/Infrastructure Improvement Allowance. SCIRT have developed four options for repair of the Helmores Lane Bridge
Option 1 – total cost $104,972 (includes $3,625 of betterment)
8. Repair of the bridge to allow pedestrian/cycle only access and a parking area to the south of the bridge. Retention of the existing timber construction (heritage) with some remedial works to allow pedestrian/cycle access across the bridge.
Option 2 -- total cost $280,129 (includes $195,120 of betterment)
9. Repair of the bridge to allow light vehicular traffic use (as per pre-quake use). This option allows for repairing the earthquake damage plus replacing critical non-earthquake related decayed timber and repair of handrails. 290 COUNCIL 3. 10. 2013 Environment and Infrastructure Committee 5. 9. 2013
6 Cont’d
Option 3 – total cost $515,324 (includes $445,192 of betterment)
10. Repair of the bridge to allow light vehicular traffic use (as per pre-quake use). This option allows for repairing earthquake damage as well as replacing non-earthquake related decayed timber and timber that is likely to decay in the near future which is difficult to access. Included in the price is the repair and improvement of handrails to meet current code. Works would include replacing critical members of the structure that are severely decayed. Most critical of these members are the timber piles.
Option 4 – total cost $1,019,833 (includes betterment of $992,001)
11. This option allows for repairing and strengthening the bridge in order to allow for Class 1 vehicle traffic. This option endeavours to maintain as much of the heritage fabric of the bridge as possible by keeping much of the existing timber bridge as historic reference, but building a new and structurally separate bridge inside the historic structure. All external loads would be removed from the timber structure. A new composite steel girder bridge would be constructed discretely between the historic timber framing.
Preferred Option
12 The Scirt and Scope and Standards Committee consider Option 1 is the preferred option given the allowance for access to the park for recreation and active travel through the park and the retention of the regionally significant timber construction of the heritage listed bridge. The option would also deliver a suitable solution for the transport network function of the road.
LEGAL CONSIDERATIONS
13. The road was closed with the resolution of the Christchurch City Council on 20 May 1967 and 17 February 1969 approving a plan showing this length of road as a closed street, pursuant to the Public Domains Act 1881 Amendment Act 1895.
Have you considered the legal implications of the issue under consideration?
14. Yes, the road has been stopped since 1967 and is now part of the park. It can be used for access to and through the park, but due to earthquake damage the bridge has been closed to through traffic for two years. As such, it is recommended that the closure is permanent to retain the heritage value of the bridge, and allow repairs to facilitate pedestrian and cycle only use of the bridge.
ALIGNMENT WITH LTCCP AND ACTIVITY MANAGEMENT PLANS
15. Roads and Footpaths LTP Activity Management Plans:
Activity 10.1: Active Travel
10.1.1 Mode Share: Ensure proportion of all trips made by active means (walking and cycling)
10.1.4 Amenity: Ensure perception of Christchurch as a cycle friendly city
Activity 10.0: Road Network
10.0.2 How We Travel: Trip proportion by private motor vehicles (includes walking, cycling and public transport)
10.0.3 Resident satisfaction: Roadway quality 291 COUNCIL 3. 10. 2013 Environment and Infrastructure Committee 5. 9. 2013
6 Cont’d
Do the recommendations of this report support a level of service or project in the 2013-16 TYP?
16. Yes, 10.1.1 Mode Share Cycling, Three year average 2009-11 Christchurch – 3.1 per cent
Targets:
10.1.1 - Cycling – re-establish baseline, 2014/15 increase by 0.5 per cent,
10.1.4 - Surveys conducted in March each year, 2013/14 at least 40 per cent agree or strongly agree, 2014/15 at least 42 per cent agree or strongly agree
ALIGNMENT WITH STRATEGIES
17. The Christchurch Transport Strategic Plan has four goals:
1. to improve access and choice; 2. to create safe, healthy and liveable communities; 3. to support economic vitality; and 4. to create opportunities for environmental enhancements
18. The staff recommendation supports goals 1, 2 and 4 and does not detract from goal 2. Repair of the bridge for pedestrian and cycle access only will promote a resilient network (the bridge will be brought up to the new structural building code for pedestrian and cycle travel as a cost effective solution, but will also retain its heritage value) and allow efficient use of the network for active travel modes. Environmental enhancements will be achieved through retaining access to Hagley Park avoiding a potential severance issue.
Do the recommendations align with the Council’s strategies?
19. Yes, as above
CONSULTATION FULFILMENT
20. Consultation has not been undertaken as at this stage options are being considered. Due to the change in level of service recommended however the issue would need to be conveyed to the local community affected by this change.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
That the Council resolve:
(a) That the preferred option for the repair of the bridge is to undertake repairs that will allow pedestrian and cycle use (option 1) and approves the allocation of betterment funds from the Council Infrastructure /Building Improvement Allowance of $3,625 to support the completion of the work.
(b) To initiate consultation with the local community on all of the options considered including the preferred option.
COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION
That the Council initiates consultation with the local community board and community on options 1, 2 and 3 for the repair of Helmores Lane bridge noting that options 2 and 3 fall outside of existing budgets. 292 COUNCIL 3. 10. 2013 Environment and Infrastructure Committee 5. 9. 2013
6 Cont’d
BACKGROUND (THE ISSUES)
21. Prior to the earthquakes, the section of Helmores Lane between the Avon River and Harper Avenue was used by people in motor vehicles, on bike or on foot to access Hagley Park. Although it is not essential to enable such access, in reality, prior to the temporary closure due to earthquake damage, the lane and bridge were essentially used, and had been for some time, as a commuter road for vehicles. The route gave advantage to local residents and commuters as a ‘short cut’ to avoid congested roads, namely Fendalton Road and Rossall Street. It is not a road used solely to gain access to the park for recreational purposes. In this case, it is an important and familiar convenience that these users have become well accustomed to, but is not an essential function. A number of submitters to the 2006 public consultation opposed its physical closure on the grounds that this use of it is important and necessary. However, given its two year closure, there have obviously been other routes used by the previous users.
22. Helmores Lane was created as a public road under The North Avon Bridge and Road Diversion Ordinance 1866, which provided for a neighbouring landowner by the name of Joseph Cornish Helmore to construct at his expense a bridge over the Avon River and a road south over Part Reserve 24 (Little Hagley Park) connecting to the North Park Road (now called Harper Avenue). The Act also obliged Helmore to dedicate a new road across his land from what is now Holmwood Road south to the new bridge. These roads and the bridge were required to be for public use. The section of Helmores Lane between the river and Harper Avenue was subsequently closed, with resolution of the Christchurch City Council on 20 May 1967 and 17 February 1969 approving a plan showing this length of road as closed street, pursuant to the Public Domains Act 1881 Amendment Act 1895.
23. Helmores Lane Bridge is listed in the Christchurch City Plan as a Group 3 heritage item of regional or metropolitan significance, the protection of which is seen as important where this can be reasonably achieved and registered with Historic Places Trust as a Category 2 place of historical or cultural heritage significance or value which should be taken into consideration in any proposed changes. It is of wooden construction and was built to provide a crossing over the Avon river to open up the area to the north for subdivision in 1866. The Helmores Lane Bridge is significant as the only surviving nineteenth-century timber bridge in Christchurch.
24. Prior to the earthquakes, daily traffic numbers along Helmores Lane was estimated at around 1000 vehicles per day. This is considered a low volume road. Continuation of Helmores Lane to Harper Avenue is not considered necessary for traffic flow purposes and there are traffic safety issues associated with the ingress and egress from Harper Avenue for commuter traffic.
25. It is suggested the area could be developed as an arrival/parking area to make use of the existing road seal which is largely undamaged to the south of the bridge.
26. As part of the public consultation of the draft master plan and draft management plans for Hagley Park and the Christchurch Botanic Gardens from 19 August to 25 October 2006, a “quick response” by submitters on project 19 (Closure of Helmores Lane through Little Hagley Park) in the master plan showed that out of 485 responses, 47 per cent were in favour of the closure and 42 per cent were not (11 per cent had no preference). Of the full written submissions received on project 19, numbering 91, 35 per cent were in favour of the closure, and 52 per cent were not (13 per cent other). The Council at its meeting to approve the Hagley Park/Botanic Gardens Master Plan on 16 August 2007, resolved to (as follows):
(k) Decline to adopt the following projects in the draft Hagley Park/Botanic Gardens Master Plan, remove them from the adopted plan and, where applicable, remove related references to them from the Hagley Park Management Plan and the Christchurch Botanic Gardens Management Plan:
(i) Project 19 (Closure of Helmores Lane through Little Hagley Park). 293 COUNCIL 3. 10. 2013 Environment and Infrastructure Committee 5. 9. 2013
6 Cont’d
27. However, as the bridge has suffered significant damage in the earthquakes and because of the heritage status of the bridge, it would not be possible to rebuild it to the standard required for vehicular traffic.
PART B - REPORTS FOR INFORMATION
7. DEPUTATIONS BY APPOINTMENT
Alastair Cassels presented a deputation regarding alignment of SCIRT repair work with roading improvement in Woolston, specifically Cumnor Terrace and Garlands Road.
COMMITTEE CONSIDERATION
The Committee thanked Mr Cassels for his deputation and requested that staff give feedback around the suggestion that roading be altered in the Cumnor Terrace/Garlands Road area as a betterment project and if so, could it be accelerated in line with the development and consultation initiated.
8. UPDATE FROM WATER MANAGEMENT ZONE COMMITTEES
The Committee received a verbal update from the Christchurch West Melton and Banks Peninsula Water Management Zone Committees.
Yvette Couch-Lewis and Steve Lowndes representing the Banks Peninsula Water Management Zone reported that the Zone Committee had already approved ten biodiversity projects in Banks Peninsula. Areas of concern presently for the Committee include:
Sedimentation Water quality and quantity Birdlings Flat water supply
The Zone Committee was interested in what strategy the Council has for promoting better water quality.
Ian Fox and Yvette Couch-Lewis representing the Christchurch West Melton Zone reported that the Zone Committee was working through stormwater plans a catchment at a time. The Regional Water Management Committee had recognized the following streams/rivers in the zone as being regionally significant in the Christchurch West Melton zone:
Otukaikino Stream (the Groynes) Styx River Avon River Heathcote River
The Zone Committee is committed to building relationships with residents’ and community groups and boards in the Christchurch West Melton area and has recently met with the Cashmere Stream group. 294 COUNCIL 3. 10. 2013 Environment and Infrastructure Committee 5. 9. 2013
8 Cont’d
COMMITTEE CONSIDERATION
In listening to the Zone Committees' presentations, the Committee was unable to ascertain the precise role the community boards play in relation to the Zone Committees. Greater clarity could be helpful. The Committee is not certain that the role the boards currently play in relation to the Zone Committees is exactly right. This is not intended as a criticism, but rather to invite Democracy Services to open a conversation between the Zone Committees, the community boards and the Council as to the various roles which each plays and ascertain whether there are opportunities to change some of the reporting or engagement processes.
9. HEATHCOTE VALLEY NOISE COMPLAINT AND ADDINGTON PARKING PETITIONS
The Committee received a memo from staff on the issues raised in the Heathcote Valley Noise and Addington Parking petitions.
COMMITTEE CONSIDERATION
The Committee referred the Heathcote Valley noise issue to the Hagley Ferrymead Community Board for their further consideration.
The Committee requested the following from staff regarding the Addington Parking petition:
Specific information on the timing of the parking strategy Whether the cumultative effects of parking are being considered through resource consent processes; and whether a wider traffic and parking strategy is being developed for this area.
PART C – DELEGATED DECISIONS
10. APOLOGIES
Nil.
11. RESOLUTION TO BE PASSED – SUPPLEMENTARY REPORTS
Approval was sought to submit the following open and public excluded reports to the meeting of the Environment and Infrastructure Committee on Thursday 5 September 2013.
Infrastructure Rebuild Monthly Report (Cont’d) Helmores Lane Bridge Appeal of a Judicial Review Decision (Public Excluded) Reimbursement of remediation work (Public Excluded) Reimbursement of remediation work (Public Excluded)
The Committee resolved that the reports be received and considered at the open and public excluded meeting of the Environment and Infrastructure Committee on Thursday 5 September 2013.
12. RESOLUTION TO EXCLUDE THE PUBLIC
The Committee resolved that the draft resolution to exclude the public as set out on page 119 of the agenda and page 17 of the supplementary agenda be adopted.
295 COUNCIL 3. 10. 2013 Environment and Infrastructure Committee 5. 9. 2013
13. CONCLUSION
At 1.05pm the Committee resolved that the public be readmitted at which point the meeting concluded.
CONSIDERED THIS 3RD DAY OF OCTOBER 2013
MAYOR 296 297 CLAUSE 24 PLANNING COMMITTEE 4. 9. 2013
COUNCIL 3. 10. 2013
PLANNING COMMITTEE 4 SEPTEMBER AND 20 SEPTEMBER 2013
A meeting of the Planning Committee was held in the No. 1 Committee Room on 4 September 2013 at 9.15 am and 20 September 2013 at 9.15 am.
PRESENT: Councillor Sue Wells (Chairperson) Councillors Peter Beck, Sally Buck, Jimmy Chen, Aaron Keown, Glenn Livingstone, and Claudia Reid.
IN ATTENDANCE: Nil.
APOLOGIES: Councillor Aaron Keown for absence for clauses 1 to 7. Councillors Beck and Reid for absence, clause 16.
The Committee reports that:
PART A - MATTERS REQUIRING A COUNCIL DECISION
1. CONSENTING REBUILD MONTHLY REPORT - REPORT OF THE CROWN MANAGER – AUGUST 2013
Doug Martin, Crown Manager, tabled and spoke to his report for August 2013.
This report provides the Christchurch City Council Planning Committee with information on building and resource consents including updates from the Crown Manager on his programme of work, and on the Ministry for the Environment’s review of resource management planning and consent delivery.
Introduction On 15 July 2013, Doug Martin was appointed Crown Manager to the Christchurch City Council (the Council) as a result of International Accreditation New Zealand (IANZ) withdrawing their accreditation to issue building consents.
As required by the Crown Manager’s Terms of Reference, an action plan was provided to the Minister for Canterbury Earthquake Recovery, the Minister of Local Government and the Minister for Building and Construction on 15 August 2013 setting out a programme of work to improve the Councils building consent processes and decisions.
After receiving the action plan, the Minister of Local Government wrote to the Crown Manager setting out specific outcomes, goals and milestones to be achieved. This report reflects these.
Immediate actions
Improve the Council’s demand forecasting systems and resources
The purpose of this action was to review existing Building Consent Authority (BCA) forecast systems and methodology and to develop a system to better predict demand. The new system would be easy to use and could be updated by the Council on a regular basis, with minimal resource.
The Council's demand forecasting system is now largely in place and the first quarterly forecast is expected to be completed within the next two weeks. The forecasts draw on data provided by the Canterbury Earthquake Recovery Authority (CERA) (using data from insurance companies, Project Management Offices (PMOs) and others), the Christchurch City Development Unit (CCDU), Fletcher Earthquake Recovery and the Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment (MBIE).
298 COUNCIL 3. 10. 2013
Planning Committee 4. 9. 2013 1 Cont’d
Increase building consent processing capacity and clear backlog
Initiatives Initiatives are underway to reduce the number of existing building consents already in the system. This includes contracting out a proportion of building consent processing to reduce the workload on Council staff. The consents being considered to contract out include residential TC1 (Technical Category) and TC21 with a value of over $50,000. These parameters are being assessed with the view to increase the consents contracted out to include select TC3 work.
External processing of consents On Thursday 22 August, one of the Crown Manager’s team addressed delegates at the Building Officials Institute New Zealand (BOINZ), Senior Building Officials Forum in Wellington. The purpose was to seek assistance from other BCAs around New Zealand to process building consents on behalf of Christchurch.
An information pack has been produced for BCAs and external contractors that are registering interest in supporting the Council’s building consent function. The information pack explains the Council’s requirements and expectations within the contract while also providing details of the training the BCAs would receive in order to process the consents remotely.
To date an additional 10 BCAs have registered their interest in assisting the Council’s building consenting function. It is anticipated that an average of 150 consents per week will need to be contracted.
Schedule 1(k) exemptions Schedule 1(k)2 process training for administration staff occurred at the end of August and went live. Currently some seven Schedule 1(k) applications per day are being received by the Council. Extra resource is being prioritised in this area.
Building inspection processes Short-term measures are being considered to enable the building inspection process to be more efficient. This includes streamlining the booking system and reducing the number of inspections needed for certain types of buildings.
In addition, a suitable place for inspectors to meet and hold meetings is also being investigated. Currently, the inspectors do not have a place to meet on a regular basis for meetings and training. Options may include the establishment of a Port-a-Com with suitable facilities for inspectors including docking stations for their inspection tablets and lunch room facilities.
Trends
Building Consents Reporting services from the Connect system3 have not been developed enough to enable the full suite of reports required to service performance indicator (KPI) and Council reporting requirements. This work is being done urgently by technical specialists.
In July, the Unit received 893 building consent applications. On average this equates to some 39 consents per day. For the 12 working days in August, 423 consent applications were received. This is an average of 35 consents per day.
In July, 737 building consents were granted resulting in an increase to the backlog of 156 consents4. In the August period there have been 314 consents granted.
1 The three technical categories (TC1 (grey), TC2 (yellow) and TC3 (blue)) describe how land is expected to perform in future earthquakes, and also to describe the foundation systems most likely to be required in the corresponding areas. 2 Schedule 1(k) provides for a discretionary exemption where the Council considers that building consent is not necessary for the purposes of the Building Act 2002 in particular circumstances. 3 The Council’s pathway system for tracking work 4 Any consent held in the system is considered backlog and not just those over 20 processing days. 299 COUNCIL 3. 10. 2013
Planning Committee 4. 9. 2013 1 Cont’d
Building Inspections In July, 3336 building inspections were completed. This averages 145 inspections per day. There is an average five day delay for a building inspection. Five new inspectors have recently joined the Unit.
Code of Compliance In July, 494 Code of Compliance Certificates were issued. This averages 22 per day. In the August period, 403 Code of Compliance Certificates were issued, an average of 34 per day. Recent process changes and realignment of work has resulted in significant improvement in this area5.
Ensure all technical staff are assessed against the National Competency Assessment framework A contract with Holmes Farsight is currently being negotiated to provide competency assessment services. A competency assessment schedule for 2013/2014 has been developed and the competency assessment programme is currently ahead of schedule. Competency assessment is required to be done annually for each technical staff member.
Undertake a technical audit of building consents to ensure consents are compliant with the Building Act 2004 MBIE staff undertook an audit of consents issued by the Council in July 2013. The outcome of this audit was that no safety concerns with the building work proposed in the issued building consents were identified. However, procedural and legislative inaccuracies were observed. These inaccuracies are being addressed through the programme of work set out in the Crown Manager’s action plan.
Implement an audit regime that complements the requirement of the BCA Accreditation regulations for competency assessment The contract currently being negotiated with Holmes Farsight to provide competency assessment services includes provision of forward focused technical audits of consent processing and inspections. It is expected that a contract will be finalised by the first week of September, with work commencing shortly afterwards.
Conduct a further technical audit to ensure building consents that have been issued comply with the requirements of the Building Act 2004 and the Building Code Work is being undertaken to obtain remote access to TRIM (the Councils document storage system). This will allow staff from MBIE to randomly select and review issued consents prior to Government intervention. Once remote access has been organised a terms of reference for the audit will be developed for the Crown Manager.
By the end of 2013 Implement reporting processes that align with the Council’s Performance Framework A temporary reporting tool has been implemented to provide high level visibility of processes, trends and targets. This provides the management team with the ability to review down to an individual application level. It will provide business intelligence information to support resource and workload planning. This work will feed into the performance reporting framework used by the Council.
To enable accurate reporting from the Council’s Connect system, a business analyst from within the Council is currently assessing the business needs associated with the delivery of the Units long term reporting solution. This is part of the BCA accreditation requirements. The Information Technology Unit has prioritised this work.
The building control reporting parameters have also been amended to comply with defined statutory requirements.
5 See Appendix 1 for further information on building and resource consents. 300 COUNCIL 3. 10. 2013
Planning Committee 4. 9. 2013 1 Cont’d
Review the operating model, systems and processes adopted by the BCA and develop and implement, where appropriate, streamlined policies, processes and systems The loss of accreditation will result in IANZ reviewing the entire BCA functions, systems and processes and assessing their effectiveness against the BCA Regulations. The Crown Manager’s technical team, in conjunction with the BCA management and Quality Improvement team, will review the current operating model and develop, document and implement system and process improvements. These will fall into four broad process categories: building consent application; consent evaluation; inspections; and final approval.
The system and process improvements will be based upon best practice and introduce a number of fundamental practices (e.g. introduction of commercial and residential risk based consenting; introduction of a streamlined Group Home Builder process; introduction and piloting of consent processing and inspection digital technology)
Trial a regional digital, online building consent application, processing and inspection system The intent of this action was to initiate a project to trial a web-based digital building consent application, processing and inspection system across the four Canterbury BCAs (Christchurch City Council and Selwyn, Hurunui and Waimakariri District Councils).
The first Alpha training session for Council staff was undertaken on 26 August 2013. The Stage 1 pilot commenced 2 September 2013, trialling the processing of three consents over the week.
Ensure the implementation of the ‘GoGet’ electronic inspection system The GoGet Project Manager is preparing a phased delivery options paper for the implementation of GoGet. This paper will be submitted to the next GoGet Steering Board meeting on 3 September 2013.
Ensure the prioritisation of building control related information technology projects Weekly meetings with the Chief Information Officer at the Council have been set up to ensure prioritised projects are on track and risks are raised and mitigated early.
Review the organisational structure of the Building Consent Unit A review of the structure of the Council’s building control functions is underway. Meetings have been held with key building control managers and other relevant senior staff as well as discussions with Auckland Council and Wellington City Council senior building control management on how they organise their building control functions.
Key issues identified through these interviews and analyses include: the lack of a clear point of accountability for the performance of the building control functions, with a resultant lack of clear leadership; disaggregation of building control functions across multiple teams in the council; having sufficient and appropriate resources to satisfy the BCA’s responsibilities to meet current and forecast demand; the operation of the shared services model for administration support that aims to provide flexible and efficient administrative support does not, in some cases, provide for sufficient specialisation; and the need to free up core building officer and management time and allow them to focus on core building control business.
A number of other issues have also been identified that relate more to matters of culture, systems or processes. These have been passed on to the Crown Manager for action.
A discussion document for staff is currently being drafted on how the Council’s building control (and related) functions might be structured in future. The discussion document will be released on the Council Intranet on Thursday 5 September 2013. The Crown Manager will also be holding a meeting with staff on Thursday to speak to the contents of the discussion document. 301 COUNCIL 3. 10. 2013
Planning Committee 4. 9. 2013 1 Cont’d
Work looking at the structure of building control functions will be done in phases. Due to the size and complexity of the council’s operations, and the desire to seek feedback on the high level issues, principles and a possible future structure, the discussion document deals with issues and possible structures as they relate to the first two or three levels of management only. A subsequent phase will address proposals for more detailed staff structures, once the future management structure is examined and resolved.
The aim of any structural change will be to facilitate the move towards a more customer focused culture in the Building Consent Unit
Customer Advisory Group On 28 August 2013, an establishment meeting for the Customer Advisory Group (CAG) was held. This group will be made of people from the construction industry representing various fields of view (such as engineers and construction firms). It will meet on a regular basis and will be an opportunity to build real relationships with actual customer decision makers.
Earthquake Prone Register A register of 255 earthquake prone buildings has been posted on the Council’s public website. The list of buildings has been compiled under the Council’s Earthquake Prone Buildings Policy and is derived from Detailed Engineering Evaluations (DEE's) for 1549 buildings held by the Council.
Of the buildings assessed up to 8 August 2013, 255 (16.4%) fell below 34% of the New Building Standard (NBS), making them earthquake prone buildings. Owners of the buildings on the register have been written to and, in some cases, they have advised that strengthening works have been completed or are underway.
A building consent is required for strengthening works. Buildings are taken off the list when a code compliance certificate is issued at the completion of the building works. There are 10,950 commercial and multi unit / multi storey buildings in the City; the Council has DEE's from 14% of buildings. CERA and the Council are sharing information on buildings as it becomes available.
Resource Consenting Resource Consents Trends There continues to be strong demand for resource consents. 233 applications were received in July 2013 and a further 150 applications were received in the period from 1 to 16 August 2013. The Unit expects this overall increasing trend in consenting activity to continue.
The numbers of applications granted increased to 226 in July (99% within statutory timeframes) and 121 in the period from 1 to 16 August (100% within statutory timeframes).
There continue to be fluctuations in applications in the Central City area with 12 applications granted in July; a decrease from 15 in June. While the numbers have reduced there are some significant applications being received. Two high profile applications include the Hagley Oval and the former Grand Chancellor Hotel.
Central City Development In December 2012, the Council agreed that the proposed Hagley Oval development for Canterbury Cricket would be directly referred to the Environment Court. An interim decision to grant the application has been issued by the Environment Court. However, it is subject to some 83 conditions.
A decision by the Joint Management Board on the application for the former Grand Chancellor Hotel is pending. The height of the building is higher than that permitted under the new height rules and is seeking to rely on existing use rights6 to allow this.
Recent consents granted for the Central City area include a five level office building for Environment Canterbury, a six level building on the corner of Cambridge Terrace and Gloucester Street.
6An activity that is in breach of current district planning rules may continue, provided that it was lawful at the time it was established 302 COUNCIL 3. 10. 2013
Planning Committee 4. 9. 2013 1 Cont’d
Temporary accommodation Temporary accommodation application numbers increased from 6 in June, 11 in July to 25 applications in August. There is a report anticipated to go to the next available Planning Committee meeting as requested by the Planning Committee on 7th August 2013. This report is close to being completed and includes a review of the standards and timeframes.
Initiatives To cope with forecasted increases in workloads, there is a four pronged strategy going forward: employ new staff: at the moment the market for planners is still relatively strong; outsource processing work to consultants: the use of consultants has not started yet. However, there is a large potential supply. A number of consultancies have already been procured and are ready to commence work when required; return of four staff from parental leave: these experienced staff will return throughout 2013 and early 2014; and improve and streamline processes: work commenced in 2012 with the Ken Lawn Review. This review is being implemented. A ‘health check’ was recently completed by another planning consultant to ensure any new or emerging issues are captured.
There is also the District Plan Review commencing and reforms to the Resource Management Act 1991 which should lower the overall resource consenting requirements. The Unit considers it is well placed to handle future workloads. This is reflected in the high compliance with statutory timeframes which is consistently at, or around, 99% within statutory timeframes.
Ministry for the Environment Review of Resource Management Planning and Consenting Delivery The Minister for the Environment requested a review of resource management planning and consent delivery during July. The purpose of the assessment was to identify whether the Council was sufficiently resourced and had suitably robust resource management processes in place to meet the expected requirements of the pace of earthquake recovery. The review focussed primarily on plan making and consenting functions of Council and their relationship to the recovery of Christchurch.
The Minister decided to extend the review and has sent three Ministry for the Environment consultants to review 50 resource consents issued in the past two years. They have chosen 25 land use and 25 subdivision consents and have conducted a detailed analysis of the files and contacted applicants. The report is anticipated to be completed by mid September and provided to the Minister for the Environment.
Appendix 1 – Numeric’s BUILDING CONSENTS All Consents
Month Building Applications Building Consents Building Consent Received Granted Value Granted June 677 827 $120,426,188 July 893 737 $190,479,273 1-16 August 423 314 $86,155,530
Building Consents – Requests for Information (RFI)
Month Build No RFI RFI 5 days RFI after RFI after Granted Required or less 5 days 20 days or more June 827 317 38% 395 48% 115 14% 22 3% July 737 N/A N/A N/A N/A 1-16 August 314 N/A N/A N/A N/A Some data for July and August 2013 is not available as a result of a system derived technical issue.
303 COUNCIL 3. 10. 2013
Planning Committee 4. 9. 2013 1 Cont’d
Non-Earthquake Related Building Consents
Building Consents Granted in Granted in Month Type Granted ≤20 days >20 days June All 628 448 71% 180 29% Residential 555 422 76% 133 24% Commercial 73 26 36% 47 64% July All N/A N/A N/A Residential N/A N/A N/A Commercial N/A N/A N/A 1-16 August All N/A N/A N/A Residential N/A N/A N/A Commercial N/A N/A N/A Data is not available for July and August 2013 as a result of a system technical issue. Earthquake Related Building Consents
Building Consents Granted in Granted in Month Type Granted ≤20 days >20 days June All 199 91 46% 108 54% Residential 164 69 42% 95 58% Commercial 35 22 63% 13 37% July All N/A N/A N/A Residential N/A N/A N/A Commercial N/A N/A N/A 1-16 August All N/A N/A N/A Residential N/A N/A N/A Commercial N/A N/A N/A Data not available for July 2013 and August 2013 as a result of a system technical issue.
Building Consents Received per TC Zone
of received, % of received, % of received, that are New that are New % that are New Month Type TC1 Builds TC2 Builds TC3 Builds June Residential 50 6% 307 15% 140 24% Commercial 1 0% 9 0% 4 0% July Residential 53 15% 279 21% 128 28% Commercial 2 0% 11 0% 4 0% 1-16 August Residential 27 22% 163 29% 61 44% Commercial 1 0% 6 33% 1 0%
Building Consents Granted per TC Land Zone
Month Type TC1 Of granted, % TC2 Of granted, TC3 Of granted, that are New % that are % that are Builds New Builds New Builds June Residential 70 11% 326 10% 101 16% Commercial 2 0% 8 0% 2 0% July Residential 48 17% 227 24% 85 18% Commercial 3 0% 8 0% 3 0% 1-16 August Residential 16 25% 111 30% 31 16% Commercial 0 0% 1 0% 2 0%
304 COUNCIL 3. 10. 2013
Planning Committee 4. 9. 2013 1 Cont’d
Building Consents Pre-application/Concept Stage Meetings
Total Consents Meetings Month Received Booked June 677 41 July 893 44 1-16 August 423 21 All Building Inspections
Inspections EQ Inspections Booked and Booked and Month Achieved Achieved Target % Achievement June 2668 486 3 w/days Inspections are not being achieved within 3 days but we are unable to report exact results. July 3336 1045 3 w/days Inspections are not being achieved within 3 days but we are unable to report exact results. 1-16 1837 602 3 w/days Inspections are not being achieved within 3 August days but we are unable to report exact results. Code Compliance Certificates Issued
EQ CCC CCC All EQ CCC Applications Types Applications Processed within CCC Month Target Granted Granted 20 working days % Achievement for all June 20 / wd 331 87 64 74% 75% July 20 / wd 494 106 66 62% 69% 1-16 20 / wd 403 74 52 70% 77% August
Building Consents: Results by values and total elapsed time
Performance Standard Performance standard Number of Total Value Description excluding Suspension time including suspension time Consents of Consents Consents where Time not to exceed 5 Time not to exceed 15 proposed working days working days building work is Average is 13 Average is 21 working June 540 $7,864,888 less than working days days $150,000 (GST July N/A N/A N/A N/A inclusive) Aug N/A N/A N/A N/A Consents where Time not to exceed 10 Time not to exceed 20 proposed working days working days building work Average is 28 Average is 53 working June 151 $42,724,648 value is working days days $150,000 or July N/A N/A N/A N/A greater, but less than $500,00 (GST Aug N/A N/A N/A N/A inclusive)
Consents where Time not to exceed 15 Time not to exceed 25 proposed working days working days building work Average is 21 Average is 54 working June 26 $18,603,391 value is working days days $500,000 or July N/A N/A N/A N/A greater, but 305 COUNCIL 3. 10. 2013
Planning Committee 4. 9. 2013 less than $1,000,000 Aug N/A N/A N/A N/A (GST inclusive)
Time not to exceed 20 Time not to exceed 35 Consents where proposed working days working days Average is 25 Average is 63 working building work June 22 $54,020,916 value is greater working days days than $1,000,000 July N/A N/A N/A N/A (GST inclusive) Aug N/A N/A N/A N/A Data not available for July and August 2013 as a result of a system technical issue.
RESOURCE CONSENTS
Resource consent numbers 1-16 August 2013 Received 18 Subdivision applications 107 land use applications 25 temporary accommodation applications
Issued 24 subdivision consents 83 land use applications 14 temporary accommodation approvals
RMA RMA applications applications granted (includes temporary accommodation Month received applications) June 253 163 July 233 226 1-16 August 150 121
Resource consent pre-application/concept stage meetings
Total applications Meetings Month received Booked June 253 83 July 233 66 1-16 August 153 30
Resource consents (all consents)
RFI Processed RFI 10 working RFI within Applications No RFI 0-9 working days and Over 20 20 working Month Issued required days after working days days June 157 120 28 9 0 157 (100%) July 214 147 53 14 0 212 (99%)
306 COUNCIL 3. 10. 2013
Planning Committee 4. 9. 2013 1 Cont’d
Applications RFI RFI with no RFI 0-9 working ≥10 working Month Type of Consent required % days days Total June Land use 78% 17% 5% 100% consents Subdivision 72% 22% 6% 100% consents July Land use 71% 22% 7% 100% consents Subdivision 59% 34% 7% 100% consents
Total elapsed days (working days) – July 0-5 6-10 11-20 21-30 31-50 51-100 100+ Land use 24 32 57 28 16 11 6 Subdivision 5 3 18 3 5 5 1 Total (157) 29 35 75 31 21 16 7 Percentage 14% 16% 35% 14% 10% 7% 3%
RMA discount requirements for applications exceeding statutory timeframes
Two applications exceeded the statutory timeframe in July. These applications related to the same proposal (land use application and subdivision application). Both went over by two working days resulting in a 2% discount required to be given. The amount has not yet been calculated as we are still waiting for the commissioner invoice to be received. Central City resource consents approved
12 out of 214 applications approved in June were within the Central City area.
COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION
That the Council receive the Crown Manager’s Consenting Rebuild Monthly Report for August 2013.
2. ADOPTION OF ANNUAL REPORT TO THE LIQUOR LICENSING AUTHORITY FOR THE PERIOD ENDING 30 JUNE 2013
General Manager Regulatory & Democracy Group, DDI 941-8462 General Manager responsible: Inspections & Enforcement Unit Manager Officer responsible: Fiona Proudfoot, Liquor Licensing Team Leader Author:
PURPOSE OF REPORT
1. The Sale of Liquor Act 1989 (“the Act”), section 105, requires every District Licensing Agency (DLA) to prepare and send to the Alcohol Regulatory and Licensing Authority (ARLA) a report of the District Licensing Agency's proceedings and operations during the year no later than three months after the end of every financial year.
2. ARLA advises the DLA of the annual report format and the information required in the report. The annual report attached and marked Attachment 1 has followed the required report format. The only exception is the returns data; the format differs due to the reporting constraints of the liquor clerical system. Of note is the requirement to append a current list of licensed premises to the report. In order that this report is sufficiently accurate the report will be requested immediately prior to the DLA report being forwarded to ARLA. 307 COUNCIL 3. 10. 2013
Planning Committee 4. 9. 2013 2 Cont’d
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
3. This report is required to be submitted to cover the year July 2012 to June 2013. This year has a steady increase in the number of premises opening post earthquake, and the number of special licences applications has been high reflecting the loss of function venues across the City and is representative of a significant number of events being held on Club premises for non members.
FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS
Do the Recommendations of this Report Align with LTP budgets?
4. There are no financial implications arising out of this report.
LEGAL CONSIDERATIONS
Have you considered the legal implications of the issue under consideration?
5. Yes. Pursuant to the Sale of Liquor Act 1989 (“the Act”), section 105 (1), requires every District Licensing Agency (DLA) to prepare and send to the Alcohol Regulatory and Licensing Authority (ARLA) a report of the District Licensing Agency's proceedings and operations during the year no later than three months after the end of every financial year.
6. Subsection (2) of section 105 requires the DLA to supply a copy of each such report to any person who requests it on payment of such reasonable fee as the Authority or Agency may prescribe.
ALIGNMENT WITH LTCCP AND ACTIVITY MANAGEMENT PLANS
Do the recommendations of this report support a level of service or project in the LTP?
7. Yes. The Annual Report supports Council’s Regulatory Services activities, which includes the protection of public health and safety (page 113 of the LTP, level of service under Regulatory Services).
ALIGNMENT WITH STRATEGIES
Do the recommendations align with the Council’s strategies?
8. Yes the recommendations links to the Council’s Safer Christchurch Strategy’s aim of alcohol becoming a less significant cause of crime and injury.
CONSULTATION FULFILMENT
9. No external consultation has been carried out, but internal consultation between the Inspections & Enforcement Unit, Strategy & Planning Unit, Legal Services and the Alcohol Policy and Liquor Control Bylaw Sub-Committee, has taken place.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
It is recommended that the the Council adopt the attached 2012/13 Annual Report to the Alcohol Regulatory and Licensing Authority pursuant to Section 105 of the Sale of Liquor Act 1989.
COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION
That the Staff Recommendation be adopted.
308 COUNCIL 3. 10. 2013
Planning Committee 4. 9. 2013
3. DRAFT PLAN CHANGES 17 AND 42: REMOVAL FROM DISTRICT PLANNING WORK PROGRAMME
General Manager Strategy and Planning, DDI 941-8281 General Manager responsible: Acting City Planning Unit Manager Officer responsible: Ivan Thomson, City Planning Team Leader Author:
PURPOSE OF REPORT
1. The purpose of this report is to recommend that, in light of the most recent geotechnical information and other considerations:
(a) the Council removes two proposed plan changes from the District Plan Work Programme: Plan Change 17 ( Ferrymead Special Purpose Zone); and Proposed Plan Change 42 Bridle Path Road; and (b) Council officers complete the current investigations into the effects of the Canterbury Earthquakes on the two sites and consider any plan amendments through the district plan review; and (c) Council officers maintain on-going communication with affected landowners, the Hagley Ferrymead Community Board and other stakeholders.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
2. Draft Plan Changes 17 and 42 (‘PC17 and 42’) were included on the District Plan Work Programme adopted by the Council in July 2012. Both changes propose amendments to the City Plan that would enable residential development, as well as providing for land to be set aside for conservation, public open space and various other activities. The land parcels directly affected by the plan changes are shown in Attachment 1.
3. Both areas have a lengthy planning history, as explained in the Background section to this report. Plan Change 42 was due to be publicly notified prior to the Canterbury earthquakes, but has since been put on hold due to on-going investigations over rockfall. Plan Change 17 was in a draft form prior to the earthquakes. A considerable amount of research and investigation work was carried out prior to the earthquakes along with ongoing engagement with landowners over many years regarding development options, the suitability of development in some areas, and potential methods for mitigation of effects. There is a high expectation by the landowners in both areas that some residential development would be provided for. It is, however, appropriate, and incumbent on the Council, to review the risks associated with development given the heightened actual and perceived risks in both hillside and low lying areas of the City.
4. Most of the assessment work undertaken as part of preparing these plan changes is now outdated as a result of the effects of the Canterbury earthquakes. New information has become, and continues to become, available as a result of work undertaken by Canterbury Earthquake Recovery Authority (CERA) and the City Council, and it could be some months
Council officers have a full understanding of, and be in a position to report on, how this information will impact on decisions affecting the future use, development and protection of these sites.
5. For the Plan Change 17 land, a geotechnical investigation and liquefaction assessment is now underway to enable potential site development issues to be understood before any replacement zoning can be fully considered. This work is not anticipated to be fully completed before the end of November 2013 at the earliest. Also underway is an Avoca Valley and Heathcote Valley Streams Modelling and Floodplain Filling Assessment. This will examine the flood-related effects that may result from development in parts of the floodplains of the Heathcote and Avoca Valleys, the impact of certain storm events on flooding in the sub catchments, and potential mitigation options, including compensatory storage. This work is not expected to be completed until early - mid September 2013. 309 COUNCIL 3. 10. 2013
Planning Committee 4. 9. 2013 3 Cont’d
6. For Plan Change 42, the concept plan for the site will need to be revisited once the extent of rockfall and/or land instability risk is fully known, following the zoning review which is currently being carried out by the Minister for Canterbury Earthquake Recovery. The suitability and financial viability of any proposed rock protection system or land stability works also needs to be re-evaluated given the new standards for mitigation works. A comprehensive redrafting of the natural hazard provisions in the District Plans will also be required as part of the District Plan review (commencing in 2013). Such changes will address the overlap and inconsistency between existing provisions, new information and changes required to address all hazards (for example liquefaction risk).
7. Taking into account the absence of Council meetings over the Local Body Election period, Council officers consider that even under best endeavours there is little likelihood of draft Plan Changes 17 and 42 being notified this calendar year. The District Plan review is now a Council priority, and most, if not all District Planning resources will be directed at undertaking that task from 1 July 2013. If staff are going to be in a position to reappraise the development options for PCs 17 and 42, then it will need to be as part of the Review itself, not as preparation for notifying plan changes. In view of the circumstances, officers consider that it would be more cost effective for the Council, and possibly quicker for the landowners to have the future zoning of the two subject areas assessed as part of the District Plan Review. Council officers will still maintain close contact with affected land owners and other stakeholders as the investigation work is completed. Nevertheless some landowners will see the recommendations as further frustrating long held development ambitions for these sites.
FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS
8. Provision has been made in the 2013-14 Annual Plan (District Plan Activity) for funding that will enable Council to carry out a review of the District Plan as well as prepare plan changes it has committed to. Therefore adopting the recommendations will not lead to savings (because resources will be redeployed) but proceeding with notifying the two plan changes will, in all probability, require the work to be outsourced and this has not been specifically budgeted for. However, funding could be found within the Strategy and planning group budget if required.
Do the recommendations of this report align with 2013-16 TYP budgets?
9. Yes. The recommendations are more likely to bring the District Planning budget and work programme into alignment as provided for under the 2013-16 TYP budgets.
LEGAL CONSIDERATIONS
Have you considered the legal implications of the issue under consideration?
10. There is a legal process which must be followed for plan changes under Schedule 1 of the RMA and both plan changes have rigorously followed these processes prior to the Canterbury Earthquakes. Before publicly notifying and subsequently approving a plan change the Council needs to be satisfied that the changes will promote the purpose of the RMA and overall are in accordance with Part 2 of that Act. Given the new geotechnical information and continuing uncertainties surrounding appropriate mitigation methods for rockfall and land instability,
officers have no confidence that previous Section 32 evaluations and environmental assessments are still relevant. Thus they have little or no confidence that proceeding with these plan changes based on current information would be promoting the purpose of the Act.
ALIGNMENT WITH LTP AND ACTIVITY MANAGEMENT PLANS 310 COUNCIL 3. 10. 2013
Planning Committee 4. 9. 2013 3 Cont’d
Do the recommendations of this report support a level of service or project in the 2009-19 LTP?
11. The process of Council initiated plan changes is provided for under the LTP and Activity Management Plans. A District Plan work programme has yet to be approved for the 2013-2014 year. The LTP identifies an ongoing programme of preparing, maintaining and reviewing the City Plan as a Level of Service. In addition, one of the measures of success is the development of policy and plans to implement the Council’s components of the greater Christchurch Urban Development Strategy (UDS) action plan. The recommendations will not affect this measure.
ALIGNMENT WITH STRATEGIES
Do the recommendations align with the Council’s strategies?
12. The policy framework for urban development is contained in the City Plan and regard must be had to Proposed Change 1 to the Canterbury Regional Policy Statement. The recommendations of this report will not affect the integrity or the implementation of either of these documents. The CERA “Recovery Strategy for Greater Christchurch” requires that no provision of the District Plan can be inconsistent with the Recovery Strategy. The recommendations are consistent with the priorities contained within the Recovery Strategy insofar as PC 42 is concerned, the most relevant being addressing the risk to life posed by unsafe buildings and from natural hazards.
CONSULTATION FULFILMENT
13. The Council has had on-going consultation with landowners, the Hagley Ferrymead Community Board and other affected parties during the preparation of the proposed changes, and since the earthquakes. Information has also been sent to landowners in the PC 17 land providing an up- date on the technical work, and advising that officers are considering recommending to Council that future land use options for the two plan change sites be considered as part of the District Plan review. If the Council adopts the approach being suggested then officers will inform landowners and other stakeholders and advise them of the process going forward.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
It is recommended to the Council that:
(a) The Council removes two draft plan changes from the District Plan Work Programme: Plan Change 17 ( Ferrymead Special Purpose Zone); and Proposed Plan Change 42 Bridle Path Road; and
(b) Council officers complete the current investigations into the effects of the Canterbury Earthquakes on the two sites and consider future land use options through the district plan review; and
(c) Council officers maintain on-going communication with affected landowners, the Hagley- Ferrymead Community Board and other stakeholders.
COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION
It is recommended to the Council that:
(a) Remove two draft plan changes from the District Plan Work Programme: Plan Change 17 (Ferrymead Special Purpose Zone); and Proposed Plan Change 42 Bridle Path Road; and
(b) Council officers complete the current investigations into the effects of the Canterbury Earthquakes on the two sites and consider future land use options through the district plan review; and
311 COUNCIL 3. 10. 2013
Planning Committee 4. 9. 2013 3 Cont’d
(c) Council officers maintain on-going communication with affected landowners, the Hagley- Ferrymead Community Board and other stakeholders.
(d) That the Council write to the Minister of Earthquake Recovery outlining why the Council is not proceeding with Plan Change 42 at this time
BACKGROUND
14. Draft Plan Changes 17 and 42 (‘PC17 and 42’) were included on the district plan work programme adopted by the council in July 2012. Both changes propose amendments to the city plan to enable residential development, as well as providing for some land to be set aside for conservation or public open space. The land directly affected by the plan changes are shown in attachment 1. Both areas have a lengthy planning history, as explained below.
DRAFT PLAN CHANGE 17
15. Draft Plan Change 17 proposes to introduce seven zones including two new zones to replace the existing Special Purpose (Ferrymead) Zone (‘SpF’) within the Heathcote Valley’and covers an area of approximately 150 hectares (ha) in the south eastern corner of the City. The Plan Change is the culmination of a process that began prior to the public notification of the Christchurch City Plan in 1991. An attempt to replace the interim SpF Zone was made in July 1999 when Plan Variation 37 to the City Plan was notified, however the Council chose not to accept the Commissioner’s recommendations at its meeting in August 2000. The Council subsequently withdrew the Plan Variation, primarily because of concerns associated with the proposed zoning of a large portion of land in the north west of the site to Living 3 (medium density) - a zoning mainly reserved for residential areas surrounding the city centre.
16. Draft Plan Change 17 was promoted because:
the City Plan states the SpF Zone is a temporary measure pending further investigation in consultation with other parties to determine the appropriate land uses for the area; it will reinforce the Ferrymead Park Development Plan (December 2006) for Council owned land and give the community including existing and future lessees the confidence to invest and develop their activities; and it is compatible and consistent with existing land uses, many of which have been established through the resource consent process.
17. There are significant issues and/or site constraints which impact on the type of activities that may be established within the Plan Change site. Land within the site forms part of the lower catchment and flood plain of the Heathcote River, Avoca Valley and Heathcote Valley Streams. This low lying site is located within close proximity to the mouth of the Heathcote River and the Avon-Heathcote Estuary and is subject to flooding, ponding and coastal processes such as inundation and sea level rise. Ecologically important wetlands are located along the margins of the Heathcote River and a number of waterways and wetlands are present within the site. The SpF Zone has areas of contaminated and unstable land the most prominent of which are the two former landfills. Following resource consent approval these landfills have been capped, one of which is now occupied by the Ferrymead Golf course.
18. The plan change was placed on hold following the area being zoned “white” by the Canterbury Earthquake Recovery Authority after the February 2011 earthquake. The last of the “white” zoning over the project site was uplifted in June 2012. While most of the necessary work to support the plan change (e.g. traffic assessments) were completed prior to 4 September 2010 there is a need to review and update it in light of the changes that have occurred.
19. The Canterbury earthquakes have highlighted the vulnerability of the plan change site to natural hazards that could constrain further built development. The earthquakes resulted in changes in land levels and there is evidence that there may be changes in groundwater levels, which would have implications for the availability of compensatory storage. 312 COUNCIL 3. 10. 2013
Planning Committee 4. 9. 2013 3 Cont’d
20. As a result of the Canterbury earthquakes, a geotechnical investigation and liquefaction assessment is now underway. This is to enable any potential site development issues are understood before any replacement zonings can be fully considered. This work is unlikely to be fully completed before the end of November 2013. This timeframe is because only part (approximately two-thirds) of required on-site investigation works can be carried out at this stage. However, it is possible that an interim report on investigations carried out to date could be received before November.
21. Also underway is a floodplain filling assessment (Avoca Valley and Heathcote Valley Streams Modelling and Floodplain Filling assessment) which will examine the impact of certain storm events on flooding in the sub catchments, and potential mitigation options. It will include some discussion on potential mitigation options, including the availability of compensatory storage (needed to compensate for filling within the floodplain to raise floor heights above flood levels). This work is unlikely to be completed until early September 2013.
22. Depending on the results of these investigations it is possible that the plan change will need to be modified to take into account changing ground conditions and other new information.
DRAFT PLAN CHANGE 42
23. The plan change area is on the eastern side of the Heathcote Valley along the lower slopes of the Port Hills adjoining Bridle Path Road. It is 19.9 hectares in area and has a gentle gradient at first, becoming significantly steeper towards its eastern boundary. There are currently 13 dwellings spread throughout the plan change area on a wide range of lot sizes. The area is zoned Living HA Deferred.
24. The Living HA Deferred zone arose from a Consent Order issued by the Environment Court in 2001 which required the resolution of several issues before the extent and scale of living zoning could be confirmed. Those issues were resolved through the Area Plan process in 2003-2008 and Plan Change 42 is a direct action arising from the adopted Area Plan.
25. A Living HA zone is proposed over most of the plan change area, with a Conservation 1 zone proposed to cover the higher areas and would provide between 60 and 80 houses. A draft Outline Development Plan (ODP) has been developed from the Concept Plan contained within the Area Plan. It shows several layers of constraints and opportunities that will control the pattern of future development across the area. The process has a considerable amount of landowner input and consultation with the wider community and there was an expectation prior to the earthquakes that development would proceed unless there are compelling reasons to override the decision of the Court.
26. The proposed Conservation 1 zone is considered to be the best fit for the land that is rendered unsuitable for residential development due to a variety of reasons such as: exposure to rockfall and erosion, proximity to hill waterways, steep gradient, and its landscape values in this visually prominent location. The Area Plan and draft plan change promote the establishment of a hazard mitigation system including a catch bund to protect most future housing from rockfall..
27. The February 2011 earthquake and subsequent events have called into question the fundamental design underpinning the draft ODP, and the extent, suitability and siting of the proposed hazard mitigation works. Although the majority of the site has been zoned “Green’ by CERA most of one site at 112 Bridle Path Road, in the middle of the proposed development area, has been zoned “Red”. This effectively cuts the potential development area in two. The GNS modelling that informed the location of the Red zone also indicates a life safety risk exists for much of the remainder of the area (see report on Council website). A review of the Port Hills Red zone is currently being undertaken by the Minister for Canterbury Earthquake Recovery which has the potential to increase the extent of the zone and development opportunities in this area. 313 COUNCIL 3. 10. 2013
Planning Committee 4. 9. 2013 3 Cont’d
ISSUES
28. There are three main issues to consider in deciding whether or not to continue work on Plan Changes 17 and 42. The first issue is the need for the landowners to have some certainty and finality over the future land use zoning of their land. Some landowners of the PC 42 land for example have been involved in planning processes to have their land rezoned since 2002 and officers understand the urgency from their perspective. It is, however, appropriate, and incumbent on the Council, to review the risks associated with development given the heightened actual and perceived risks in both hillside and low lying areas of the City.
29. The second issue is whether it would be more efficient and timely to progress these plan changes or two consider their merits as part of the District Plan Review. Taking into account work to be completed and the absence of council meetings over the Local Body Election period, Council officers consider that even under best endeavours there is little likelihood of Plan Changes 17 and 42 being notified until at least March 2014. This means decisions would not be notified until probably around October 2014. Meanwhile, over that period the recovery component of the review will be establishing objectives, policies and rules for natural hazards, which will almost certainly have implications for these two areas. The development potential for the PC 17 and 42 areas will be much clearer, and their future should be able to be considered
as part of the second stage of the review, beginning July 2014. This is a longer timeframe than if a plan change process were to be followed, but it is more robust process. It might be possible to consider the PC 17 and 42 areas as part of the first stage of the Review, in which case the timeframes for a decision would be shorter than a plan change.
30. Thirdly, there is the issue of whether it is an efficient use of Council resources, which would otherwise be deployed on the review, to continue to progress them through an RMA process.
THE OPTIONS
Option 1
31. Continue with completing the two plan changes and publicly notify them pursuant to the provisions of the First Schedule of the Resource Management Act 1991. There could be some justification for supporting this option if it would lead to a faster process and deliver recovery related outcomes. However this is unlikely to be the case given the additional work still required to determine the suitability of the areas for residential development, the uncertainties surrounding regulatory framework that emerges from the review and the likelihood that decisions on the plan changes would be held over until the review hearings to ensure integration of decision making.
Option 2
32. Determine the future of these sites through the District Plan Review. Landowners who have been waiting for several years to have matters resolved will see this option as yet another delay in what to them is an ‘on-going saga’. Nevertheless the earthquakes have created uncertainties around levels of acceptable risks and a need to re-evaluate land use policy in areas in the City that are susceptible to natural hazards. This requires an integrated approach and best done as part of a wider review of the District Plan.
33. The Review is being completed in two stages. The first stage deals with those chapters directly related to earthquake recovery and is due to be notified for submissions in October or November 2013. The second stage, due to be started in June 2014, deals with the remaining chapters. Because the work that is currently proceeding on PCs 17 and 42 is unlikely to be completed in time for consideration in the first stage, decisions on future zoning for the two sites is likely to fall into the second stage of the Review. However, decisions on these sites could possibly be expedited through submissions on the first stage depending on whether the Council has all the information it needs to make a decision, and whether any submissions lodged are legally within the scope of the recovery matters being considered. 314 COUNCIL 3. 10. 2013
Planning Committee 4. 9. 2013 3 Cont’d
Preferred Option:
34. Having regard to circumstances officers are recommending Option 2.
4. NEW BRIGHTON – EVALUATION OF AQUATIC DEVELOPMENT OPTIONS
General Manager Strategy and Planning, DDI 941-8281 General Manager responsible: Urban Design and Regeneration Unit Manager Officer responsible: Carolyn Bonis, Senior Planner Author:
PURPOSE OF REPORT
1. The purpose of this report is threefold.
2. Firstly, and as indicated in the June report to Planning Committee, this report summarises the evaluation undertaken by two expert firms of a range of aquatic development options for New Brighton. This stems from a proposal to develop a Waterpark in New Brighton, using funds allocated to a new Eastern Recreation and Sport Facility (ER&S Facility). Other aquatic development options have also been considered. A decision is sought as to the nature and scale of any Council-funded aquatic facility in the New Brighton area.
3. Secondly, the report provides a summary of submissions on the Draft Master Plan recommendation to consolidate the New Brighton centre, reducing its commercial zone to approximately 4 hectares. This matter is brought forward from the intended December 2013 meeting to provide some clarity for staff working on Stage 1 of the District Plan Review. A decision is sought on whether to progress the rezoning work at this time. This links closely to the decision on aquatic facilities and revitalisation.
4. Thirdly, for the Committee to note that a separate report has been prepared by the Recreation and Sports Unit on location options for the ER&S Facility across the East. This report focuses only on options for this facility as they relate to New Brighton.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Evaluation of aquatic development options for New Brighton
The Options 5. The Council requested in February that staff provide a process for integrating the proposed Waterpark with the Draft New Brighton Centre Master Plan (‘the Draft Master Plan’). It subsequently agreed in June that a wider range of aquatic development options would be evaluated. This links closely with the Aquatic Facilities Rebuild programme, specifically the ER&S Facility, and the development of a Master Plan to revitalise New Brighton. This evaluation has now been undertaken.
6. The following aquatic development options were considered. Those with asterisks are additional to the options specifically requested by elected members. This report indicates that Option 8 is the preferred option for further consideration, but also outlines other high-ranking alternatives.
Option 1 No Waterpark, ER&S Facility located elsewhere in the East Option 2 Waterpark combined with ER&S Facility, in Promoted by David East / Tim Sintes, with New Brighton technical input from Alan Direen Option 3 Waterpark only in New Brighton, and ER&S Facility located elsewhere Option 4 Council ER&S Facility only, in New Brighton
Option 5 * Full ‘Village in a Waterpark’ Promoted by consultants Align Ltd, Pivnice Ltd and Joseph & Associates Ltd, as part of 315 COUNCIL 3. 10. 2013
Planning Committee 4. 9. 2013 developing an alternative masterplan for New Brighton. Option 6 Boutique salt water pool in New Brighton, to As a subset of Option 5, a specific proposal has complement an ER&S Facility elsewhere recently been recommended by Joseph & Associates Ltd. Option 7 All aquatic entertainment elements in New Brighton, and a reduced scale / fitness oriented ER&S Facility elsewhere.
Option 8 * Scaled down ‘Village’ option Option 9 * ER&S Facility ‘plus’ – salt water hot pools, day Additional option identified by one of the spa, wellness centre. consultant firms (SGL) evaluating the options.
7. Among the development options are two alternative proposals for aquatic facilities, developed by different groups within the New Brighton community. These are:
(a) ‘The Waterpark’ or Option 2. The intent is to provide a single, ‘blockbuster’ attraction that would provide New Brighton with a ‘wow’ factor. 20,000 signatures were gathered by the proponents in support of this proposal. As outlined in the June officers report, the Waterpark proposal is shown located on a block of land currently occupied by the Countdown supermarket and other shops and housing, and extending across Marine Parade and on to the foreshore. Further technical information since provided to the Council and consultants indicates that this development would be a covered facility comprising a waterpark (with slides, spas and a river / lagoon / beach area) with elements of a basic community aquatic facility (with 25 metre pools and a gymnasium). Extracts from the information provided to Council officers are included as Attachment 3.
(b) ‘Village in a Waterpark’ or Option 5 (also the ‘Full Village Option’). The intent is that New Brighton be cultivated as a seaside tourist attraction by distributing a range of smaller scale aquatic and seaside themed attractions around the periphery of the commercial centre. Extracts from the information provided to Council staff are included as Attachment 4. In addition to the existing sea/surf and river opportunities, the group has proposed:
A foreshore, relocatable saltwater pool development (refer also Option 6). An attraction by the river – potentially a small whitewater course or river rides (the latter appears from the imagery to be a small waterpark). Other non-aquatic options, such as a coastal promenade, mixed use buildings and markets.
Option Evaluation 8. This report discusses a variety of aspects, including New Brighton’s function and role, and the interface of this report with the ER&S Facility decision process and the Metro Sports Facility. The objectives against which the aquatic development options have been evaluated are:
Revitalisation of New Brighton Centre through optimising economic spillover effects; Aquatic facility provision for residents across the whole of the east, including those in New Brighton; A network of facilities that do not directly compete for the same customer base; Facilities in New Brighton that reflect and support its longer term function as a community-focussed commercial centre with some seaside tourism functions; Affordability (for example: through use of land currently owned by Council; through staging; and/or through sharing of risk and responsibility); and Practicality of delivery. 316 COUNCIL 3. 10. 2013
Planning Committee 4. 9. 2013 4 Cont’d
9. Two firms were engaged by the Council to evaluate the proposed Waterpark and other aquatic development options for New Brighton. The consultants commenced work on 1 July and provided final draft reports on 6 and 7 August.
10. Simply Great Leisure Ltd (SGL) has evaluated the economic feasibility of the above aquatic development options. The analysis considers a range of relevant aspects including: population and household forecasts; tourism visits; aquatic facility attendance; trends in the waterpark industry – including in Australia, the USA and New Zealand; investment potential; the wider aquatic network including the Metro Sports Facility; and the ‘pros and cons’ in relation to social, economic and environmental outcomes. The SGL report is appended as Attachment 1.
11. SGS Economics and Planning (SGS) has evaluated the revitalisation potential of the above aquatic development options. The analysis considers a range of relevant matters including: the longer term function and role of New Brighton commercial centre; the potential for an aquatic facility of varying scales to provide a catalyst for revitalisation of New Brighton; and the relationship to the Metro Sports Facility. The SGS report is appended as Attachment 2.
12. The aquatic development option favoured by SGL is Option 9, whereas SGS favours Option 8. The consultants have come from different disciplines and perspectives and for this reason their key findings have been combined into a single table, Table 1 of this report.
Key findings
Function and nature of New Brighton 13. The advice from SGS is that “New Brighton’s future lies in a scaled back, community-focussed retail role, coupled with a regional tourism-oriented function. ... ‘Rolling back the clock’ to New Brighton’s hey-day as a regional shopping destination is in our view, impractical. Having said that, New Brighton has a degree of cache, as a seaside destination, which with care and insight, can be leveraged to provide the centre with an expanded role and trading base.” This finding reinforces earlier work by Property Economics Ltd for the Draft New Brighton Centre Master Plan.
14. SGS has further identified that the key intervention required in New Brighton is to reposition its ‘brand’ as a seaside village offering an array of entertainment, hospitality and retail leisure opportunities to complement its local service functions. This is likely to involve a number of distributed investments in New Brighton to: Improve the compactness and appeal of its retail core; Introduce some new leisure attractions including but not limited to small scale aqua play facilities, fair grounds and enhanced promenades; Improve the perceived safety of the centre's public domain through better street lighting , passive surveillance and other crime prevention through design initiatives; Foster the development of an 'eat street or precinct' with strong pedestrian or visual connections to the sea.
Waterpark (Option 2) 15. Consultants made the following findings on the Waterpark proposal:
(a) The Waterpark would require a footprint of up to 25,000 square metres, and if combined with an ER&S Facility could require up to 30,000 square metres. This figure includes car parking, landscape buffer zones and future extension zones, but is too large to be provided within the footprint shown on the original plans. For example, consultants have identified a 500 – 600 car park minimum requirement. 317 COUNCIL 3. 10. 2013
Planning Committee 4. 9. 2013 4 Cont’d (b) Establishment of such a facility, exclusive of land purchase, is anticipated to be approximately $47 - $50 million and consultants have revised the proponents anticipated visitation figures downwards from 900,000 visits to between 640,000 and 850,000 annual visits. This is based on catchment analysis and average facility visitation numbers. The visitor numbers are not expected to be sufficient to attract a developer to invest in waterpark facilities.
(c) The proposed annual operating revenue has been revised downward from $7.4 million to between $3.9 - $5.4 million. Similarly, operating expenditure was considered to be significantly understated.
(d) The development of both the Metro Sport Centre and a major waterpark is not supported by consultants as both facilities will compete directly against one another, undermining visitation to, and consequently viability of, the planned Metro Sports Facility.
(e) The ‘spillover effects’ (additional spending both on-site and off-site) would be up to 11 per cent of existing total retail turnover, with some potential for spinoff private funding and reduction of crime and vandalism. However, visitors would be funnelled into a single facility rather than being spread through the centre.
16. Both SGL and SGS have recommended against building a standalone Waterpark. The economic feasibility is not considered to be strong enough to attract investment, it would compete directly with the Metro Sports Facility and would not generate significant revitalisation in the commercial centre. For this reason, it is not recommended that Council funds be used to support the proposed development, as community benefits are unlikely to be realised. However, it remains open for private investors to continue to investigate this proposal.
Full Village in a Waterpark (Option 5) 17. SGL has not provided an assessment of the Village Option, as the concepts are very loosely defined at present. Several of the ideas are related to ‘place-making’ proposals rather than aquatic developments. However, the firm notes that splitting facilities goes against current industry trends of clustering and connecting community aquatic and leisure facilities.
18. SGS has identified that the greatest potential for revitalising New Brighton lies in spreading attractions around the commercial centre. These attractions may be a mix of aquatic and non- aquatic in nature and ideally would not replicate attractions elsewhere. SGS considers that the Full Village option is likely to generate the greatest spillover effect for both New Brighton and Christchurch, due to the potential for more ‘spend opportunities’. In comparison with the Waterpark, tourists would be distributed in the centre rather than concentrated into a particular attraction. This would promote exposure to a wide variety of retail and services in the centre. This option also has the greatest potential for boosting investment activity in neighbouring residential and commercial precincts.
19. However, this option may be ambitious and difficult to deliver if aiming for an outcome similar to major seaside villages elsewhere. This is due to the difficulty in attracting the necessary high level of public and private investment required to deliver the concept. Both firms caution against this option. SGS instead recommends a scaled down version (Option 8).
Blend of locations and facilities 20. Options 3, 6, 7, 8 and 9 present a blend of locations – both within and beyond New Brighton. SGL has identified a risk of blending locations: that by splitting high yield components, visitations will be spread across the facilities, the level of revenue at each would drop and the net cost of operation increases. This would impact upon financial viability. This is particularly the case if facilities themselves are similar – for example a large number of waterslides at different locations would likely reduce patronage at the Metro Sports Facility. 318 COUNCIL 3. 10. 2013
Planning Committee 4. 9. 2013 4 Cont’d
21. Options 3 and 7 both result in direct competition with the Metro Sports Facility. Option 6 has limited revitalisation benefits. Option 8 is preferred by SGS as it would achieve similar benefits to those outlined above for Option 5, in that it would support pedestrian movement through the commercial core, while being more deliverable in that improvements would be staged over time and in conjunction with improvements in the private realm. Option 9 has merit but again concentrates visitors into one location, and this location will be distant from the commercial centre due to the site size required.
Other options 22. Options not already discussed above are Options 1 and 4. Option 1 would provide no revitalisation benefit to New Brighton. Option 4 also has merit but as with some other options would potentially create accessibility issues for residents in some parts of the East.
23. The full range of benefits and drawbacks of the different options is provided in Table 1 at the end of this report.
Option 8 - discussion 24. The option which best addresses the objectives is Option 8, a scaled-back and staged version of the ‘full Village in a Waterpark’ option. The intent of Option 8 is to support a small range of additional attractions around the commercial core of New Brighton to reinforce a seaside village theme. This would be developed over time and would incentivise time and investment from the local community so that responsibility for success is shared. The new attractions would complement previous investments in New Brighton (library, pier), provide the opportunity and incentive for visitors to wander through the shopping area and encourage business and land owners to continue to invest in the centre.
25. The original intent of this option, as assessed by consultants, was to use a portion of the $6.5 million Earthquake Appeal funding, given that it would continue to be used for aquatic attractions within the East. However, the Christchurch Earthquake Appeal Trust (CEAT) has since confirmed that it is unlikely that the $6.5 million would be able to split across different facilities. A further possibility for funding was through the City Council $50 million fund for ‘betterment of facilities and transformational opportunities’. However, this would potentially involve the Council funding the development of private facilities that may not be considered core Council business. Therefore, it is recommended that further work be undertaken to scope the exact nature and location of facilities, as well as funding and management options. The opportunity to explore a mix of smaller scale initiatives, from a range of funding sources and matched with both improvement to the public realm, and the private sector, is something that could continue to be pursued with landowners and the community.
26. Option 8, as originally evaluated by consultants, would comprise the following actions:
(a) Supporting a small, relocatable salt water hot pool complex, potentially associated with a surf club redevelopment, on the foreshore of New Brighton;
(b) Supporting additional attractions and improvements in New Brighton. Criteria for additional attractions might require that the attraction/s:
(i) are leisure oriented and seaside or aquatic in nature/theme;
(ii) do not replicate the major facilities at either the Metro Sports Facility or the ER&S Facility; (iii) are located in close proximity to the commercial core in a manner to support usage and spend in the centre; and (iv) reflect the intended function of New Brighton as a small but vibrant seaside village; 319 COUNCIL 3. 10. 2013
Planning Committee 4. 9. 2013 4 Cont’d An example might be a unique and bold, Council-developed and maintained splash pad ‘with a difference’, located at the western end of New Brighton Mall, as part of a wider redevelopment of the Mall. While the original intent of the Draft Master Plan was to develop a slow road through the Mall, community feedback is strongly in favour of retaining this area as a pedestrian and community market space. However, it is currently poorly presented. The aim of a Mall redevelopment would be to encourage family use of the space and pull visitors into and through the commercial core. A further example for a development on the river-side of New Brighton was also included in Option 8.
(c) Locating the ER&S Facility at a location that best meets Council criteria for the residents of the wider East;
(d) Monitoring the level of amenity of commercial sites over the next three years and, if there is evidence of substantial improvement and effort by business and landowners to reinvigorate the centre, consider allocating additional funds through the next Long Term Plan for further attractions/facilities to support revitalisation efforts.
27. Attachment 5 shows how Option 8 could work spatially.
28. While this Option is preferred by SGS, it is not anticipated to be a panacea for revitalisation of New Brighton, any more than the other options. The issues in New Brighton are complex and require a multi-layered, strategic response. However, this option, together with various place- making and rezoning initiatives proposed through the Draft New Brighton Centre Master Plan, will encourage the additional footfall through the commercial area that is needed for revitalisation as a functioning neighbourhood centre with a wider ‘niche’ role.
29. The principle alternatives to Option 8 that have ranked high in the evaluation are:
(a) Option 4: Council ER&S Facility only, in New Brighton;
(b) Option 6: Boutique salt water pool in New Brighton, to complement an ER&S Facility elsewhere.
(c) Option 9: ER&S Facility ‘plus’ (salt water hot pool, day spa, wellness centre) – recommended by SGL.
It will be important to consider any relevant reports from the Recreation and Sport Unit before making a decision to support either Option 4 or Option 9, given that there are wider considerations in relation to location of the Eastern Recreation and Sport Facility. SGS has recommended that “the ER&S facility be located to optimise access and use from the sub- region, rather than subordinating these parameters to revitalisation objectives in New Brighton”.
Conclusion and way forward 30. In summary, there are benefits and drawbacks of the two options put forward by the community (refer Table 1). While there are economic benefits of co-locating all aquatic attractions within the one facility (Waterpark plus ER&S Facility – Option 2), there are fewer revitalisation benefits and greater risks of competing with the Metro Sports Facility.
31. Although the greatest potential for revitalising New Brighton will be achieved through pursuing the full ‘Village option’ (Option 5), in which New Brighton strives to become a township similar to Australian seaside villages of Glenelg, St Kilda or Byron Bay, this is perceived to be ambitious and potentially less practical to deliver. Therefore, the option which best achieves objectives – Option 8 – is the strongest contender for further exploration.
320 COUNCIL 3. 10. 2013
Planning Committee 4. 9. 2013 4 Cont’d
32. To give effect to the intent of Option 8, key stakeholders could work together to identify a range of small scale revitalisation initiatives. These initiatives would need to reflect New Brighton’s future function as a unique neighbourhood centre and be distributed within and around the commercial core. Part of this work would involve exploring the role of the private, public and philanthropic sectors, and the mix, timing, and scale of investment needed to ensure that the initiatives are sustaining and successful. The intent is to quickly focus on one or two key initiatives and consider whether these should be Council-led projects or whether they are more appropriately explored by private investors. Any Council-led or supported projects would likely be considered through future LTP or Annual Plan mechanisms.
33. The aspects of Option 8 which could be considered as part of this process are further investigations of a community salt water hot pool facility, and a full redevelopment of Brighton Mall – to upgrade the space for community activity and reinforce the river-to-sea connection. If private sector improvements are commensurate with Council initiatives, then further initiatives may also be considered.
Draft New Brighton Centre Master Plan – commercial zone consolidation
District Plan Review and the Draft Master Plan 34. The Draft Land Use Recovery Plan (LURP) includes actions to support the rebuilding and development of the network of suburban centres. Action 24 requires the Council to amend the District Plan to enable the recovery and rebuilding of businesses and provide for planning provisions for Key Activity Centres and neighbourhood centres that have undergone a suburban centres masterplan process. This is to be completed by 30 June 2014. The LURP also notes that encouraging terrace and town house developments can support the recovery of suburban centres by increasing the population within their catchments.
35. Officers will report on the Draft New Brighton Centre Master Plan in December, in terms of the summary of submissions and a ‘way forward’, taking into account anticipated September Council decisions on aquatic development options. The most significant action in the Draft Master Plan relates to a proposed rezoning of the commercial core to consolidate the centre. If this is to be achieved as part of Stage 1 of the District Plan Review, work on this will need to commence before December.
Centre consolidation 36. Economic analysis undertaken in 2012 indicates that the commercial centre of New Brighton is too large and should be significantly reduced in size. The Draft Master Plan proposes to consolidate the centre toward the sea front and to rezone commercial land to the west of the centre for higher density residential activity, potentially including travellers accommodation. This would support the function of the commercial centre and help limit the impact of the loss of housing from the red zone. The master plan identifies that further studies are required to identify the exact land use and extent of rezoning. To incorporate the rezoning as part of Stage 1 of the District Plan Review would require such additional studies to be high level.
37. Attachment 6 comprises extracts from the Summary of Submissions report on the Draft Master Plan. These extracts deal specifically with the consolidation of the centre and uptake for residential purposes. The vast majority of submitters agree with the proposal to consolidate the centre and to provide new residential development. Further details are provided in paragraph 61 onwards.
Options 38. If Stage One of the District Plan review is to incorporate a re-zoning of New Brighton centre, this is likely to be a contentious process for the landowners concerned, even though the majority of submitters support the concept of consolidating the commercial core. The key reason for the anticipated contentious nature of the concept is that long-established, if underutilised development rights will be restricted. Alternatives are: a) Relying upon non-regulatory methods, including through master plan actions, to signal where the commercial core is intended to be. 321 COUNCIL 3. 10. 2013
Planning Committee 4. 9. 2013 4 Cont’d b) Deferring this part of the District Plan Review until further analysis is completed on zoning options and discussions have been held with all relevant parties. Such additional work would likely occur later this financial year.
Conclusion 39. Given the timeframes concerned and the need to complete further analysis and have discussions with affected parties, the recommendation of this report is that a rezoning be investigated later this financial year and, if considered appropriate, form part of Stage 2 of the District Plan Review.
Community Board consultation
40. This officers report was prepared immediately following receipt of the two consultants reports. Officers held a seminar with the Burwood/Pegasus Community Board on 19 August and presented the general findings of the consultant reports.
FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS
41. The Council has already budgeted and approved $30.5 million to develop an ER&S Facility, somewhere in the East of the City. This has been further supported by $6.5 million from the Earthquake Appeal Trust, for aquatic attractions at the ER&S Facility. The budget is currently anticipated to be spent in one location at one facility. However, there is no additional funding presently allocated for land purchase. There are presently no detailed Council costings for the ER&S Facility and no allowance for land remediation or additional building code requirements.
42. The exact financial implications will depend upon the Council’s decision on aquatic development options. Most require funding over and above the $37 million for the ER&S Facility. If Option 8 or similar is chosen, the recommendation is for the more detailed investigation of a series of public (eg splash pad), private (eg Salt Water Pools) or other bespoke aquatic initiatives, together with the type and scale of improvements to the public realm to support this scale of enhancement. A key to this will be to identify the timing, future funding options and to explore the development intentions of key landowners in the New Brighton Mall locality.
Do the Recommendations of this Report Align with 2013-16 TYP budgets?
43. Yes, as above. The recommendation of the report leaves funding options and timeframes open. If the Council chooses, either now or in the future, to allocate budget from the $50 million included within the TYP for “Betterment of facilities and transformational opportunities”, there is presently approximately $25 million remaining within this fund.
LEGAL CONSIDERATIONS
44. Should the Council agree in principle to lease Council land to any proposed private investments, such as the relocatable salt water hot pool facility, this will be subject to legal agreements and to appropriate building and resource consents.
45. If it is decided to pursue a full Waterpark or other large aquatic facility option within the commercial area of New Brighton, the size of the facility and associated land requirements will either require stopping of at least one road and/or expanding into land elsewhere – that is, beyond the location originally proposed. Depending upon the final location, additional legal considerations may apply.
Have you considered the legal implications of the issue under consideration?
46. Yes, as above.
322 COUNCIL 3. 10. 2013
Planning Committee 4. 9. 2013 4 Cont’d
ALIGNMENT WITH LTCCP AND ACTIVITY MANAGEMENT PLANS
47. Provision has been made for both the Suburban Centres Programme and the Facilities Rebuild Plan through the Annual Plan process. This report and its recommendations enables both projects to move forward.
Do the recommendations of this report support a level of service or project in the 2013-16 TYP?
48. The Annual Plan 2012/13 includes levels of service for the recovery of Suburban Centres. New Brighton is not specifically mentioned, although Council added this master plan to the Suburban Centres Programme in April 2012 and budget was allocated for the current financial year. There are also levels of service regarding the delivery of community-based recreation and sport programmes/events and ensuring multi-purpose recreation and sport centres, swimming pools, stadia and other recreation and sporting facilities are provided. There is no direct mention of specific aquatic facilities or development options for New Brighton in the Three Year Plan.
ALIGNMENT WITH STRATEGIES
49. Both recommendations - to consolidate the commercial zoning in New Brighton and to support delivery of smaller scale aquatic developments that reflect New Brighton’s place in a network of commercial centres across the City - are consistent with the majority of relevant strategies.
50. The master plans being developed through the Suburban Centre Programme are consistent with the Greater Christchurch Urban Development Strategy objectives and its implementation tool – currently draft Chapter 6 of the Regional Policy Statement as proposed in the Land Use Recovery Plan. The master plans recognise the current hierarchy of commercial centres, and are consistent with the vision of enabling the central city to be the pre-eminent business, social and cultural heart of the City. The master plans are also consistent with District Plan objectives for improving the amenity, design and layout of suburban centres and enabling suburban centres to meet people’s needs for goods and services.
51. The Canterbury Earthquake Recovery Act requires that certain plans and documents should not be inconsistent with a Recovery Strategy and while the Act does not specifically refer to suburban centre master plans, the Draft Master Plan is consistent with the Recovery Strategy and adopted or draft Recovery Plans. In particular, the development of the Metro Sports Facility as an anchor project in the Central City is supported by the recommendations of this report in that any attractions in New Brighton will not be working in direct competition to a Waterpark or extra-large Eastern Recreation and Sports centre.
52. The Aquatic Facilities Plan 2006 and its 2012 Desktop Review does contemplate additional aquatic facilities being provided in the City, including potential investigation of an outdoor pool in the Central/North New Brighton area in partnership with the school and community organisations. While none of the additional elements identified in the various Options evaluated in this report have been specifically contemplated in the aquatic strategy work, including the March 2012 ‘Spaces and Places Plan for Sport and Recreation in Greater Christchurch’, some Options are more consistent with aquatic strategies than others. In particular, the Waterpark and other options that would directly compete with the Metro Sports Facility would be inconsistent with strategic directions, whereas the salt water pool proposal would not be inconsistent.
53. The Council’s Activity Management Plan is clear that the main reason to be in the business of aquatic facilities is to maximise participation in physical activity.
Do the recommendations align with the Council’s strategies?
54. Yes, as above. 323 COUNCIL 3. 10. 2013
Planning Committee 4. 9. 2013 4 Cont’d
CONSULTATION FULFILMENT
55. In relation to the proposed consolidation of the New Brighton commercial zoning, this was widely consulted on following release of the Draft New Brighton Centre Master Plan. Although many land owners and business owners within the master plan area chose not to submit, either in support or against the proposal, a further opportunity for submissions will be provided once a draft, reviewed District Plan is released for comment.
56. In relation to aquatic facilities in New Brighton, the Waterpark proposal was publicly released at the same time as the Community Board was asked to endorse the Draft Master Plan. Although the Waterpark proposal did not form part of the Draft Master Plan, many submissions were received in support of either the Waterpark proposal or more generally for a replacement of QEII to enable access to swimming facilities for local residents. The separate Council process for determining a location somewhere in the East for an ER&S Facility is yet to engage in public consultation processes but will provide for public comment from residents across the whole of the East of the City.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
It is recommended that the Council:
(a) Supports in principle the development of a variety of appropriately-sized privately funded attractions and public place-based initiatives in New Brighton, where these assist revitalisation of the commercial core, are economically feasible and do not replicate or compete with the functions of other Council facilities.
(b) Continue to work with key stakeholders to develop a preferred model of small scale public and private aquatic initiatives (e.g. such as salt water pools, splash pad) that support/match the revitalisation of New Brighton as a functioning but unique neighbourhood centre, together with improvements to the public realm (streetscape), the private realm (landowner and business investment) and funding options.
(c) Directs staff to consider, as part of the Draft New Brighton Centre Master Plan, a full redevelopment of Brighton Mall. This should support continued use of the space for community markets while reinforcing a river-to-sea theme and providing an attractive and lively space within the centre,
(d) Locates the proposed Eastern Recreation and Sports Facility wherever it best meets the needs of the communities of the East and in accordance with Council criteria.
(e) Does not apply Council funds to developing a Waterpark in New Brighton but leaves open this option for private investors to pursue if they wish.
(f) Directs staff to consider the options for consolidation of commercial zones in New Brighton as part of Stage 2 of the District Plan Review, in accordance with the proposals of the Draft New Brighton Master Plan.
(g) Agree to consider additional funds to support revitalisation of New Brighton through the next Long Term Plan, subject to significant effort being demonstrated by the relevant business and landowners of the commercial centre in rejuvenating the centre and improving the amenity of private property.
COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION
That the Council defer the discussion on this report and that this matter be presented to the incoming council for its consideration.
Councillor Wells abstained from voting on this item. 324 COUNCIL 3. 10. 2013
Planning Committee 4. 9. 2013 4 Cont’d
BACKGROUND
The Issues
57. The issues that should be addressed by any chosen aquatic development option are:
New Brighton centre issues
(a) The poor economic performance of New Brighton Centre and its associated lack of reinvestment in private property. This has lowered the amenity and function of the centre and resulted in approximately 90% of the catchment’s retail dollars being spent elsewhere;
(b) Population loss has further reduced the immediate catchment of the commercial centre;
(c) Uncertainty in the community regarding the long term potential function of New Brighton commercial centre and whether there is potential for it to return to its former ‘Saturday shopping’ size and scale of activity;
Aquatic facility issues
(d) The loss of aquatic facilities to the communities in the East (this is principally covered by a separate report, but relevant to the discussion);
(e) The potential for aquatic facilities of similar scale and nature to directly compete and so split the customer base, thereby reducing the potential viability of each facility;
(f) Previous large-scale attractions and facilities (library, pier) in New Brighton have not achieved revitalisation of the commercial centre.
Centre role and function
58. The advice from SGS is that New Brighton’s future lies in a scaled back, community-focussed retail role, coupled with a regional tourism-oriented function. In terms of the City Council’s proposed retail hierarchy, the centre would therefore be a ‘neighbourhood centre’ that could aim for an additional niche role as a seaside centre that attracts visitors from a larger, thinly spread catchment. Other neighbourhood centres that currently function this way are Akaroa, Sumner, Lyttelton and Merivale. The size of these centres is contained to a neighbourhood function, but their economic viability reflects their larger catchments.
59. SGS comments that the community-focussed role reflects the centre’s constrained catchment and the development of a strong district retailing network elsewhere in the City over the past twenty years. SGS considers it impractical to aim to return the centre to its former role as a regional shopping destination. However, as a seaside destination it could, with care and insight, expand its role and trading base.
60. SGS has further noted that: “The key intervention required in New Brighton is to reposition its 'brand' as a seaside village offering an array of entertainment, hospitality and retail leisure opportunities to complement its local service functions. This is likely to involve a number of distributed investments in New Brighton to: Improve the compactness and appeal of its retail core Introduce some new leisure attractions including but not limited to small scale aqua play facilities, fair grounds and enhanced promenades Improve the perceived safety of the centre's public domain through better street lighting , passive surveillance and the like 325 COUNCIL 3. 10. 2013
Planning Committee 4. 9. 2013 4 Cont’d Foster the development of an 'eat street or precinct' with strong pedestrian or visual connections to the sea.
To support these investments, a fresh marketing campaign for New Brighton is required. This should include a 'place making' program aimed at enlivening the centre during weekends and evenings in particular.”
Draft Master Plan 61. This finding relates to the proposal in the Draft Master Plan to change the current zoning pattern in New Brighton. The Draft Master Plan proposes, as a ‘big picture’ concept in the Vision (page 29) to consolidate the centre through rezoning of land. This is supported by a further concept (page 30) to establish precincts, including a residential precinct.
62. The economic analysis undertaken in 2012 indicates that the centre is too large at 11 hectares, whereas an area of between three and four hectares is considered to be sustainable for the centre to operate successfully. The Draft Master Plan proposes to consolidate the centre toward the sea front and to rezone commercial land to the west of the centre (predominantly zoned Business 1 at present). The Draft Master Plan indicates that this zoning would principally be for higher density residential activity, potentially including travellers accommodation. Existing business owners in the rezoned area would retain current development rights until such time as they wished to change the scale, nature or intensity of their activity.
63. A benefit of rezoning and uptake for residential and/or travellers accommodation is that it would support the function of the commercial centre and help limit the impact of the loss of housing from the red zone. The master plan identifies that further studies are needed to identify the exact land use and extent of rezoning. To incorporate the rezoning as part of Stage 1 of the District Plan Review would require such additional studies to be high level.
Submission summary 64. Attachment 6 comprises extracts from the Summary of Submissions report on the Draft Master Plan. These extracts deal specifically with the consolidation of the centre and uptake for residential purposes.
65. In relation to the ‘Big Picture’ themes:
(a) 90 per cent of respondents agree with the proposal to consolidate the centre and 8 per cent are ambivalent. Only 2 per cent disagree.
(b) 89 per cent of respondents agree with the proposal to define retail, entertainment and residential precincts, 8 per cent are ambivalent and 3 per cent disagree.
(c) The key area of disquiet is that if more people are attracted to New Brighton then the consolidation may be unwarranted.
(d) There is also a call for more of a mixed use rather than purely residential area; in this regard the Draft Master Plan notes that the retail/commerce precinct could contain mixed use retail and commercial activity with residential use above ground floor to help create a vibrant and safe environment (page 31).
66. In relation to the Draft Master Plan Actions, Action B5 indicates new residential development occurring on the land rezoned from commercial to residential.
(a) 79 per cent of respondents agree with this proposal and 15 per cent are ambivalent. 5 per cent disagree.
(b) The key areas of concern are similar to those noted above: that this might be at the expense of people living above commercial premises and that the housing might be low cost, ‘slum’ housing. 326 COUNCIL 3. 10. 2013
Planning Committee 4. 9. 2013 4 Cont’d
(c) The Draft Master Plan notes that a higher density of housing might be anticipated and would help ensure that the area offers a range of accommodation to people who want to live close to the centre. The Draft Plan also notes that the current backpackers located within the centre is very well patronised but that there may be demand for additional travellers’ accommodation.
67. A further recommendation of this report relates to a redevelopment of Brighton Mall. Action A2 of the Draft Master Plan proposes a continuation of the road through the pedestrian mall. The western part of Brighton Mall was upgraded with the implementation of a slow road in 2006. This brought new life to this area of the mall and has made it the most active area of the mall. The proposal involves extending the one-way road through the pedestrian mall and continuing the streetscape works with new surfacing, planting and seating to help bring new life to the area. This was considered appropriate to transform the area into a vibrant, functional space. The Draft Master Plan provides imagery of this concept.
68. Submissions to the Draft Master Plan were not overly supportive of this concept. Only 40 per cent of respondents agreed with this concept; 15 per cent were ambivalent and 46 per cent disagreed. Essentially, respondents preferred to retain pedestrian-focussed space, particularly as a location for the community market.
69. The recommendations of this report are to undertake further work on the consolidation of the centre, for potential incorporation within Stage 2 of the District Plan Review, and to consider a full redevelopment of the Mall as a lively pedestrian space.
Aquatic facility network
70. Although a separate report from the council’s Recreation and Sports Unit is being presented on the ER&S Facility project, the two processes are closely linked. The recommendation of this report enables the ER&S Facility project to consider the needs of the wider East and not New Brighton alone, while still enabling additional funding to be applied to assist New Brighton’s rejuvenation.
71. The Metro Sports Facility has been identified in the Central City Plan as a key anchor project to support revitalisation of the Central City. Funding has been agreed by CCC and CERA and work is underway. It will be important than any aquatic leisure facilities established elsewhere in the city support an integrated network and distribution that reflects customer catchments and does not result in direct competition between similar facilities. The current anticipated leisure attractions at the Metro Sports Facility incorporate a mix of leisure pools and features, for example:
Themed spa pools Rapid river, wave or themed pool Sauna, steam and therapy rooms/pools ‘Terrifying slides’ and a major aquatic themed attraction integrated into the facility design Children’s interactive aquaplay
72. Ideally, the network of aquatic facilities across the City would enable primacy for the Metro Sports Facility, and a supporting role for other council facilities with good access from residential catchments. Aquatic attractions beyond the Council network would preferably not duplicate the functions of these facilities.
THE OBJECTIVES
73. The principal objectives to be achieved by any chosen aquatic development option are:
(a) Revitalisation of New Brighton Centre through optimising economic spillover effects; 327 COUNCIL 3. 10. 2013
Planning Committee 4. 9. 2013 4 Cont’d (b) Aquatic facility provision for residents across the whole of the East, including those in New Brighton;
(c) A network of aquatic facilities that do not directly compete for the same customer base;
(d) Facilities in New Brighton that reflect and support its longer term function as a community-focussed commercial centre with some seaside tourism functions;
(e) Affordability (for example: through use of land currently owned by Council; through staging; and/or through sharing of risk and responsibility);
(f) Practicality of delivery.
74. Following a decision on the nature and scale of any facility in New Brighton, further work will be necessary to determine an appropriate location. For example, the chosen facility or facilities, if any, should be a good fit with urban form and design, including consideration of effects on any residential neighbours, the coastal environment, and the road network. There may also be opportunities to provide good energy efficiency. Full economic feasibility assessments will also be required.
THE OPTIONS
Key Aquatic Development Options
75. The paragraphs below set out the principal features of each of the aquatic development options and a brief summary of key findings from the assessment table below. A table has been included with each option for ease of comparison. This table references certain elements of key objectives in the left column and shows the degree to which these are met. The longer the shaded band in the table, the greater the degree of consistency with the objectives.
Option 1: No Waterpark, ER&S Facility located elsewhere in the East
76. This option involves no Waterpark or other aquatic facility in New Brighton and a full sized Eastern Recreation and Sports Facility (ER&S Facility) located elsewhere in the East.
77. Although the location of the ER&S Facility is subject to a separate report from the Recreation and Sports Centre, there are significant overlaps with this report. The decision may be to locate the ER&S Facility in New Brighton, which is addressed in Option 4 below. Therefore, this option considers only the potential for the ER&S Facility to be located elsewhere.
78. In this scenario, the benefits for New Brighton are principally around the provision within the East of a significant community/district facility. This will, in part, replace the facilities previously available at QEII. An ER&S Facility wholly located elsewhere in the East has only been considered in passing by the consultants as this wouldn’t generate revitalisation within New Brighton.
Option 1 -ve +ve Revitalisation Low 0 High Visits New Low High Brighton (000) 780- Low High Visits total (000) 900 Network Gaps/Competes Complements Centre function Inconsistent Consistent Cost High additional $37M Low additional Land area New High 0 Low Brighton (sqm) Land area total 20- High Low (sqm) 22000
328 COUNCIL 3. 10. 2013
Planning Committee 4. 9. 2013 4 Cont’d
Option 2: Waterpark combined with ER&S Facility, in New Brighton
79. The Waterpark option, as initially proposed by David East and Tim Sintes, has been further refined through work undertaken by Alan Direen. Refer Attachment 3 for extracts from the current proposal. The proposal states that this facility is “not intended to be an aquatic centre with just a few water toys on the side. This is a waterpark with elements of aquatic centre attached”.
80. Key elements referred to in the brief and those provided at a Council Recreation and Sport Facility are:
25m x 25m laned pool 1x learn to swim pool (25 metre x 12.5 metre) and 1x rise and fall floor pool of the same size. Fitness gymnasium Foyer/reception Café Change rooms
81. These elements are proposed to be housed in a ‘Sprung Instant Structure’. The proposal mentions a ‘fitness gym’. The size and nature of this is unclear. A full ER&S Facility would provide both a fitness centre (group exercise studio) and indoor sport (for example, several basketball courts). For this reason, the costs and land areas given below should take into account that these other ‘dry’ elements may be additional.
82. Additional ‘waterpark’ elements proposed for the facility are:
Double Flowrider static wave (part of a third party provision joint venture) Superbowl variant Rattler Boomerango River Lagoon Beach Aquaplay 1750TB Outdoor spas A lightweight structure to enclose most facilities from the elements, A footprint of between 11,000 and 12,000 square metres excluding car parking, plant rooms and service areas.
83. These elements are proposed to be housed in a retractable roof ‘OpenAire’ structure.
84. The proposal states that the size of Waterpark has yet to be determined and that land costs and geotechnical surveys have not been included. However, landscaping is identified within the proponents’ capex budget. The indicative costs established by Alan Direen are a total of $34.7 million capex. The proponents anticipate a $10 charge to use the Waterpark and a $5 charge to use conventional pools. Possible operational budget figures are also given in the proposal.
85. These costs have been evaluated by SGL. Excluding costs associated with land purchase and geotechnical surveys, which would be additional, various components of the proposed costings were considered to be substantially understated. These include site preparation, car parking, infrastructure servicing, plant rooms and services, project management, design and fittings. Factoring in these costs, the conclusion is that this Option will likely cost approximately $47 to $50 million, excluding other costs identified above. This is substantially more than the $34.7 million indicated in the proposal. 329 COUNCIL 3. 10. 2013
Planning Committee 4. 9. 2013 4 Cont’d
86. The catchment analysis for a new aquatic leisure facility in the NorthEast indicates that around 80,000 people presently live in the primary catchment area. Naturally, locating the facility on the coast will not centre it within the catchment. Based on data for average visits, SGL expects to see a visitation rate of between 530,000 and 650,000 annual visits. Adding in significant water features would increase this to between 640,000 and 850,000 visits. The proposal indicates 900,000 visits a year which SGL says is extremely unlikely for the facilities and area of development proposed. This level of activity would place the Waterpark as greater than the 6th busiest waterpark in the USA. The proposal indicates an expected $7.4 million in annual operating revenue. Consultants have revised this downward to between $3.9 - $5.4 million. Similarly, operating expenditure was considered to be significantly understated.
87. SGL considers that the Waterpark concept would not be supported in the commercial investment world. The firm also considers that a major waterpark would compete directly against the Metro Sports Facility. While not directly addressed by their report given the population data used, there is also likely to be a gap in level of service provision for some areas of the East if all aquatic facilities are concentrated at New Brighton.
88. The likely land area needed, including car parking and landscaping, is assessed by SGL as being in the vicinity of 25,000 – 30,000 sqm. This land area cannot be provided within the New Brighton centre. The original Waterpark proposal was for a smaller piece of land within the commercial centre and included part of Marine Parade and the foreshore. Land parcels near New Brighton centre that are large enough to accommodate the facility are at Rawhiti Domain and the Council-owned land at Owles Terrace. The Central Brighton School site would not be sufficiently large to accommodate the facility.
89. The likely ability for the proposal to revitalise New Brighton has been assessed by SGS who consider, based on a number of assumptions, that there is some potential for spinoff private investment in the centre. However, this is limited in that the facility will funnel visitors into a single attraction rather than spreading them through the centre. Spillover effects of up to 11 per cent of existing total retail turnover in the catchment are identified but these are not as large as the ‘Village in a Waterpark’ idea (Option 5). If the Council does decide to pursue a waterpark, SGS recommends that the ER&S Facility be provided within the Waterpark too.
Option 2 -ve +ve $10.9- Low High Revitalisation 17M Visits New 800 – Low High Brighton (000) 1.19M 800 – Low High Visits total (000) 1.19M Network Gaps/Competes Complements Centre function Inconsistent Consistent +$10- High additional Low additional Cost 13M Land area New 25- High Low Brighton (sqm) 30000 Land area total 25- High Low (sqm) 30000
Option 3: Waterpark only in New Brighton, and ER&S Facility located elsewhere
90. This option is a subset of the one above. Although the original Waterpark proposal as first released in 2012 is a close fit with this option, the current Waterpark proposal also incorporates elements of an Eastern Recreation and Sport Facility. Therefore, the evaluation has considered this option as a subset of Option 2 (waterpark elements only), with the ER&S Facility being provided elsewhere in the East and not in New Brighton.
91. Using the ‘waterpark elements’ from Option 2, the costs for the attractions and OpenAire cover would be approximately $22 million. This figure does not include land purchase, geotechnical costs, infrastructure and other elements identified by SGL. There is already a budget of $30.5 million to provide an ER&S Facility so the total figure for provision of both facilities would likely be approximately $53 - $56 million, excluding these other costs. 330 COUNCIL 3. 10. 2013
Planning Committee 4. 9. 2013 4 Cont’d
92. This option has the potential to attract additional visitors to Christchurch, but will undermine visitation to, and viability of, the Metro Sports Facility and the ER&S Facility. This option would split catchments and visitations and there would be increased management and governance costs if Council operates both facilities. SGL considers that combined regional population and tourism visitation numbers are not expected to be sufficient enough to attract a developer to invest in a standalone waterpark facility.
93. SGS identifies that potential for spinoff private funding is relatively low and spillover effects in New Brighton would be modest. As for Option 2, this is because the facility funnels visitors into a single facility rather than distributing them throughout the centre.
94. The land area required would be approximately 10,000 to 15,000 sqm for an ER&S Facility and approximately 20,000 – 25,000sqm for a waterpark. This option therefore requires a large land area overall in the East. The school site is approximately 18,000 sqm so would not be sufficient to locate the waterpark element in New Brighton.
Option 3 -ve +ve $6.3- Low High Revitalisation 9M Visits New 410- Low High Brighton (000) 550 Visits total 870 – Low High (000) 1.05M Network Gaps/Competes Complements Centre function Inconsistent Consistent +$16- Low High additional Cost $19M additional Land area New 20- High Low Brighton (sqm) 25000 Land area total 36- High Low (sqm) 41000
Option 4: Council ER&S Facility only, in New Brighton
95. This option comprises an ER&S Facility only (no Waterpark) located in New Brighton. An ER&S Facility is likely to include:
25m lap pool 33m lap pool Learn to Swim pool Leisure: Spa, aqua play, hydro slide/s Fitness centre – group exercise studio Indoor sport (3 basketball courts).
96. The additional $6.5 million of Earthquake Appeal Funds for water attractions at this facility elevates its function and potential catchment considerably. A ‘standard’ ER&S Facility would attract between 400,000 to 500,000 visits. SGL notes that the addition of $6.5 million for waterslide and water play facilities will be a significant attractor and should keep user visits up to the 900,000+ level. Further, this level of expenditure will see the ER&S Centre being allocated the highest leisure and water play budget features of any Council operated facility across New Zealand and Australia. Officers note that the impact of planned additional facilities elsewhere may not result in such a high level of visitor numbers at this facility and that some of this funding will be taken up in buildings and other structures to support the water attractions.
97. With the additional ‘dry’ elements added to the Waterpark proposal (Option 2), the enlarged ER&S Facility will likely operate at a similar level to the Waterpark and the Metro Sports Facility. SGL describes the facility as ‘complementing’ the Metro Sports Facility, although this is considered by officers to be less complementary than some other options. 331 COUNCIL 3. 10. 2013
Planning Committee 4. 9. 2013 4 Cont’d
98. There are potential accessibility issues for parts of the wider eastern residential catchment intended to be serviced by the ER&S Facility. A separate report addresses this aspect; New Brighton may not be the best location and other locations are not closely considered through this report.
99. SGS identifies that the potential for spinoff funding is limited. However, from the perspective of practicality of delivery, SGS considers this option may be the most superior amongst all.
Option 4 -ve +ve $5.6- Low High Revitalisation 9M Visits New 780- Low High Brighton (000) 900 780- Low High Visits total (000) 900 Network Gaps/Competes Complements Centre function Inconsistent Consistent Cost High additional $37M Low additional Land area New High 20000 Low Brighton (sqm) Land area total High 20000 Low (sqm)
Option 5: Full ‘Village in a Waterpark’
100. The New Brighton Business and Landowners Association has, with funding from Eastern Vision, engaged consultants Sam Martin (Align) and Jason Mill (Pivnice) to prepare an ‘alternative master plan’ for the wider suburb around New Brighton centre. These consultants have independently proposed an alternative to the Waterpark. The concept is ‘Village in a Waterpark’ which envisages a number of smaller scale aquatic facilities distributed around the edge of the centre and complementing the existing sea and river attractions. The concept is summarised in Attachment 4 and includes ideas of:
Boardwalks / coastal promenade Outdoor pools – specifically a salt water hot pool Mixed use buildings and beach front interaction Shopping and markets Focus on the beach and river attractions including surge mats Use of land at Owles Terrace for an attraction by the river – potentially an artificial whitewater course or ‘river rides’ (this appears from the imagery to be a small water park).
101. This option appears to reference seaside tourist towns overseas, such as St Kilda and Glenelg, which are relatively large, tourist-oriented centres. The concept doesn’t presently appear to accommodate the ER&S Facility. There is no overall costing provided for the full ‘Village’ option and full development would require public and private investment in a range of upgrades throughout the centre.
102. Most elements listed above are at ‘initial concept’ stage but further work has been progressed on a proposed market located on vacant land between Brighton Mall and Beresford Street, and in developing drawings and initial costings for relocatable salt water hot pools on the foreshore. The salt water pool concept has been informed by Tony Joseph (Joseph & Associates Ltd), who developed the hot pools at Franz Joseph. 332 COUNCIL 3. 10. 2013
Planning Committee 4. 9. 2013 4 Cont’d
103. In relation to specific attractions, it is assumed that the ‘river rides’ fun park would have similar costings to those indicated above for a Waterpark. The idea of an artificial whitewater course has resulted from discussions by the proponents of the proposal with various clubs and stakeholders. A web search indicates that the whitewater stadium at Penrith cost a total of $AU 6 million, of which $1.5 million was contributed by Penrith City Council. The Cardington Artificial Slalom Course in the UK has a dual role as both a flood control structure and a whitewater course; it was funded by a consortium that included the local council. No costings have been provided for either of these concepts. The idea of a whitewater course is not listed as a priority in the document ‘Spaces and Places Plan for Sport and Recreation in Greater Christchurch (March 2012)’. Proponents of Option 5 have discussed the concept with key stakeholders and apparently achieved support; it may also add value from a revitalisation perspective.
104. The proposed salt water hot pools would be located on the foreshore adjacent to the surf club and using a small portion of the current Council car park. The concept is that the three pools would be ‘nested’ into the dunes and provide a good visual outlook and new experience for residents and visitors. This is intended to be a flexible and potentially relocatable development that can be constructed soon and, if necessary, moved elsewhere in the future. The pools are modular, assembled offsite. This provides flexibility for staging and reduces investment risk. If there is agreement in principle to leasing a portion of the CCC car park for developing these pools, the proponents would seek investment to commence a high level feasibility study. Bather capacity at these pools is proposed to be 75 – 100 people so the concept is a relatively small development that could be expanded upon in future if desired.
105. The cost of the feasibility study for the salt water hot pools is estimated at $62,960. An isolated leisure pool development would cost approximately $3,829,048 but if some facilities were shared as part of a redeveloped surf club – including a possible new 25 metre pool at this complex, this would lower the cost to approximately $2,990,672. These costs do not include the café shown in Attachment 1 and indeed a café might be counter-productive to revitalising the commercial centre. The proponents consider that the pools could either be a Council developed and managed enterprise or a privately run facility. The surf club redevelopment is, at this stage, simply seen by the proponents as an opportunity that may provide some synergies but is not critical to the success of the hot pools.
106. One of the concepts shown under the full Village option is a ‘river rides’ funpark concept, which officers consider could have the same range of issues as those identified for the Waterpark above (refer Option 2).
107. SGS has suggested the non-aquatic features of the Village in a Waterpark proposal might also comprise elements such as a surfing museum (to reflect the point of difference as NZ’s first beach to have a surf club), an ‘eat street’, boardwalk, and potentially a sideshow alley or even ‘Luna Park’ – however these suggestions are additional to those identified by the proponents of the Village Option.
108. SGL has not evaluated this Option given it has been presented as very high level concept drawings. However, the firm notes that splitting development funds and facilities goes against current industry trends of clustering and connecting community aquatic and leisure facilities to improve use and viability. The salt water hot pool element has been carried forward to SGL’s own recommendation (Option 9), to form part of a larger, coastal ER&S Facility.
109. SGS has provided broad visitation numbers and spend, based on proxy figures and assumptions from other similar centres and activities. The costs and land area for cultivating New Brighton as a seaside Village, with a variety of attractions spread around the centre, will depend upon the range and nature of attractions This firm concludes that Option 5 has the maximum potential to turn New Brighton’s fortune and presents the best potential to leverage additional private sector funding. This is particularly the case because tourists would be distributed in the centre rather than funnelled into a particular attraction, thereby promoting exposure to a wide variety of retail and services in the centre. SGS also considers that this option meets the vision of the New Brighton community to the utmost. However, they note that the option is very optimistic and not practical to deliver in the short term given the low quality retail environment currently on offer and the need for high levels of stakeholder buy-in. 333 COUNCIL 3. 10. 2013
Planning Committee 4. 9. 2013 4 Cont’d
Option 5 -ve +ve $15- Low High Revitalisation $25M Visits New Low 1.29M High Brighton (000) Visits total (000) Low 1.29M High Network Gaps/Competes Complements Centre function Inconsistent Consistent Cost High additional Low additional Land area New High Low Brighton (sqm) Land area total High Low (sqm)
Option 6: Boutique salt water hot pool in New Brighton, to complement an ER&S Facility elsewhere
110. This option assumes that the ER&S Facility will not be located in New Brighton and that aquatic elements within New Brighton are limited to a boutique salt water pool, as described above. The relevant details for this option are covered by Options 1 and 5 above. SGL has estimated the capital cost of this facility at between $4.5 and $5 million, including site development and car parking areas and has recommended that a day spa and wellness centre would add improved commercial returns.
111. This facility alone does little to fulfil the revitalisation objectives given its relatively small visitor numbers and the fact that it concentrates attractions along the foreshore (when combined with the library and pier). However, it may be a good starting point for a smaller scale ‘Village’ option, as discussed further below under Option 8. In general, given the limited capacity for users of this facility, it is recommended that the salt water hot pools be considered as part of a wider revitalisation initiative rather than a standalone solution for New Brighton.
Option 6 -ve +ve Revitalisation Low $1M High Visits New 180- Low High Brighton (000) 200 Visits total 960- Low High (000) 1.1M Network Gaps/Competes Complements Centre function Inconsistent Consistent Cost High additional +$4.5M Low additional Land area New 3- High Low Brighton (sqm) 4000 Land area total 23- High Low (sqm) 2600
Option 7: All aquatic entertainment elements in New Brighton, and a reduced scale/fitness oriented ER&S Facility elsewhere
112. This option is a combination of Option 3 (Waterpark only) and Option 6 (salt water pool only), with the difference being that the ER&S Facility elsewhere in the East would provide only ‘dry’ elements. 334 COUNCIL 3. 10. 2013
Planning Committee 4. 9. 2013 4 Cont’d
113. The drawbacks of this option are similar to those identified in Option 3, in that the aquatic entertainment may undermine visitation to, and viability of, the Metro Sports Facility. If the Council operates both facilities, there will be associated increases in operational costs. The land area for the ‘dry’ ER&S Facility would be approximately 13,500 metres squared and development of the facility would be approximately $17 million. For the aquatic elements in New Brighton, a development area of 19 - 20,000 metres squared would be needed. The waterpark element would cost $22-25 million and the salt water pools $4.5 million. This would result in a total of 33,500 metres squared of land area and $44 - 48 million. As for Option 3, potential for spillover effects is modest and visitor numbers are not expected to be sufficient to attract commercial investment.
Option 7 -ve +ve $8- Revitalisation Low High 12M Visits New 590- Low High Brighton (000) 750 Visits total 870- Low High (000) 1.05M Network Gaps/Competes Complements Centre function Inconsistent Consistent +$7- High additional Low additional Cost 11M Land area New 19- High Low Brighton (sqm) 20000 Land area total High 33500 Low (sqm)
Option 8: Scaled down ‘Village’ option – as assessed by consultants
114. This option reflects upon the benefits and drawbacks of the above options and proposes a refinement to the one promoted as Option 5. The option as originally assessed by consultants involves splitting a portion of the $6.5 million funding from the Earthquake Appeal Trust (for aquatic leisure facilities at the ER&S Facility), to part-fund a number of smaller scale aquatic attractions within or adjoining the new Brighton commercial core (refer Attachment 5). The Christchurch Earthquake Appeal Trust has now confirmed that it is very unlikely that the $6.5 million can be used in this way. The wording of the fund is “$6.5 million for Water Attractions like water slides and rides at the new Christchurch City Council Recreation and Sports Centre in the north eastern suburbs. This contribution includes $3.1 million generously donated by an anonymous donor. Trustees hope that the Appeal Trust funding can make the aquatic facility great fun with a lot more to offer people and by providing confirmation at this early stage Council can include water attractions in the overall design...”. However, the results of evaluating this option have been included in this report to draw attention to the overall benefits achieved. There may be alternative funding mechanisms for any public attractions that are considered to be feasible following further work, such as use of the $50 million fund for ‘Betterment of facilities and transformational opportunities’ to achieve the same purposes.
115. This option entails siting the ER&S Facility wherever it best meets the needs of the wider residential catchment across the East.
116. The delivery, over time of a range of unique / boutique attractions in New Brighton would provide a catalyst for additional footfall through the commercial centre if attractions are well- located and have a point of difference. Examples might include:
(a) further investigation into hot salt water pools, in terms of potential location, scale, configuration, and options for funding and management.
(b) a unique and bold splash pad in the pedestrian mall area as part of a wider Mall redevelopment, to encourage use of the area during the week when the community market isn’t running. This would ideally have a point of difference from other splash pads – for example, lit at night, or using play elements to reinforce a link between the sea and river; and 335 COUNCIL 3. 10. 2013
Planning Committee 4. 9. 2013 4 Cont’d
(c) supporting riverside attractions. An example put forward by one party is that of a whitewater course adjacent to the river, at a standard suitable for national and international events.
There may be a variety of other examples that might be proposed, evaluated and supported over time.
117. To ensure that business and land owners share responsibility for New Brighton’s revitalisation, the amenity and investment in the commercial centre would be monitored and, if there is substantial effort and improvement in the private realm then specific and targeted funding could be considered as part of the next LTP.
118. Other than potentially developing and maintaining an aquatic play area as part of a redeveloped Brighton Mall, and investigating salt water pool options, other developments would principally be privately-led initiatives.
119. As for several other development options, SGL has pointed out that from an economic feasibility perspective – concentrating on construction, maintenance and operation - the most optimal approach is to build a single facility rather than to split provision across multiple sites. However, when considering the degree to which a development option meets the relevant objectives, this option appears, on balance to be the best fit. It would enable a variety of aquatic attractions to establish in New Brighton and support people-movement around the centre. The attractions can be staged over time and further development could be contingent upon equal effort being applied within the private realm. Economic spillover would also increase over time and move from those expected in Option 3 ($6.3 - $9 million) to a point that it more closely emulates Option 5 ($15 - $25 million).
120. SGS has commented that this option appears a better alternative to the more ambitious full- scale Village option, as investments in facilities will be staged, allowing sufficient lead time for Council to implement an interventionist strategy if need be and garner community support to partner in the delivery of this option. Importantly, this option will not compromise visitation to the planned Metro Sports Facility. The firm recommends pursuing the revitalisation of New Brighton through staging the “Village in a Waterpark concept, focusing on leveraging the centre’s seaside location through a variety of attractions as distinct from a single ‘blockbuster’ attraction”.
121. The graph below represents the option as evaluated by the two consultants, which involved an initial investment of $4.5 - $5 million from the Christchurch Earthquake Appeal Trust Fund, which they have since advised is not likely.
Option 8 -ve +ve Revitalisation Low $6.3M $25M High Visits New Low High Brighton (000) Visits total Low High (000) Network Gaps/Competes Complements Centre function Inconsistent Consistent $4.5 High additional Low additional Cost – 5M Land area New High Low Brighton (sqm) Land area total High Low (sqm)
Option 9: ER&S ‘plus’
122. SGL has also proposed a further option. This entails a full sized ER&S Facility with significant leisure features, expanded further to include a day spa and salt water pools on a coastal location. The key driver is understood to be the economic efficiencies gained by co-locating facilities. This Option entails a combination of the $37 million available for the ER&S Facility, plus the $4.5 million for salt water pools as noted above, plus $3.5 million for development of a 336 COUNCIL 3. 10. 2013
Planning Committee 4. 9. 2013 4 Cont’d day spa / wellness centre. As with the other options above, any land purchase, infrastructure and geotechnical costs are additional.
123. Due to the boutique element of the facility, and its potential to provide a marketing opportunity to link with Hanmer Springs packages, SGL considers it has potential to attract annual visitations of 970,000 to 1.1 million each year. SGL considers such a development would provide many of the outcomes proposed by the waterpark project and would help theme the commercial centre. The consultant report is neutral on the location of this facility across the East, but notes that a coastal location would be necessary for the salt water hot pool component. A key point in this regard is that the visitation figures for the ER&S Facility as provided by SGL remain constant regardless of the facility’s location in the East. Refer to the report from the Recreation and Sports Unit for more detail on this matter.
124. SGS has evaluated a moderate potential spillover spend of $7-8 million annually. A footprint of 22,000 – 23,000sqm would be required for this facility, which is not able to be provided in the commercial centre. A further drawback, as with other options proposing and ER&S Facility on the coast, is the ‘gap’ in aquatic provision for some existing and planned residential areas elsewhere in the East.
Option 9 -ve +ve $7- Low High Revitalisation 8M Visits New 970- Low High Brighton (000) 1.1M Visits total 970- Low High (000) 1.1M Network Gaps/Competes Complements Centre function Inconsistent Consistent Cost High additional +$8M Low additional Land area New 22- High Low Brighton (sqm) 23000 Land area total 22- High Low (sqm) 23000
ASSESSMENT OF OPTIONS
125. Table 1 on the following pages is informed by the two consultant reports (refer Attachments 1 and 2). The options are evaluated in light of the objectives (paragraph 65).
THE PREFERRED OPTION
126. Each option has associated benefits and drawbacks. The information above has not weighted these. However, assuming the key objectives are to revitalise New Brighton at the lowest possible cost, and in light of the wider aquatic network, the intent underlying Option 8 is preferred. This promotes a smaller scale and staged ‘Waterpark in a Village’ option, which is considered to best meet the objectives outlined above. This option also supports a consolidated retail core and the rezoning proposed in the Draft Master Plan.
127. The principle alternatives to Option 8 are those that also achieve a good degree of revitalisation, are affordable and integrate with the wider aquatic network. These are:
(a) Option 4: Council ER&S Facility only, in New Brighton;
(b) Option 6: Boutique salt water pool in New Brighton, to complement an ER&S Facility elsewhere.
(c) Option 8: scaled down ‘Village’ option
(d) Option 9: ER&S Facility ‘plus’ (salt water hot pool, day spa, wellness centre)
337 COUNCIL 3. 10. 2013
Planning Committee 4. 9. 2013 Option 4 -ve +ve $5.6- Low High Revitalisation 9M Network Gaps/Competes Complements Cost High additional $37M Low additional
Option 6 -ve +ve Revitalisation Low $1M High Network Gaps/Competes Complements Cost High additional +$4.5M Low additional
Option 8 -ve +ve Revitalisation Low $6.3M $25M High Network Gaps/Competes Complements $4.5- High additional Low additional Cost 5M
Option 9 -ve +ve $7- Revitalisation Low High 8M Network Gaps/Competes Complements Cost High additional +$8M Low additional
128. It will be important to consider any relevant reports from the Recreation and Sport Unit before making a decision to support either Option 4 or Option 9, given that there are wider considerations in relation to location of the Eastern Recreation and Sport Facility.
338 339 COUNCIL 3. 10. 2013
Planning Committee 4. 9. 2013
Table 1: Benefits and drawbacks of each aquatic development option, relative to key objectives
BENEFITS AND DRAWBACKS RELATIVE TO KEY OBJECTIVES Aquatic facility Good AQUATIC Reflects longterm Revitalisation provision for all hierarchy/network of Practicality of commercial function DEVELOPMENT residents across the aquatic facilities in Affordability delivery. of N.B. OPTION East City : Option 1 + + ER&S would provide for + ER&S complements the + New Brighton able to + All $37 million funding + Aquatic elements are No Waterpark, all Eastern catchment Metro Sports Faciity. consolidate its future as a provided through LTP and readily deliverable. Footprint ER&S Facility - Zero spend per visit so not residents. Full ER&S Provides NE with neighbourhood centre. Earthquake Appeal funds. of 6500 – 7500 sqm, total located elsewhere in a revitalisation catalyst for includes $6.5m of leisure replacement facility for a development area including the East New Brighton. The centre slides. Catchment 77,431 range of former QEII aquatic - If revitalisation doesn’t - landscaping and carparking would be reliant on non- people. Visitations of facility users. occur, the function of the of 20,000 – 22,000 sqm. aquatic catalysts for its 530,000 - 650,000/yr plus centre will potentially further ongoing commercial 250,000 – 350,000 with - diminish. - To attract maximum development and water features. Total annual users, need to locate facility revitalisation. If the non- visits 780,000 – 900,000. off main road or high profile aquatic catalysts are also not location preferably close to progressed, New Brighton - Doesn’t reflect what New commercial area. will continue its downward Brighton residents have trend. been seeking: salt water pools (for many years) and, more recently a Waterpark (20,000 signatures)
Option 2: + Aquatic facilities in + Will meet community + Combines key elements + + High yield components + Waterpark combined themselves will enable New aspirations for a Waterpark. at one location. Provides NE will assist the financial with ER&S Facility, Brighton’s revitalisation. Primary catchment with replacement facility for a - If located within the sustainability of the centre. - Would require a footprint in New Brighton Maximum potential spend population 77431 people range of former QEII aquatic centre, will overwhelm the Management, marketing, of 11,000 – 12,000 squm per year in New Brighton, on (530,000 – 650,000 visits). facility users. community function and be infrastructure and services and total development area and off site: $10.9 - 17 Secondary catchment difficult to provide enough costs at one site. including carparking and million. Spillover effects of 268,921 people (270,000 – - A direct competitor for the space. May be some opportunity to landscaping of 25,000 – up to 11% of existing total 540,000 visits). leisure components planned Risk of increasing attract commercial 30,000 sqm. retail turnover. Regional/tourist visits for the new Metro Sports expectations that New investment of feature(s) eg Likely difficult to attract a Some potential for spinoff 50,000. Total annual visits Facility so likely to Brighton will return to its flow rider. private investor. private funding and reduction 800,000 – 1,190,000 visits. undermine visitation to, and previous commercial Sprung roof and glazing may of crime and vandalism. viability of, the Metro Sports ‘heyday’. provide energy efficiencies. - Will be less accessible for Facility - Funnels visitors into a residents in the - Cost of delivery estimated single facility rather than Prestons/Parklands area, for at $47 - $50 million (SGL) spreading them through the regular community subject to final site centre. swimming purposes. development and acquisition Doesn’t provide the salt costs. If provided within the water pools that residents centre, will have high land have been seeking for many costs. years Higher spend per user compared with other options.
Points to note with all options: 1. all figures are based on assumptions. 2. the location of the ER&S Centre, if in New Brighton, is not centred within its catchment.
340 COUNCIL 3. 10. 2013
Planning Committee 4. 9. 2013
Option 3: + Maximum potential spend + Will meet community + + + + Waterpark only in per year in New Brighton, on aspirations for a Waterpark. New Brighton, and and off site: $6.3 - 9 million. ER&S would provide for all - Splits catchments and - If located within the centre, - Cost of delivery very high - Waterpark would require a ER&S Facility Modest spillover effects in Eastern catchment facilities. may overwhelm the at $53 - $56 million footprint of 6,000 – 7,000 located elsewhere New Brighton of up to 6% of residents. A direct competitor for the community function and be development cost, being sqm and development site of existing total retail turnover Waterpark primary leisure components planned difficult to provide enough $22 - 25 million for the New 20,000 – 25,000sqm. ER&S for the new Metro Sports space. Brighton Waterpark and Facility would require a SGL assessment in catchment. catchment population 77431 people (232,000 visits). Facility so likely to Risk of increasing $30.5 miillion for the ER&S footprint of 5,000 – assumes the ER&S Spinoff private funding and Facility doesn’t include - Secondary catchment undermine visitation to, and expectations that New Facility elsewhere (assuming 6,000sqm and development $6.5 million in aquatic reduction of crime and 268,921 people (130,000 - viability of, the Metro Sports Brighton will return to its ER&S Facility doesn’t area of 16,000sqm. attractions. vandalism relatively low. 270,000 visits). Facility . previous commercial include slides). Combined 2 facility total Funnels visitors into a single Regional/tourist visits ‘heyday’. If provided within the centre, development area including facility in New Brighton 50,000. will have high land costs. landscaping and carparking rather than spreading them Waterpark total annual visits Double-up on management of 36,000 – 41,000 sqm. through the centre. 410,000 – 550,000 visits. costs at 2 separate sites. Combined regional ER&S Facility primary Splitting high yield facility population and tourism catchment population 77431 components will decrease visitation numbers are not people (460,000 – 500,000 visitations and level of expected to be sufficient to visits). revenue to both facilities. attract a developer to invest Combined 2 facility visits If $6.5 million used at the in a stand alone waterpark 870,000 – 1,050,000 visits. Waterpark, the lack of facility. ‘attractor’ facilities at the - Doesn’t provide the salt ER&S Facility will result in water hot pools that Council subsidising residents have been seeking operations. for many years Lower spend per visit at ER&S Facility.
Option 4: + Maximum potential + Provides a good level of + ER&S complements the + If located near, but not + All $37 million funding + Practicable option to Council ER&S spend per year in New service for New Brighton Metro Sports Facility. within the centre, would provided through LTP and deliver. Facility only, in New Brighton, on and off site: residents including potentially support New Earthquake Appeal funds. Would require a footprint of Brighton $5.6 – 9 million. Limited significant leisure - Brighton’s continued Single management / 6,500 – 7,500sqm and total spillover effects of up to 4% component. development as a governance model. development area including of existing total retail Primary catchment neighbourhood centre. carparking and landscaping turnover in catchment. This population 77431 people - of 20,000 sqm. is positive, but nowhere near (530,000 – 650,000 visits) - If located within the centre, as high as other options. plus 250,000 – 350,000 with may overwhelm the - water features. Total annual community function and be - Limited potential to attract visits 780,000 – 900,000. difficult to provide enough visitors from beyond the space. local area. - Will be less accessible for Potential for spinoff private residents elsewhere in the funding and reduction of East, for regular community crime and vandalism is very swimming purposes. limited. Residents have been Funnels visitors into a single seeking salt water pools for facility rather than spreading many years them through the centre.
341 COUNCIL 3. 10. 2013
Planning Committee 4. 9. 2013
Option 5: + Maximum potential + Potential to attract annual + + New Brighton able to + Not all components + Range of footprints and Points to note with all options: all figures are based on assumptions. the location of the ER&S Centre, if in New Brighton, is not centred within its catchment. Full ‘Village in a spend per year in 1.New visitation of between 2. consolidate its future as a require delivery at once, development areas required, Waterpark’ Brighton, on and off site: $15 800,000 and 1.19 million - The inclusion of river rides neighbourhood centre with spreading risk. the largest at Owles Terrace - 25 million. Maximum from primary and secondary may undermine visitation to, significant tourist Key components potentially for possible whitewater spillover effects (up to 17% catchment and up to and viability of, other component. able to use Council land, course / river rides. existing total retail turnover 100,000 regional and tourist facilities in the aquatic reducing overall costs. Able to be staged over time. in catchment). visits. Total: up to 1.29 network. However, - Salt water hot pools are Has the maximum potential million visits annually. insufficient details provided - Several ideas are likely to modular and able to be to turn New Brighton’s If ‘river rides’ is built, this will in concepts to enable be individually costly and, moved elsewhere in future. fortune. This option address calls for a analysis. when combined with the If decided by Council, presents the best potential to Waterpark. non-aquatic elements of this dedicated efforts can be leverage additional private If ‘river rides’ is additional to proposal, are likely to be made to turn New Brighton’s sector funding and positive an ER&S Facility elsewhere very expensive. In prospects by investing in spillover effects on other in the East, this will also particular: the whitewater facilities and services, which land uses, especially provide for all Eastern course, the ‘river rides’ fun may render this option residential development in catchment residents. park, the boardwalks and the viable. the centre and help in Provides the salt water private land redevelopments. reducing crime due to pools that residents have Split development funds and - In the short term, this improving overall urban sought for many years. facilities goes against current option appears impractical to fabric and amenity. industry trends of clustering deliver given the low quality - Bather capacity at salt and connecting community retail environment currently - very optimistic option. water hot pools is relatively aquatic and leisure facilities on offer. Investor interest may be low. to improve use and viability. Requires high stakeholder limited given present retail buy-in. offer.
Option 6: + Maximum potential + Provides the specialist + Would not compete with + New Brighton able to + SGL estimated capital + Salt water hot pools are Boutique salt water spend per year in New salt water pools that proposed Metro Sports consolidate its future as a cost $4.5 - $5 million modular and able to be pool in New Brighton, on and off site: up residents have sought for Facility or ER&S Facility. neighbourhood centre. including site development. moved elsewhere in future. Brighton, to to $1million. many years. May return operating surplus Based on drawings, footprint complement an Boutique facilities, if located Based on Mt Maunganui, - - If revitalisation doesn’t if the right product is 1,000sqm, total development ER&S Facility on coast may attract tourist 180,000 – 200,000 visits/yr. occur, the function of the provided. area including carparking markets. ER&S Facility elsewhere centre will potentially further Could take advantage of and landscaping of elsewhere 3,000 - would provide for all Eastern diminish. natural salt water resources, 4,000sqm. Public - V. limited spillover effects catchment residents. Full provided facility located carparking already adjacent Note: could run as a in New Brighton (1%). ER&S includes $6.5m of within 0.5km of coast. to the site. Plus land area Council or a private Very limited potential to turn leisure slides. Potentially able to use for ER&S Facility elsewhere facility. the fortunes of New Brighton Council land, reducing 16,000sqm. Total 19- or to reduce vandalism and - Bather capacity at salt overall costs 20000sqm. improve amenity of New water hot pools is relatively Development of day spa and Brighton centre. low. wellness centre would add - Coastal location will have Concentrates attractions Doesn’t provide the improved commercial environmental and resource along the foreshore, rather Waterpark sought by many returns. consent issues to resolve. than encouraging movement residents. into the commercial centre. - Facility would need to be Unless located close to the located near salt water shore, doesn’t have potential source (0.5km) otherwise to attract new visitors. facility would be unviable. Only limited potential to High cost of management promote Christchurch as a and reception for low usage ‘prosperous’ city. facility. Points to note with all options: 1. all figures are based on assumptions. 2. the location of the ER&S Centre, if in New Brighton, is not centred within its catchment.
342 COUNCIL 3. 10. 2013
Planning Committee 4. 9. 2013
Option 7: + Maximum potential spend + Facilities themselves will + + + + All aquatic per year in New Brighton, on meet community aspirations. entertainment and off site: $8-12 million. Waterpark: primary - Waterpark element would - If located within the centre, - Cost of delivery are high at - Dry ER&S Facility would elements in New Modest spillover effects. catchment population 77431 be a direct competitor for the may overwhelm the $22 - 25 million for the require footprint of approx Brighton, and a people (232,000 visits) plus leisure components planned community function and be Waterpark, $4.5 million for 3,500sqm and total Funnels visitors into a reduced - secondary catchment for the new Metro Sports difficult to provide enough salt water pools and $17.5 development area of single facility in New 268,921 people (130,000 – Facility so likely to space. miillion for the ‘dry’ ER&S 13,500sqm. Aquatic scale/fitness Brighton rather than 270,000 visits). undermine visitation to, and Risk of increasing Facility. Total cost $44 - $48 entertainment and salt water oriented ER&S spreading them through the Regional/tourist visits viability of, the Metro Sports expectations that New million. pools will require footprint of Facility elsewhere centre. 50,000. Facility . Brighton will return to its Increased management 9,000sqm and total Waterpark total annual visits previous commercial costs if Council operates development area of 19,000 410,000 – 550,000 visits. ‘heyday’. both facilities. – 20,000sqm. Total Salt water pool 180,000 – If provided within the centre, development area across 2 200,000 visits/yr. will have high land costs. facilities including carparks Total Waterpark plus Combined regional and landscaping: saltwater pools: 590,000 – population and tourism 33,500sqm. 750,000 visits. visitation numbers are not Dry ER&S Facility 280,000 – expected to be sufficient to 350,000 visits. attract a developer to invest Combined 2 facility visits in a stand alone waterpark 870,000 – 1,050,000 visits. facility. ‘Dry elements’ of ER&S would provide for all Eastern catchment residents. Provides the Waterpark and salt water pools sought by New Brighton residents. - Will be less accessible for residents elsewhere in the East, for regular community swimming purposes.
Option 8: + The potential for + The gathering of + Redistributing some of + Additional niche / + At $4.5 - $5 million, this + From the perspective of Scaled down revitalising New Brighton is community support to uphold the $6.5 million funds for boutique, smaller scale option less costly than some the surrounding retail offer ‘Village’ option not as high as Option 5 but the delivery of this option aquatic leisure attractions aquatic facilities will support others. and community need provides necessary lead over time will enable beyond the ER&S Facility to New Brighton’s development Reliance on joint funding and perspective, this option time for a wider strategy to ownership amongst local other aquatic attractions in as a neighbourhood centre spreading funds across appears one of the most be implemented. As this residents. New Brighton would have with some additional visitor several smaller proposals superior amongst all. option matures, it should ER&S would provide for all lessened the risk of the spend. also spreads the Uses Council owned land, emulate maximum annual Eastern catchment ER&S Facility directly responsibility and therefore none currently in significant spend results expected in residents. Full ER&S competing with the Metro - the risk to Council. active use. Option 3: $6.3 – 9 million includes $6.5m of leisure Sports Facility. Potential for staging spreads Council would only be and over time will emulate slides. the costs over longer time responsible for developing: Option 5. Potential to Supports provision of the salt - frames. the ER&S Facility, wherever provide modest spillover water pools, sought by Could take advantage of it may locate in the East; and effects of up to 6% of residents over many years. natural salt water resources, the additional splash pad (as existing total retail turnover provided facility is located part of redeveloped mall in the catchment. - Doesn’t provide the within 0.5km of coast. area), and agreeing to lease Good synergies between Waterpark sought by many of land. Other deliverables
Points to note with all options: 1. all figures are based on assumptions. 2. the location of the ER&S Centre, if in New Brighton, is not centred within its catchment. 343 COUNCIL 3. 10. 2013
Planning Committee 4. 9. 2013
activities and location around residents. are the responsibility of other the centre will draw visitors - As originally assessed, the parties. through the commercial option uses a portion of the Salt water hot pools are core. $6.5M CEAT funding. modular and able to be However other Council and moved elsewhere in future. - Potential for revitalisation private funding options Salt water pool: refer option not as high as full ‘Village’ would instead be required. 6 for footprint and option. All supplementary funding development area. needs to be obtained from other sources. - Risk of non-delivery of Splits facilities, increasing projects requiring joint development, management funding. and governance costs, Large footprint / therefore not recommended development area for by SGL. whitewater course on Owles Terrace.
Option 9: + Maximum potential spend + Primary catchment for + Combined facilities + + ER&S capital cost + Large single development ER&S ‘plus’ per year in New Brighton, on ER&S Facility 77,431 people provide significant point of allowance $37 million to deliver so one of the most and off site: $7-8 million. (530,000 – 650,000 visits). difference. - If located within the centre, already budgetted. Hot superior options in terms of Spillover effects of up to 5%. Extra water features will overwhelm the saltwater pools $4.5 million. practicality of delivery. expected to add 250,000 – - SGL describes the facility community function and be Day Spa/Wellness Centre - Funnels visitors into a 350,000 visits. Salt water as complementing the Metro difficult to provide enough $3.5 Million. Total cost $45 - ER&S footprint 6,500 – single facility rather than pools 180,000 – 200,000 Sports Facility, although its space. million. 7,500sqm. Saltwater pools spreading them through the visits. Day spa/wellness size and similar functions Risk of increasing High yield components 1,200sqm. Day spa and centre. visits 10,000/yr. Total annual suggest there is an element expectations that New (wellness centre and salt- wellness centre 1,000sqm. Potential for spinoff private visits 970,000 – 1.10 million of risk of competing Brighton will return to its water pools) will assist Total development area funding and reduction of / year. catchments. previous commercial financial sustainability. including carparks and crime and vandalism is very Provides the salt water pools ‘heyday’. Integrated facility supports landscaping 22,000 – 23,000 limited. sought by residents over efficient management / sqm. many years. Provides for governance. Unable to be readily major ER&S Facility with Could take advantage of provided within the centre. significant leisure natural salt water resources, component, similar to the provided facility located concept of the Waterpark. within within 0.5km of coast. - Will be less accessible for - Cost of delivery higher residents elsewhere in the than other options. East, for regular community Higher spend per user swimming purposes. compared with other options.
Points to note with all options: 1. all figures are based on assumptions. 2. the location of the ER&S Centre, if in New Brighton, is not centred within its catchment.
344 345 COUNCIL 3. 10. 2013
Planning Committee 4. 9. 2013
5. PROPOSED PLAN CHANGE 84 – SPECIAL PURPOSE (AIRPORT) ZONE
General Manager Strategy and Planning, DDI 941-8281 General Manager responsible: City Planning Unit Manager Officer responsible: Stephanie Styles, Boffa Miskell and Glenda Dixon, Senior Planner Author:
PURPOSE OF REPORT
1. This report seeks Council approval to publicly notify Proposed Plan Change 84 – Special Purpose (Airport) Zone, under Clause 5 of Schedule 1 to the Resource Management Act 1991. Copies of the Plan Change and Section 32 assessment are provided in Attachments 1 & 2.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
2. The purpose of Plan Change 84 is to provide a clear policy framework for the Special Purpose (Airport) Zone, and to provide clarity over what activities are anticipated to occur within the zone, beyond those provided for by the designation of the land for “Airport Purposes”.
3. There has been an ‘evolution’ of activities establishing on the Christchurch International Airport land in recent years and these changes have led to questions being asked regarding activities anticipated to occur on the land. Resource consent applications have been sought, and granted, for activities that have been considered to be beyond those provided for by the designation of the land for “Airport Purposes”. Through these consent processes it has been recognised that there is:
A significant policy gap in guiding development within the Special Purpose (Airport) Zone, with no specific objective or policy in the City Plan for the Zone. An enablement of activities under the designation, which activities have legitimately evolved over time to reflect a modern airport operation, but which are not clearly documented or aligned with the City Plan. A need to provide greater certainty for all parties (landowners, neighbours, Council staff, and the wider community) in how activities will be considered and processed in the Special Purpose (Airport) Zone in the future.
4. The airport plays a significant role in supporting the economic and social development of Christchurch, Canterbury and South Island. To remain viable and for it to be able to compete successfully with other airports, it is important that the airport is not unduly constrained in the way it uses its land resource. It is now considered appropriate that the City Plan likewise evolves, and moves from a position of requiring all business activity in the zone to be related to airport operations, to a wider perspective that will assist the airport in maintaining an economically healthy operation and support flow-on effects in terms of benefits to the City and region. The Plan Change however takes account of the need for this to be balanced against consideration of the airport’s role in the wider perspective of the City’s recovery, and against other City wide objectives, for example avoiding distributional effects (eg underutilised community infrastructure, duplication of resources, dispersed activity etc) on the Central Business District and Key Activity Centres (KAC’s).
5. As part of developing the plan change, expert technical input has been provided on a range of matters, including an economic assessment, a transport analysis, and assessment of wastewater network capacity. The economic assessment considers that: Provision for increased development (business/light industry) is appropriate in this location. Traveller’s accommodation activities are appropriate, with no requirement for a limitation on scale, as the airport will serve different accommodation submarkets (short term transit accommodation) than the Central Business District (CBD). There is a need to limit commercial/office activities to protect the CBD. Commercial and office activities should be directly associated with the airport operations and associated functions.
346 COUNCIL 3. 10. 2013
Planning Committee 4. 9. 2013
5 Cont’d There is a need to limit retail activities to protect the CBD and KAC’s, but convenience retail is acceptable with a cap to recognise the Spitfire Square consent. The economic report states that trade suppliers are acceptable in light industrial areas. However at this stage Council staff prefer to take a precautionary approach to destination retailing for the reasons outlined in paragraphs 30 and 31 below, with all large format retail being a non- complying activity, and trade suppliers not being provided for. ..
6. The transport analysis concludes that: Upgrades are required to some intersections to form roundabouts within or close to the Special Purpose (Airport) Zone e.g. Orchard-Wairakei Road. In addition, upgrades beyond those proposed as part of the New Zealand Transport Authority’s Western corridor improvements e.g. to the Harewood and Sawyers Arms Road roundabouts, would be of benefit. However, the intersection and network capacity issues on State Highway 1 would occur even with the current (more limited) land uses provided for in the Special Purpose (Airport) Zone (for example there are capacity issues through this corridor anyway), and there is little difference in effect between the various land use options examined for the Special Purpose (Airport) Zone review. Land use changes in the Special Purpose (Airport) Zone are unlikely to have a marked effect on road safety. There will be continued poor accessibility to the airport for cycling, walking and public transport. Given the forecast severe congestion at a number of locations on SH1, the report suggests that there is a need for a joint study of the longer-term options for maintaining a safe and efficient road network, whilst maintaining good access to the airport and minimising social and environmental impacts. (This has already been proposed elsewhere as the “Western Corridor study”.)
7. The key points from the assessment of the wastewater network are: Modelling is still being undertaken to refine understanding of the likely sewage flows and wastewater capacity situation. There could be potential capacity issues on both the Wairakei Collector sewer and Avonhead/ Riccarton Interceptor sewer lines, if land take-up at the airport is rapid. There are repairs and capacity improvements planned for both lines. Much of the southern part of the Special Purpose (Airport) Zone area will be switched to the Avonhead sewer line when development in the Dakota Park area reaches a certain point, with capacity improvements planned for the downstream Riccarton Interceptor and Riccarton Main Trunk sewer by about 2019. It is recognised that the Council needs to work with Christchurch International Airport Limited (CIAL) to avoid any pinch points in capacity resulting in limits on the scale of development that can be serviced in an environmentally acceptable manner.
8. Plan Change 84 proposes the following changes to the City Plan: Amendments to clarify the issues relating to the Airport. Amendments to the transport policies – outlining the role of the Airport as a strategic transport hub. Insertion of a new Objective and Policy and associated material in the Business section of the Plan. These provide a clear policy context for the zone and guide future development. Amendments to various provisions for the Special Purpose (Airport) Zone. These refine the description of the Airport and update the relevant rules, including those relating to activities anticipated within the zone. Insertion of an appendix to include an Airport Precinct Plan setting out two precinct areas for the zone (Airfield and Development precincts). Amendments to the relevant planning maps, linking these maps to the associated precinct plan.
9. This plan change is proceeding ahead of the forthcoming District Plan review, because it was significantly advanced before the Review was commenced.
347 COUNCIL 3. 10. 2013
Planning Committee 4. 9. 2013
5 Cont’d
FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS
10. Through this plan change, and subsequent development, there are sewer infrastructure implications as described in the background issues section. Increased capacity required downstream eg in the Riccarton Interceptor, will largely be funded within the existing Three Year Programme and in subsequent Long Term Plans.
11. If the Council resolves to notify the plan change, there are legal processes which must be followed in accordance with Schedule 1 of the Resource Management Act. This is a standard process that all plan changes must follow and if the processes are correctly followed, no particular financial risks are foreseen.
12. There will be costs arising at various stages of the plan change process relating to the preparation of officer reports and a hearing in response to submissions. The scale of costs will depend on the level of complexity of the submissions received. Should the Council resolve to proceed with the plan change, it will need to absorb all the processing costs.
Do the Recommendations of this Report Align with TYP budgets?
13. The recommendations and costs incurred align with the District Planning budget and work programme for 2013/14 as provided for under the Three Year Plan. Infrastructure implications would be worked through as part of the normal Long Term Plan and Annual Plan processes.
LEGAL CONSIDERATIONS
14. There is a legal process set out in the Resource Management Act which must be followed. It includes public notification of the Plan Change followed by submissions, reporting, hearings, decisions and possible appeals.
ALIGNMENT WITH LTCCP AND ACTIVITY MANAGEMENT PLANS
15. The processing of plan changes is provided for under the LTP and Activity Management Plans. Plan Change 84 is specifically identified as a project within the Council’s District Planning Work Programme.
ALIGNMENT WITH STRATEGIES
16. The plan change aligns with: Greater Christchurch Urban Development Strategy (UDS) and Proposed Change No. 1 to the Regional Policy Statement (RPS) concerning transport and infrastructure; and is consistent with the vision and goals of the Recovery Strategy for Greater Christchurch released by CERA in 2012.
CONSULTATION FULFILMENT
17. Consultation has been undertaken with all owners of land subject to the zone and immediately neighbouring landowners have been informed. This has involved a range of meetings, letters, and discussions. In addition, consultation has been undertaken with statutory agencies.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
It is recommended that the Council:
(a) Adopt Proposed Plan Change 84 – Special Purpose (Airport) Zone, for public notification pursuant to Schedule 1, Clause 5 of the Resource Management Act 1991.
(b) Adopt the related draft Section 32 Assessment, once finalised for the full Council meeting on 3 October 2013, for the purposes of public notification pursuant to Schedule 1 of the Resource Management Act 1991.
348 COUNCIL 3. 10. 2013
Planning Committee 4. 9. 2013
5 Cont’d
COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION
That the Staff Recommendation be adopted.
BACKGROUND (THE ISSUES)
18. Over recent years, there have been issues around how the provisions in the City Plan for the Special Purpose (Airport) Zone. The purpose of Plan Change 84 is to provide a clear policy framework for the zone and clarity over what activities are anticipated to occur within the zone, beyond those provided for by the designation of the land for “Airport Purposes”.
19. The airport land is subject to both a designation for “Airport Purposes” and the Special Purpose (Airport) zone, although the spatial extent of these differs. Most of the land subject to the airport designation is either owned by CIAL or leased by CIAL from the Canterbury Regional Council. The designation has been in place since the first Paparua District Scheme in 1974. It was rolled over at the proposed City Plan notification in 1995, and as a result of an amendment to the designation from CIAL as the designating authority, 100ha of land was added in 2002, for a freight/servicing area south of Avonhead Road, bringing the total designated area to some 700ha. The designation is not subject to any qualification in relation to its scope, nor is it subject to any conditions that limit activities or their location/scale within the designated area. Any activity that is in accordance with the designation is not subject to any other rules within the City Plan. For those activities that are not in accordance with the designation of the land, the Special Purpose (Airport) Zone rules apply. The Special Purpose (Airport) Zone for the land was established in the current District Plan at the time of the review and notified in 1995.
20. There has been an evolution of activities establishing on the Airport land and pressures for development that differs from that historically anticipated in and around an airport. Related to this are a range of case law, legal opinions and resource consent applications. Most recently a number of resource consent applications have been sought, and granted, for activities that have been considered to be beyond those provided for by the designation of the land for “Airport Purposes”. These include Recall, Landpower, Hewlett Packard, and Tokyo Foods. The Commissioner’s decisions on these applications have highlighted an absence of policy and a lack of clarity in the intentions for the zone.
21. Through these consent processes it has been recognised that there is: A significant policy gap in guiding development within the Special Purpose (Airport) Zone, with no specific objective or policy in the City Plan for the Zone. An enablement of activities under the designation that has legitimately evolved over time to reflect a modern airport operation, but which is not clearly documented or aligned with the City Plan. A need to provide greater certainty for all parties (landowners, neighbours, Council staff, and the wider community) in how activities will be considered and processed in the Special Purpose (Airport) Zone in the future.
22. There are also linkages between this plan change and other surrounding land use changes including the North West Review Area process, the MAIL site private plan change request, and significant changes to the adjacent State Highway 1 corridor. This wider context has been explicitly considered in the infrastructure assessments for PC 84, in accordance with the Land Use Recovery Plan (LURP) Action 24 (vi).
23. Options considered for this Plan Change include: Status Quo: Continue with existing situation of designation and zone, with limited policies and rules. Amend Designation (cannot be done by Council, as CIAL is the designating authority): Amend the designation to specify exactly what activities are included within the description of “Airport Purposes” and to what scale, and/or include conditions on the designation constraining the extent of activities within the designation.
349 COUNCIL 3. 10. 2013
Planning Committee 4. 9. 2013
5 Cont’d Remove the Designation (cannot be done by Council, as CIAL is the designating authority) and rely on Special Purpose (Airport) Zone provisions in the City Plan only. This would still require a plan change (see options below) to amend the zone provisions, as well as a statutory process to remove the designation. Plan Change A: Incorporate revised policy framework only.
Plan Change B: Incorporate revised policy framework and specify activities that are permitted/not permitted within the zone generally across the zone. Plan Change C: Incorporate revised policy framework and specify activities that are permitted/not permitted within the zone and divide the zone into precincts within which different outcomes and activities are anticipated. Review zoning – extend: Consider whether to extend the current zone to also include the other airport purposes designated area to the west of Pound Road. Review zoning – reduce: Consider reducing the area of the zone to not cover the aviation operations areas e.g. runways.
24. Having undertaken an analysis of these options (see section 32 report), the preferred option is Plan Change C, taking a holistic approach to reviewing the Special Purpose (Airport) Zone. This option would be effective and demonstrates a high level of efficiency, with advantages outweighing disadvantages.
Reports Received
25. As part of developing the plan change, technical input has been provided on a range of matters, this has been incorporated into the required statutory documents as attached (section 32 analysis including assessment of effects on the environment). Key technical aspects include an economic assessment, a transport analysis, and assessment of wastewater network capacity. CIAL also provided a range of reports as inputs into the Plan change, in relation to: Land Valuation (Colliers) Airport Competitiveness (Castalia) Role of a Modern Airport (Airbiz) Airport Managers Perspective (Don Huse) Servicing (CIAL internal) Contaminated land (Pattle Delamore) Seismic hazards (Tonkin and Taylor)
26. Scenarios considered as part of testing the Plan Change from a technical perspective included: Restriction to the current City Plan Special Purpose (Airport) Zone rules, with only airport related industrial activity permitted by the rules. Industrial restrictions on Dakota Park being lifted with the remaining Special Purpose (Airport) Zone area remaining under the current restrictions Dakota Park allowing for wider industrial uses, with an expanded Terminal precinct for limited office and retail. General industrial within the whole Special Purpose (Airport) Zone area, not just Dakota Park with the potential for other business activities including travellers accommodation.
27. In relation to the economic assessment, this provides support for a clear position on future land use in the zone, split between precincts to target appropriate activities in appropriate areas and target higher amenity requirements in the main visitor areas around the terminal. It also provides analysis supporting an approach of limiting the scale and nature of activities in each area, for example controls on the scale and character of retail development to protect Key Activity Centres and the City Centre.
28. The report considers that light industrial activity within the zone would not cause impacts on the wider city in terms of supply and demand or timing of development. Restriction to “light industry” is deemed appropriate to control effects.
350 COUNCIL 3. 10. 2013
Planning Committee 4. 9. 2013
5 Cont’d
29. In relation to retail, the report considers it appropriate to provide for unlimited activity within the terminal buildings and to provide for food and beverage outlets. It considers that speciality retail should not be provided for, but that convenience retail is appropriate without causing wider impacts on the CBD or Key Activity Centres. To achieve this it is proposed that the retail rule would permit retailing to recognise the extent of retail granted for the Spitfire Square consent, with retail beyond this a non-complying activity. A supermarket was granted consent as part of the Spitfire Square proposal and this is supported where limited in scale, with further expansion to be a discretionary activity to protect nearby suburban centres.
30. The economic assessment recommends that Large Format Retail (LFR) not be provided for at this stage, due to the potential for distributional effects, but recommends that trade suppliers be permitted as part of light industrial activity. The assessment states that trade based suppliers can be distinguished from other Large Format Retail in terms of its effects, so may be acceptable in the Special Purpose (Airport) Zone. The proposed zone would be similar to light industrial zones, which are typically the zones/locations of choice for these activities.
31 The economic assessment report considers that commercial/office activity should be permitted where it supports a permitted activity but not generally where it could impact on CBD recovery. Traveller’s accommodation is not considered to have an impact on the CBD, being marketed at different users and thus it is not recommended this be limited.
32. The transport analysis considers that changes in activity within the zone, and associated increases in traffic, would be unlikely to lead to a marked effect on road safety given planned upgrades. It also concludes that there would be continued poor accessibility for cycling, walking and public transport to the wider zone.
33. The report considers that the increase in traffic from changes to activities in the zone will create some issues for some SH1 intersections and general network capacity but notes that such issues would occur to a large extent, even without changes to the Special Purpose (Airport) Zone. There is little difference in effect between the various land use options examined for the Special Purpose (Airport) Zone review. There are a number of mitigation methods available, and it will remain important for the Christchurch City Council and NZTA to work closely on SH1 and network changes.
34. The sewerage assessment has identified that there are existing issues around the understanding of discharges from the zone, with discharge levels being significantly over estimated in current models because of past inaccurate calibration of CIAL flows at the entry point into the City sewerage system. At this stage it would appear that there is capacity in the Wairakei Collector sewer line for development in the zone to increase, but in the future much of this discharge will need to be moved to the Avonhead sewer line leading to the Riccarton Interceptor and Riccarton Trunk sewer. Council’s draft Long Term Plan includes planned network upgrade works to the Avonhead line, programmed to occur around 2019. It is expected that this will provide sufficient capacity to cater for all future development within the Special Purpose Airport zone enabled by this Plan Change. It will be necessary to ensure that the design and budgeting for the upgrade work on this sewer line anticipates the potential development within the zone. Modelling is still being undertaken to further clarify the capacity of the Wairakei line, and therefore to more clearly identify when additional sewage from the southern end of the airport will need to be transferred to the Avonhead sewer., A staging rule has been included in the plan change to limit development at the airport to an additional 31 ha of building development or land use (that additional land area which it is currently understood can be serviced by the Wairakei line), until upgraded capacity is available in the Avonhead line.
Policy Matters
35. The current definition of trade suppliers in the City Plan means a business engaged in sales to businesses and institutional customers and may also include sales to the general public, The High Court has noted in a decision on trade suppliers at Ferrymead, that a definition that excluded all sales to the general public would be unworkable. Council officers are therefore concerned that providing for trade suppliers at the airport could enable ‘destination retailing’,
351 COUNCIL 3. 10. 2013
Planning Committee 4. 9. 2013
5 Cont’d which would, in the view of officers, represent a policy shift, and go beyond what has been agreed in recent years in discussions with CIAL as part of stakeholder consultation. CIAL has previously sought to be identified as a Key Activity Centre (key commercial/business centre) in the Regional Policy Statement, a position not supported by the UDS partners, although it was agreed that the airport should be included within the Urban Limit (now known as the Boundary of Infrastructure Supported Area). The airport is now described in the RPS as “strategic infrastructure” and a “significant regional transport hub”.
36. The CCC staff position is that a precautionary approach should still be taken to trade based suppliers at the airport. This is for several reasons, including the further work now being undertaken on the City’s commercial strategy and provision for large format retailing generally in the District Plan review. More specifically, Chapter 6 of the Regional Policy Statement notes in Policy 6.3.6 that new retailing outside of centres, could in some circumstances result in adverse urban form effects. As noted above in paragraph 22, the Special Purpose (Airport) Zone needs to be seen in the context of all of the land use changes occurring in this part of the City. If trade based suppliers were allowed at the airport, it would be difficult to resist similar large format activity also being provided for on the MAIL site and within the other business zones (Areas 1, 2 & 3) in the North West Review Area.
37, With regard to trade suppliers, while individual trade suppliers may not result in more than minor traffic effects, the transport advice is that it is important to maintain the overall efficiency of the strategic transport network, as land use change takes place in the wider area.
Outcome
38. Based on the technical evidence gathered, a statutory review and best practice planning analysis, Plan Change 84 proposes the following changes to the City Plan:
Amendments to clarify the issues relating to the Airport. Amendments to the transport policies – outlining the role of the Airport as a strategic transport hub. Insertion of a new Objective and Policy and associated material in the Business section of the Plan. These provide a clear policy context for the zone and guide future development. Amendments to various provisions for the Special Purpose (Airport) Zone. These refine the description of the Airport and update the relevant rules, including those relating to activities anticipated within the zone. Insertion of an appendix to include an Airport Precinct Plan setting out two precinct areas for the zone (Airfield and Development precincts). Amendments to the relevant planning maps, linking these maps to the associated precinct plan.
THE OPTIONS
39. The principal options are either:
(a) Approve this Plan Change for notification. The plan change resolves an identified problem in an effective and efficient manner; or (b) Do nothing and continue to process a number of resource consents for each future development. This would mean development is not under-pinned with clear objectives or policies, nor is it coordinated or clear in relation to future land uses.
THE PREFERRED OPTION
40. Approve this Plan Change for public notification.
352 COUNCIL 3. 10. 2013
Planning Committee 4. 9. 2013
6. CENTRAL CITY TRAM - START-UP PROPOSALS
General Manager Strategy and Planning, DDI 941 8281 General Manager responsible: Urban Design and Regeneration Unit Manager Officer responsible: Dave Hinman, Principal Advisor Central City and Projects Author:
PURPOSE OF REPORT
1. The purpose of this report is to respond to the Council’s Three Year Plan decision requesting the investigation of a proposal to partially re-open the existing tram loop and to complete and open the first part of the tram extension, as far as City Mall (Re:start).
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
2. At its 22 November 2012 meeting the Council confirmed its intention to see the current tram loop reinstated and back in operation as soon as practicable. It also agreed to the installation of the point work in Cathedral Square and on the corner of Worcester Boulevard and Oxford Terrace joining the existing line to the partially completed extension. The reinstatement was subject to agreement with the Council’s insurers, with the point work to be funded from tram money included in the 2012-13 Annual Plan. Consideration of progressing the tram extension was deferred at that stage because of too many uncertainties (e.g. on-going demolitions programme and, not knowing the final form of the Christchurch Central Recovery Plan, including some of the anchor projects in the vicinity of or affecting the tram route, such as the Innovation Precinct)
3. Since that time the insurance negotiations have been successfully concluded to the point where contracts are now in place for the repair and replacement of tram track and overhead infrastructure (poles, wires etc). In addition the installation of the point work at the corner of Worcester Boulevard and Oxford Terrace is almost completed with work about to begin on the point work behind the cathedral..
4. Tram shed repairs have just started. The tram operator, Christchurch Tramway Ltd (CTL), in conjunction with the owners of the trams (the Heritage Tramways Trust (HTT)) is undertaking the necessary repairs and refurbishment of the trams and is targeting reopening at least part of the existing line in October this year.
5 The initial route when the Tram re-opens will exclude Rolleston Avenue and Armagh Street because of issues relating to the Armagh Street bridge and some buildings in Armagh Street and the northern end of New Regent Street which have yet to be made safe or demolished.
6 Updating the tram licence and lease agreements with the Council and the Rail Safety Licence with the New Zealand Transport Agency (NZTA) is also proceeding.
7. As the project had been on hold since the earthquakes, the Council’s draft Three Year Plan did not include previously allocated tram project funding from the 2009-19 LTCCP which would have completed Stage 1 (to Tuam Street) and built Stage 2 (to CPIT). It did show a lesser amount ($902K) in 2015/16, but as “Unfunded”. Of 22 Three Year Plan comments received relating to the tram all but one were in support of its early resumption and/or argued for the reinstatement of funding to allow at least part of the first stage of the extension e.g. as far as City Mall/Re:start, to be completed and opened.
8. Bringing the tram into City Mall would give a positive and legible link with the re-opened New Regent Street, and also the current tourist hub focussed at the Museum and Botanic Gardens. With a number of hotels open and opening in the New Regent Street to Cathedral Square locality, the tram would not only be an attraction for their guests to ride but also a means of getting them into the retail core. The tram would help add life and vitality to the retail core.
9. The Stage 1 extension infrastructure from Worcester Boulevard through to High Street and beyond is now complete apart from the overhead wiring and provision of tram traffic signals at
353 COUNCIL 3. 10. 2013
Planning Committee 4. 9. 2013
6 Cont’d
Oxford/Hereford and Cashel/Colombo Streets. Other than for Oxford Terrace the tram poles are mostly in place already, so the majority of the costs have already been expended.
10. Strong support has been expressed for expediting the opening of this part of the extension. This support has come from the re-established Central Business District community, including owners and tenants in the New Regent Street-Cathedral Junction area, the Central City Business Association, other significant land owners en route and in Re:start (e.g. Antony Gough and Ballantynes) as well as Christchurch & Canterbury Tourism, the tram operator and the tram supplier. Since the Three Year Plan consultation and hearings, High Street owners and tenants re-establishing in High Street, near Manchester Street, have also expressed support and have now requested that the line to be opened extend into High Street to the east, as far as the Manchester/Lichfield intersection.
11. In response to the consideration of comments on the Three Year Plan in relation to the central city tram, the Council at its meeting on 28 June 2013 resolved to
“(a) Investigate the feasibility, timing and costs of undertaking work to create non-loop tram line/s for business continuity purposes (New Regent – Worcester – Museum and New Regent, Oxford, Cashel, High Street Corner) and report back to the Council no later than September 2013. (b) Agree to include funding in the Three Year Plan for the partial completion of Stage 1 of the tram extension as above into Year One of the Three Year Plan ($830,000) to enable the interim tram solution to be implemented. (c) Note that this will take into account the Central City Transport Plan.”
12. The following diagram illustrates the proposal as requested in the Council resolution, with the further extension into High Street shown as a dotted line.
Partial opening of existing loop (New Regent Street to Rolleston Avenue via Cathedral Square)
13. Key infrastructure issues include track condition and availability, restoration of overhead poles and cables and timing of repairs to the tram shed and access to it.
14. The track from the north end of New Regent Street through to Rolleston Avenue via Cathedral Junction and Worcester Boulevard is mostly in very good condition with only minor repairs needed, including to the Worcester Bridge. These repairs are close to being completed. Some overhead poles and cables have been damaged or removed but this is covered by insurance
354 COUNCIL 3. 10. 2013
Planning Committee 4. 9. 2013
6 Cont’d
and a contract with Connetics Ltd is in place for reinstatement and is scheduled for completion during September.
15. Cathedral Junction, between Gloucester and Worcester Streets, which included an internal tram station and shop, has been completely refurbished and recent announcements confirm that the Junction will be open for an event on 4 October 2013.
16. Safe clearance distances from damaged buildings, temporary fencing and other structures have been negotiated with affected parties. This includes discussion with the Trustees for the Christ Church Cathedral for the removal of the containers obstructing the track on the north side of the Cathedral. Repair works currently being undertaken at the Arts Centre Clock Tower and Great Hall, will require a temporary tram stop closer to Rolleston Avenue and discussions for this are in hand. In New Regent Street the tram terminus will initially be short of Armagh Street because of fencing which remains across the track in respect of some currently unsafe buildings. This will not be a major issue for the tram until Armagh Street is ready for tram operation.
17. Tram shed repairs to make the building safe are underway and this will allow CTL full access to the building. Other general repairs and refurbishment will follow. An issue remains with access to Tramway Lane because of make safe work yet to be done to the adjacent former State Insurance Building, and this is being actively pursued.
18. Operational issues arising from the interim “there and back” running proposed include the need for traffic management where the tram will be running in the reverse direction to other traffic on its return from Rolleston Avenue to New Regent Street (e.g. in parts of Worcester Boulevard and in Cathedral Square). As this is for a limited period until the complete loop can be re- opened it is considered that this can be most effectively authorised through a Temporary Traffic Management Plan and appropriate provision in the tram operator’s Safety System required for the Rail Service Licence..
19. Where necessary, vehicle separation can be achieved by the use of temporary devices and signage. There is also a need to provide traffic light control at Montreal Street and Cambridge Terrace for the tram returning along the Boulevard from Rolleston Avenue to Cathedral Square, but this is readily achieved as the tram and pedestrian phases are the same.
20. In Worcester Street east of the Worcester Bridge and in Cathedral Square) there will be a temporary one way provision east bound. No issues are anticipated in Worcester Street east of Cathedral Square as the tram is on the side of the road, effectively in the footpath, or in Cathedral Junction. In New Regent Street there will be a need to enforce the New Regent Street pedestrian mall restrictions for motor vehicle access, noting that at this stage no vehicles can enter or exit at the Armagh Street end.
21. CTL advises that the trams can easily be modified to operate from both ends and that this work is already being undertaken.
22. An October partial opening of the existing loop as proposed appears to be achievable. The opening and/or operation of the tram could coincide with heritage event celebrations planned for that month (18-20 October) and the 150th Anniversary of the opening of New Zealand’s first railway (Christchurch to Ferrymead) at Labour Weekend.
23. It is also intended that the balance of the loop (i.e. Rolleston Avenue and Armagh Street) be repaired and re-opened as soon as it is practical to do so, expected to be during the first half of 2014. Once this is achieved, two way tram running in Worcester Boulevard, west of Oxford Terrace, would no longer be needed.
Partial opening of extension (Oxford-Cashel-High)
24. Key infrastructure issues include track condition and availability, including co-ordination with other key stakeholders, extent of the opening (i.e. Cashel/High corner or along High to
355 COUNCIL 3. 10. 2013
Planning Committee 4. 9. 2013
6 Cont’d Manchester), completion of the installation of tram poles and overhead contact wire, tram signals and associated equipment and the provision of tram stops.
25. This new track has not been used other than for the short term horse tram operation in City Mall prior to Christmas in 2010 and 2011. It is in excellent condition with virtually no earthquake damage. The newly laid point work at the former “Clarendon” corner joins the extension to the existing loop.
26. Some tram pole reinstatement/repair will be needed in Cashel and High Streets (earthquake/demolition damage) and as part of the overhead wire installation, outreach arms to carry the contact wire need to be attached to the existing poles, currently in use only for lighting. In Oxford Terrace approximately every second existing light pole will need to be replaced with a (stronger) tram pole and will also have outreach arms attached prior to the running of the overhead contact wire.
27. As the Oxford Terrace portion of the route is within the Avon River Precinct, an anchor project which CERA is leading, there has been on-going consultation with the Avon River Precinct project team concerning both design issues and the timing of tram construction and opening. The construction of this part of the Precinct, south from Armagh Street, is expected to commence in February-March 2014. This will follow on from the SCIRT underground services replacement programme which includes a new sewer pipe line under the wide footpath east of the tram tracks, plus re-lining of the existing sewer in Cashel Mall.
28. There is a strong desire from central city business and CTL for tram operations to commence on the extension during the 2013-14 summer tourist season but this has to be balanced against the need for working space and efficiencies for underground and surface reconstruction and also needs to acknowledge adjacent construction activities. The Avon River Project Team has given an undertaking to have the area in the vicinity of the Antony Gough development (between Hereford and Cashel Streets) fully completed in time for their projected opening in November 2014. Discussions are continuing to determine whether an earlier tram opening is achievable.
29. As in the case of the partial opening of the existing tram loop, operational issues arising from the interim “there and back” running proposed for the extension include the need for careful traffic management where the tram is running in the reverse direction to other traffic. This is likely in parts of Oxford Terrace, depending on the final Avon River Precinct design, as well as in Cashel Mall (outside of “no vehicles” hours) and High Street. As this is for a limited period until the extension is completed, it is considered that again this can be most effectively authorised through a Temporary Traffic Management Plan and appropriate provision in the CTL Safety System. The Hereford/ Oxford intersection upgrade that was being undertaken as part of the pre-earthquake Hereford Street refurbishment programme has not been completed, but its final design, including reviewing the need for traffic signals, is to be determined as part of the Avon River Precinct Project. Costs to complete the work have been included in the tram budget. There is also a need to provide traffic light control at Colombo/Cashel Street for the tram in both directions.
30. The proposal for “there and back” operation will be subject to both a road safety audit and meeting the requirements of NZTA with regard to rail safety.
31. One question that does arise is how far to extend the tram running at this stage? Business activity is now getting under way at the Manchester/ High/ Lichfield corner (219-225 High Street - Stranges building redevelopment and Bonningtons (heritage building) restoration and occupation). If funds allow, a staged extension to this locality would be a further positive reinforcement of the linkage between retail and tourist hubs and attractions. The tramway in this part of High Street is in double track but only the northern track (east bound) would be accessible until either the whole of Stage 1 is completed (Lichfield/ Poplar/ Tuam/ High loop) or a temporary facility such as a “crossover” is installed to transfer trams to the southern (westbound) track.
356 COUNCIL 3. 10. 2013
Planning Committee 4. 9. 2013
6 Cont’d
32. This idea was suggested at the Three Year Plan hearing and is currently being costed. At present there is also an unsafe building on the south side of High Street (no. 235) with fencing of the “fall zone” obstructing the tram tracks. This would require resolution before the trams could proceed past this site. Cost estimates obtained indicate that the present budget would allow for the single line extension in High Street to Manchester Street, but only if the point work installation behind the Cathedral is deferred and some temporary wooden poles are used, particularly at the High-Cashel intersection, because previously planned building attachments are not currently available. However if no work is done on the Cathedral points at this stage, this would mean long operational delays at a later date. The priority therefore should be to install the point castings, joining rails and track foundation in the vicinity of the existing line now, thus minimising future disruption. Any surplus budget once the other elements are completed would then be put to extending the overhead construction in High Street.
33. There is a need for flexibility in the location of tram stops on the new extension given the ever- changing situation as redevelopment proceeds. Initial stops are proposed at the Oxford Terrace-Cashel Street corner, opposite Ballantynes just short of Colombo Street and at the temporary terminus (High Street). Shelters are not currently envisaged at any of these locations.
Future stages of the Tram Extension
34. While the main focus of this report is about the partial reopening of the existing tram loop and the first part of Stage 1 of the extension into City Mall and High Street it is also appropriate to consider the likely future stages of completion of the overall tram extension project, yet to have funding reinstated.
35. Looking firstly at the return track to Cathedral Square via High and Colombo Streets, this will be dependent on either the construction of a crossover as described in para 22 above or the completion of Stage 1 to Poplar and Tuam Streets. For the crossover option, other than the crossover itself, the only additional track work required would be the completion of the point work and curve behind the Cathedral. Overhead poles are already installed in High Street Mall but are needed in Colombo Street and Cathedral Square, and the outreach arms, support wires, and contact wire need to be purchased and erected. Point work already in stock for the future Stage 2 may be able to be used for the temporary crossover. With an all up cost estimated to be approximately $600,000, this may be the most cost effective option for completing an extension loop in the medium term. The matter could be considered in the 2014/15 Annual Plan.
36. The timing for the completion of the tram extension beyond Manchester Street remains unclear. There are a number of adjacent building issues to be resolved and it is also affected by the Innovation Precinct as set out in the Christchurch Central Recovery Plan, and the proposed one waying of Tuam Street.. A “Spatial Framework” is currently under preparation for the Innovation Precinct by consultants to the Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment (MBIE) and is due to be completed shortly. Current costings have not yet been updated for the completion of track work and the provision of poles and overhead wiring for any of the work beyond Manchester Street including Stage 2 to CPIT. This will be a matter for the incoming Council to further consider.
FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS
Do the Recommendations of this Report Align with 2013-16 Christchurch City Three Year Plan budgets?
37. Yes. There are several sources of funding for this project. The necessary repairs to the existing tram infrastructure will be funded from insurance claims, with any shortfall from pole replacements to be met from the Building and Infrastructure Improvements Allowance (as per Council decision of 22 November 2012). The new point work installation and the first stage of Stage 1 of the extension is being funded from the remaining 2012-13 Tram budgets ($748,000)
357 COUNCIL 3. 10. 2013
Planning Committee 4. 9. 2013
6 Cont’d and the approved Three Year Plan allocation of ($830,000). Tram shed repairs are largely covered by insurance with any shortfall also able to be funded from these budgets. Total budget available is $1,578,000.
38. Estimated costs for the repair and reinstatement work described earlier in the report are:
$431,000 Completion of Point work Installation - (Worcester/Oxford) $180,000 Installation of Cathedral point work castings and rails (but not curve to south side of Cathedral) $655,000 Installation of poles, outreach arms, overhead wires (Oxford Terrace, Cashel Mall, to High Street, tram shed shortfall $274,000 Intersection improvements, temporary traffic management installation, safety audit etc. $38,000 Available for overhead construction in High Street towards Manchester Street. (Note: This amount may change, dependent on actual costs of earlier work)
Total: $1,578,000
LEGAL CONSIDERATIONS
Have you considered the legal implications of the issue under consideration?
39. Yes. This report is about the funding of repairs to the existing tram loop and stage 1 of the extension which are the subject of previous resolutions of the Council.
40. As noted above Temporary Traffic Management Plans will be prepared to authorise the interim “there and back” operation proposed for both the existing loop and the extension. Safety issues are also being addressed with NZTA pursuant to the requirements for rail service licences under the Railways Act 2005.
ALIGNMENT WITH LTCCP AND ACTIVITY MANAGEMENT PLANS
Do the recommendations of this report support a level of service or project in the 2013-16 TYP?
41. Yes, existing operation and tram extension but the timing of completing the extension has been affected by earthquakes.
ALIGNMENT WITH STRATEGIES
Do the recommendations align with the Council’s strategies?
42. Yes - Christchurch Central Recovery Plan, Central City Revitalisation Strategy, Tourism Strategy. The “Central City Transport Plan” noted in the Council’s TYP resolution is part of the Accessible City Chapter of the Christchurch Central Recovery Plan, not yet finally approved by the Minister of Earthquake Recovery. The recommendations are consistent with the current draft.
CONSULTATION FULFILMENT
43. The Three Year Plan decision of the Council to which this report relates resulted from public consultation on the plan which as notified had deferred all further work on the tram extension. The tram extension project had undergone a detailed process of consultation as it evolved over a period of years leading up to its sign off by the Council, including funding, at the 2009-19 LTCCP meeting. The Council’s response to the TYP consultation was to reinstate funding for continuing extension work and to seek information about the feasibility of the partial opening of both the existing loop and the extension, which is what this report provides.
358 COUNCIL 3. 10. 2013
Planning Committee 4. 9. 2013
6 Cont’d
44. There has been on-going consultation with stakeholders, including CERA, SCIRT, directly affected property owners and the tram operator and supplier and this will continue as the project progresses.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
It is recommended that the Council:
(a) Confirm the proposal for partial reopening, as soon as possible, of the existing tram loop (New Regent Street to Rolleston Avenue) via Worcester Boulevard and Cathedral Square.
(b) Confirm the completion and partial opening of the extension along Oxford Terrace, Cashel Street, and, into High Street as far as Manchester Street and requests staff to report back to the Council if the extension cannot be completed to this point within the current tram budget of $1.578M.
(c) Request staff to investigate the construction of a “crossover” between the double tracks in High Street, near Manchester Street, which would allow trams to return to Cathedral Square from that point, via High and Colombo Streets, as the next stage of opening the extension.
COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION
That the Staff Recommendation be adopted.
BACKGROUND (THE ISSUES)
45. Post earthquake tram operation and development was reported to the Committee and Council last October/November, where the condition of the tramway was described, and the desirability of getting repairs under way and the tram (existing loop) back in operation were traversed. On 22 November 2012 it was resolved that the Council
(a) Confirm its intention to see the current tram loop reinstated and back in operation as soon as practicable. (b) Subject to the outcome of ongoing discussions with CCDU on cordon reduction, approve the works to be undertaken including the installation of the tram extension point work behind the Christ Church Cathedral and at the corner of Worcester Boulevard and Oxford Terrace, to avoid future disruption to the tram service. (c) Confirm its preference for new steel poles to support the overhead wires where there are no longer any buildings to attach these to in place, or planned in the immediate future, subject to funding being agreed with the insurers and any balance being funded from the Building and Infrastructure Improvements Allowance. (d) Confirm that reinstatement works be undertaken once the insurance position on these works has been confirmed. (e) Agree that any works undertaken by Council be subject to Christchurch Tramway Limited agreeing that completion of the above repair works by the Council shall be without prejudice to the Council’s rights and powers under the Tramway Licence Agreement and Heads of Agreement and related documents entered into by the Council and that company.
46. Since that time work has progressed, in accordance with the Council resolution, to the stage where the partial reopening of the tramway is now scheduled for next month (October)
47. The Councils’ draft Three Year Plan (TYP) deferred all further tram extension works but as a result of comments made, $830,000 has been reinstated in year one (2013-4). The submissions suggested a partial opening of both the existing loop and the extension, as least as far as Cashel Mall to service the Re:start retail hub and stimulate business by linking this area to New Regent Street and the tourist hub at the Museum and Botanic Gardens. The Council decision in addition to reinstating funding sought an investigation of the feasibility,
359 COUNCIL 3. 10. 2013
Planning Committee 4. 9. 2013
6 Cont’d timing and costs of undertaking work to create non-loop tram line/s for business continuity purposes (New Regent – Worcester – Museum and New Regent, Oxford, Cashel, High Street Corner) with a report back to the Council no later than September 2013.
48. The case for expediting both the re-opening of part of the existing loop and the extension into the retail core (Cashel Mall) was well summarised in the comments on the draft TYP by Antony Gough.
49. “It is essential that the tram become operational as soon as possible, even if it is only a partial route. In terms of access within specific areas of the CBD, it is critically important that the tram becomes operational. There are still one million visitors passing through the Botanical Gardens each year. This coupled with the success of Re:Start, the re-opening of New Regent Street & Cathedral Junction, and the re-opening of several hotels in the area between Re:Start, Ballantynes and New Regent Street means that effective access and linkage between these areas is vital.
50. The reinstatement of the tram would provide a direct route from the Botanical Gardens through to New Regent Street and through Cathedral Square, providing a critical connection point and loop between these areas. We also understand it would be possible to have a side loop from Worcester Boulevard through to Cashel Mall along Oxford Terrace which would provide access and linkage to Re:Start & Ballantynes as well as to the other areas mentioned above.
51. For both the visitors to Christchurch and the residents of Christchurch this is extremely important as it would only strengthen & continue to support the inner city as a destination (as Re:Start & the re-opening of Ballantynes has done) ensuring that increasing numbers still frequent the inner city through the rebuild process.
52. The importance of the re-instatement of the tram is not just important from an access and transport view but also has a significant importance in terms of what the running of the tram represents to the people of Christchurch; it signals that the inner city is well and truly coming back to life.”
Future Stages of the Extension
53. The ability to use the return track to Cathedral Square via High and Colombo Streets is dependent on either the construction of a crossover between the double tracks in High Street or the completion of Stage 1 to Poplar and Tuam Streets, as well as committing the necessary funding. The option of installing a turn from Cashel into High, previously found to be unworkable has been further investigated, but would still be very marginal from both a design and safety perspective unless some new building frontages were able to be set back. It would be an expensive option. For the crossover option, other than the crossover itself, the only additional track work required would be the completion of point work and curve behind the Cathedral (if not able to be funded from the current budget). Overhead poles are already installed in High Street Mall but are needed in Colombo Street and Cathedral Square, and the outreach arms, support wires, and contact wire need to be purchased and erected. Point work already in stock for the future Stage 2 may be able to be used for the temporary crossover and with an all up cost estimated to be approximately $600,000, this may be the most cost effective option for completing an extension loop in the medium term. At present there is insufficient funding for this work.
54. The timing of the completion of the tram extension beyond Manchester Street remains unclear at this stage both because of funding issues and because it is affected by the Innovation Precinct as set out in the Christchurch Central Recovery Plan. A Spatial Framework is currently under preparation for the Innovation Precinct by consultants to the Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment (MBIE) and is due to be completed shortly. It may be possible to provide an update when this tram report is considered at the September Planning Committee meeting. There are also some adjacent building issues to be resolved, including safety issues with Majestic House, Lichfield Street and facade propping affecting the tram tracks (McKenzie and Willis, Tuam Street and Victoria Black, 201-3 high Street). Current costings have not yet been updated for the completion of track work and the provision of poles and overhead wiring
360 COUNCIL 3. 10. 2013
Planning Committee 4. 9. 2013
6 Cont’d for any of the work beyond Manchester Street including Stage 2 to CPIT. Stage 1 track work includes a small section at the northern end of Poplar Street plus a longer section from Poplar Street into High Street via Tuam (in front of McKenzie & Willis) and C1 (Alice’s). Some increase in cost is to be expected as there are a number of instances where overhead wiring, previously to be suspended from adjacent buildings, will now require additional poles because the buildings have gone. While planning for the completion of the circuit should continue, funding may need to wait until the next Long Term Plan.
THE OBJECTIVES
55. The objectives for the tram are to get it back into operation as soon as possible so it can play its part in the rebuild of the central city. Having this city icon running once more will give a boost of confidence to the local visitor industry, will help re-connect the central city visitor accommodation and attractions as they reopen and with the partial opening of the extension into the Re:Start retail core assist the central city retail economy by providing a strong, legible link to the reviving New Regent Street locality and the Visitor hub now focussed around the Canterbury Museum and the Botanic Gardens. The tram will provide a unique experience for visitors and locals which includes seeing the central city rebuild in action. the options
Option 1
56. Proceed as soon as possible with staged opening of existing loop and first part of extension (to Cashel-High vicinity), also staged if necessary. Continue to plan and work towards full loop and extension completion and operation.
Option 2
57. Continue to focus on getting the full loop of the existing line repaired before commencing tram operation. Work towards opening all of the stage 1 extension (i.e. no “there and back” interim staging)
Option 3
58. Defer re-opening existing tram loop and extension until more of central city rebuild is completed.
THE PREFERRED OPTION
59. Option 1.
7. AGREEMENT RE BUILDING CONSENT AUTHORITY SERVICES TO THE CHATHAM ISLANDS
General Manager Regulation & Democracy Services, DDI 941-8462 General Manager responsible: Unit Manager Resource Consents and Policy Approvals Officer responsible: Steve McCarthy, Unit Manager Resource Consents and Policy Approvals Author:
PURPOSE OF REPORT
1. This report updates the Council on the agreement with the Chatham Islands District Council (CIDC) for the provision of Building Consent Authority (BCA) services to the Chatham Islands, and seeks agreement from the Council on a clause of the agreement, and for the services to continue to be provided.
361 COUNCIL 3. 10. 2013
Planning Committee 4. 9. 2013
7 Cont’d
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
2. The Chatham Islands is a part of New Zealand located 500 km’s east of the South Island. It has a population of approximately 600 and comprises a number of islands with the largest being Chatham Island, Pitt and East Islands. The Chatham’s depend on primary industry, fishing and livestock along with tourism.
3. In 2009, CIDC and the then Department of Building and Housing approached Christchurch City Council to undertake CIDC’s BCA responsibilities. The Building Act 2004 required building consents to be issued and administered by a registered BCA. Given the isolated nature and limited number of consents, it was not economic for CIDC to deliver that service.
4. The Building Act provides that one territorial authority can transfer its functions and powers under the Building Act to another territorial authority. At its meeting on 26 March 2009 this Council agreed to accept such a transfer of functions and powers from CIDC so this Council became legally responsible for the processing of building consents and the subsequent inspections on the Chatham Islands.
5. The Building Act required the 2 councils to enter into an agreement as to the terms and conditions of the transfer. A contract to undertake the work was established following both Councils’ approval – on the basis that the service would be funded on a user pays basis. There are approximately 20 consents per annum issued for the Chatham’s, with the majority being for new houses, farm implement sheds and a growing number being for solar water heaters. The CIC (Chatham Island Council) presently funds the installation of solar water heaters and recovers the money through a levy on rates.
6. Since the commencement of the contract, there have been 139 building consents issued and/or inspected. Some consents were part way through when the transfer took place.
7 Consents are processed at Christchurch City Council and then released to the applicants on the Island, by CIDC. A Christchurch City Council Inspector travels to the Island every three to four months to conduct inspections. In between these visits, a local contractor takes photos at each stage of construction and these are electronically sent to Christchurch where they are reviewed by Council Inspectors. The time taken by inspectors on CIDC consents is not significant compared to the number of consents the council processes in its own district.
8. The Contract was reviewed and an Annual Report written in 2012 for Owen Pickles, Chief Executive, CIDC. The feedback was that the CIDC and the locals were happy with the way the contract was being managed and wanted it to be continued. The Christchurch Building Consent Officers and Building Inspectors were providing a good level of technical advice and help which was leading to an increasing number of consents and less evidence of non consented work.
9. This is an area of high wind, high salt spray and a focus is on ensuring durability of the building works. The material required to be used is different because of wind and corrosion of buildings on the island. Accordingly, the building officers working over there are seen as a source of technical information and have markedly improved the quality of the building work on the island.
10. With Christchurch City Council having lost its IANZ accreditation, CIDC queried whether the Council can continue to carry out BCA functions for CIDC. The loss of accreditation from IANZ did not mean the Council’s status as a BCA has been revoked. Legal advice to the Council is that if both Council’s agree on the interpretation of one of the clauses in the transfer agreement, the Council can continue to provide BCA services to CIDC.
11. The Crown manager is in agreement with this happening.
12. CIDC resolved at its meeting on 15 August 2013:
362 COUNCIL 3. 10. 2013
Planning Committee 4. 9. 2013
7 Cont’d
That Council agrees that clause 3.3 of the transfer agreement does not apply in this instance, on the basis that although Christchurch City Council has had its accreditation revoked, the Council has not lost its BCA registration
Notes that Christchurch City Council will use its best endeavours to regain accreditation (in alignment with clause 3.2 of the transfer agreement)
13. The Council should now also confirm that it agrees with this interpretation of the agreement, and that it will continue to provide services to CIDC in accordance with the agreement.
FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS
14. There is no cost to Christchurch City Council in providing the BCA services to CIDC. The service provided is funded entirely by user charges. The fees are the same as paid in Christchurch and are charged to CIDC, who on-charge the applicants before releasing the consent. Requests for inspections are conveyed to Christchurch via the CIDC, which is based in Waitangi, the main township on the Island.
15. The contract provides that CIDC maintain their own insurance in the event that there was a claim arising from building works. The CIDC would meet the excess cost of any claim. Accordingly there is no financial risk to Christchurch City Council.
Do the Recommendations of this Report Align with 2009-19 LTCCP budgets?
16. Yes. The cost of producing consents and undertaking inspections is entirely funded by fees charged.
LEGAL CONSIDERATIONS
17. The Building Act 2004 provides for the transfer of BCA functions to another Territorial Authority. The transfer was confirmed by resolution of the respective Councils in 2009.
18. The transfer agreement with CIDC provides that “if CCC loses its accreditation and registration this agreement is immediately at an end” (clause 3.3). It appears the Council has to lose both its accreditation and registration before the agreement is ended.
19. Although a Council can lose its accreditation (s254), the consequences of losing accreditation, for a Council BCA, do not lead to losing its registration (s197).
20. It may be that for clause 3.3 of the transfer agreement to ever have an effect it should be read so that it only applies to the loss of accreditation. If that was the case, then the agreement would now be at an end. However, the plain wording of clause 3.3 does not suggest this is the correct interpretation.
21. As the Council is able to continue granting consents, and carry out BCA functions for itself, it seems it should also keep doing so for CIDC. If the two Councils reach agreement that this is how clause 3.3 of the contract should be interpreted, then it will remain in effect.
22. CIDC has agreed by resolution that clauses 3.3 does not apply in the current situation. The Council should now do the same.
Have you considered the legal implications of the issue under consideration?
23. There are no other legal implications at this stage.
363 COUNCIL 3. 10. 2013
Planning Committee 4. 9. 2013
7 Cont’d
ALIGNMENT WITH LTCCP AND ACTIVITY MANAGEMENT PLANS
24. The service provided is in line with the BCA targets and measures in the Activity Management Plan.
Do the recommendations of this report support a level of service or project in the 2009-19 LTCCP?
25. Yes
ALIGNMENT WITH STRATEGIES
26. N/A
Do the recommendations align with the Council’s strategies?
27. Yes
CONSULTATION FULFILMENT
28. The CIDC has appointed an Officer to act as an intermediary (when required) between applicants and Christchurch City Council BCA. This person is the first point of contact when Officers visit the Island. Building files are sent to CIDC when the jobs are completed and Code Compliance Certificates issued. This maintains a readily available record of works completed. In a recent innovation, all files are now being scanned or processed electronically and transferred to CIC which now has an EDMS (Electronic Document System).
29. At the conclusion of each visit, a report is made to Owen Pickles, Chief Executive, CIC on the status of individual consents and follow up actions agreed, if required.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
It is recommended that the Council:
(a) Receive this report
(b) Agree that clause 3.3 of the Transfer Agreement does not apply in this instance, on the basis that although Christchurch City Council has had its accreditation revoked, the Council has not lost its BCA registration, and it will therefore continue to deliver BCA services to Chatham Islands District Council.
(d) Confirm that it will use its best endeavours to regain its accreditation.
COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION
That the Staff Recommendation be adopted.
8. TEMPORARY ALCOHOL BAN – NEW ZEALAND TROTTING CUP DAY, NEW YEAR’S EVE 2013/2014 IN SUMNER
General Manager Strategy and Planning, DDI 941-8281 General Manager responsible: Strategic Policy Unit Manager Officer responsible: Claire Bryant, Team Leader Policy Author:
PURPOSE OF REPORT
1. To make recommendations on two proposed temporary alcohol bans:
364 COUNCIL 3. 10. 2013
Planning Committee 4. 9. 2013
8 Cont’d
(a) A temporary ban for New Zealand Trotting Cup Day 12 November 2013 in the Addington area; and (b) A temporary ban for 2013/14 New Year's Eve in Sumner
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
New Zealand Trotting Cup Day 12 November 2013
2. At it’s meeting on 25 July 2013 the Council resolved that staff:
Investigate the possibility of the creation of a temporary liquor ban in the areas on both sides of the road along Whiteleigh Avenue, Lincoln Road, Wrights Road and Princess Street on November 12 2013 (Cup Day).
3. Police are in favour of imposing a temporary ban on New Zealand Trotting Cup Day as they consider that alcohol related disorder in public spaces does occur on Cup Day. While Police support the proposed ban area on Whiteleigh Avenue, Lincoln Road, Wrights Road and Princess Street (see Attachment 1) they have requested an extension of the area to the boundary of the current Riccarton-Ilam Permanent Ban Area. This extended area (see Attachment 2) includes Blenheim Road, Moorhouse Avenue, Lincoln Road, Wrights Road and Matipo Street.
4. The proposed ban areas are located within the boundaries of both Riccarton-Wigram and Spreydon-Heathcote Community Boards. The Spreydon-Heathcote Community Board supports the proposed date and area of the original ban area and will discuss support for the extended ban area at their meeting on 23 August. The Riccarton-Wigram Community Board, the Addington Neighbourhood Association, the Addington Business Association, the management of the Addington Event Centre, the management of the Riccarton Racecourse, Tower Junction management, and CCC liquor licensing staff support the temporary ban in the extended area.
5. Staff consulted alcohol-related businesses (twenty-three on and off licensed premises) located in the proposed extended area. Fourteen businesses support the ban in the extended area, two do not support a ban at all, and one was neutral. Staff were unable to contact the remaining six.
6. Staff recommend that Council resolve to impose a Temporary Alcohol Ban Area from 9am-10pm on 12 November 2013 New Zealand Trotting Cup Day for the extended area (Attachment 2) of Blenheim Road, Moorhouse Avenue, Lincoln Road, Wrights Road and Matipo Street.
7. Staff consider that imposing a permanent alcohol ban area on New Zealand Trotting Cup Day may be appropriate. However, staff recommend that the process of making a such a change to the Alcohol Restrictions in Public Places Bylaw 2009 be deferred until it can undertaken in conjunction with other bylaw amendments or reviews rather than as a standalone Special Consultation Procedure.
2013/14 New Year’s Eve in Sumner
8. At its meeting of 6 December 2012 the Council resolved to:
Note the opportunity to consider imposing a Temporary Alcohol Ban in Sumner in 2013 and 2014, unless the Alcohol Restrictions in Public Places Bylaw 2009 is to be amended in the future and a Special Consultative Procedure is required, which could include making a permanent ban in Sumner.
9. Sumner has a permanent alcohol ban from Thursday to Sunday starting at 7.00pm on Thursday going through to midnight on Sunday. In Sumner, there will be years when New Year’s Eve falls outside the current liquor ban. New Year’s Eve falls outside the current alcohol ban in Sumner (Monday-Wednesday) in 2013 and 2014.
365 COUNCIL 3. 10. 2013
Planning Committee 4. 9. 2013
8 Cont’d
10. Staff contacted the Police to determine whether they felt there was a need for an additional ban in Sumner. Police are in favour of imposing a ban for Sumner on New Year’s Eve as they consider that alcohol related disorder is very likely to occur on these days unless this area has an alcohol ban in place.
11. Staff recommend that, as New Year’s Eve 2013 falls on a Tuesday, Council resolve to impose a Temporary Alcohol Ban Area for Sumner from 7.00pm 31 December 2013 to 7.00am 1 January 2014. A Temporary Alcohol Ban Area is recommended as it can be imposed by Council resolution and put in place in time for New Year’s Eve 2013.
12. Staff consider that extending the permanent alcohol ban area for Sumner to cover every New Year’s Eve may be appropriate. Staff recommend that the process of making such a change to the Alcohol Restrictions in Public Places Bylaw 2009 be deferred until it can be undertaken in conjunction with other bylaw amendments or reviews rather than as a standalone Special Consultative Procedure.
FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS
13. If temporary bans were to be imposed on Cup Day and New Year’s Eve in Sumner, financial provision will be required for public notices, as well as appropriate signage, including production, erection and replacement if necessary. As these signs would be temporary they would be funded through the City and Community Long Term Policy and Planning Activity budget.
14. The costs of enforcement rest with the Police under powers in the Local Government Act 2002.
Do the Recommendations of this Report Align with 2013-16 TYP budgets?
15. See above.
LEGAL CONSIDERATIONS
16. The Christchurch City Council Alcohol Restrictions in Public Places Bylaw 2009 (the Bylaw) which incorporates the Alcohol Restrictions in Public Places Amendment (Riccarton/Ilam) Bylaw 2011, the Alcohol Restrictions in Public Places Amendment (Okains Bay) Bylaw 2011, and the Alcohol Restrictions in Public Places Amendment Bylaw 2012 provides the power, by resolution, to put Temporary Alcohol Ban Areas in place. Clause 5 of the Bylaw specifies a number of matters the Council must consider before it imposes a Temporary Alcohol Ban Area. Clause 5 also requires that the resolution must describe the specific area that is the Temporary Alcohol Ban Area and the times, days or dates during which the alcohol restrictions apply to any public places in the area.
17. The Bylaw defines a Temporary Alcohol Ban Area as meaning "an area described in a resolution made under this bylaw in which alcohol restrictions are temporarily in place in the public places within the area during the times, days or dates specified in the resolution.”
18. Section 147 of the Local Government Act 2002 (the Act) currently allows for alcohol bans in public places which are under the control of the Council. Ban Areas can include for example, roads over which the Council has control but not private parking areas.
19. Under clause 5(2) of the Bylaw the Council must consider, in the case of resolving to introduce any Temporary Alcohol Ban Area, the following matters:
(a) If the proposed ban relates to an event:
(i) the nature of the expected event; (ii) the number of people expected to attend; (iii) the history of the event (if any); and (iv) the area in which the event is to be held; and
366 COUNCIL 3. 10. 2013
Planning Committee 4. 9. 2013
8 Cont’d
(b) The nature and history of alcohol-related problems usually associated with the area, together with any anticipated alcohol-related problems; and
(c) Whether the benefits to local residents and to the city would outweigh the restrictions the resolution would impose on local residents and other people, including those who may be attending any events, in the area covered by the resolution; and
(d) Any information from the Police and other sources about the proposed dates, the event or the area to be covered by the resolution; and
(e) Whether the Police support the proposed Temporary Alcohol Ban Area; and
(f) Any other information the Council considers relevant.
20. The Police have various powers to enforce the Bylaw, including the power to search containers and vehicles in public places for alcohol, seize and remove alcohol, and arrest any person who is found to be breaching the Bylaw. Before the Police exercise these powers they must comply with the warning provisions in section 170 of the Local Government Act 2002.
Have you considered the legal implications of the issue under consideration?
21. Yes. Additional Temporary Alcohol Ban’s will apply to public places within the meaning of section 147 of the Act. In terms of clause 5(1) of the Bylaw, the proposed resolutions describe the specific areas to which the Temporary Alcohol Ban Areas will apply and the times and dates that they will apply.
New Zealand Trotting Cup Day 12 November 2013
22. In respect of imposing a temporary ban for New Zealand Trotting Cup Day 12 November 2013 the matters of Clause 5(2) of the Bylaw have been considered as noted below.
23. Clause 5(2)(a) - whether the proposed bans relate to events The proposed ban relates to an annual event held by the New Zealand Metropolitan Trotting Club’s New Zealand Trotting Cup Day at Addington Raceway. This event was inaugurated in 1904 and is an integral component of Cup and Show Week in Christchurch. Approximately 25,000 people are expected to attend this year, attracted by the social atmosphere, the horse- racing, major fashion events, and other entertainment during the day.
24. Clause 5(2)(b) - the nature and history of alcohol-related problems usually associated with the areas, together with any anticipated alcohol-related problems The New Zealand Trotting Cup Day on Tuesday has had a long history of alcohol-related problems. Police staff note that, on New Zealand Trotting Cup Day, there is a 22 per cent increase in incident reports over an average Tuesday. Following the 2012 New Zealand Trotting Cup Day, concerns were noted at an inter agency debrief attended by the Police, Christchurch City Council Liquor Licensing, Community & Public Health, the Addington Event Centre and Main Event Security. The concerns related to drinking in public places and included an observable increase in pre-loading drinking in public areas on the way to the event or at boot parties in nearby car-parking. This pre-loading drinking was associated with an influx of alcohol- related misbehaviour at the event late in the afternoon which made it difficult for gate security to monitor “intoxication levels”.
Police note that there are problems with car-boot parties in public streets prior and during Cup Day and, in particular, with alcohol-related disorderly and unsafe behaviour including drinking in streets busy with traffic as people leave the event and walk back to cars or to public transport.
Liquor Licensing Staff note that people pre-load for the event, with some people starting early in the morning at champagne breakfasts and then continuing to drink in cars parked nearby. Some then walk to the event drinking alcohol, with several, every year, turned away at the gate due to intoxication.
367 COUNCIL 3. 10. 2013
Planning Committee 4. 9. 2013
8 Cont’d
Local businesses and residents have noted that after past New Zealand Trotting Cup events they have seen people leave the Addington Events Centre drinking, urinating, vomiting and misbehaving. One local bar noted that people leaving the event, walking past and drinking, interacting with the bar patrons make it more difficult to manage security within their venue.
The Addington Event Centre has worked, over a number of years, with an inter-agency group to monitor, minimise or mitigate alcohol-related disorderly behaviour within the event venue. This inter-agency group now supports a temporary alcohol ban in the local area surrounding the Addington Event Centre to minimise and mitigate alcohol-related disorderly behaviour before people arrive at the event and to contribute to public safety on the roads as people disperse after the event.
25. Clause 5(2)(c) - whether the benefits to local residents and to the city would outweigh the restrictions the resolution would impose on local residents and other people, including those who may be attending any events, in the area covered by the resolution Staff consider that the benefits to local residents and to the city would outweigh the restrictions imposed on local residents and other people in the area covered by the resolution.
26. Clause 5(2)(d) - any information from the Police and other sources about the proposed dates, the event or the area to be covered by the resolution Police are of the view that a temporary alcohol ban on New Zealand Trotting Cup Day will assist them to manage the alcohol-related disorderly behaviour which occurs amongst the large crowd arriving and/or leaving the event.
Police support a proposed ban from 9am – 10pm and note that by 10pm most of the crowd has dispersed. Police support imposing a ban over an extended area (see Attachment 2).
Police staff note that on New Zealand Trotting Cup Day there is a 22 per cent increase in incident reports over an average Tuesday.
27. Clause 5(2)(e) - whether the Police support the proposed Temporary Alcohol Ban Area Police support extending the temporary ban area east towards Hagley Park to meet the boundary of the current Riccarton-Ilam Permanent Ban Area. This extended area (see Attachment 2) includes Blenheim Road, Moorhouse Avenue, Lincoln Road, Wrights Road and Matipo Street. The extended area will assist the Police to monitor the ban as people attending the event are mobile all through that area – either walking to and from their car park; public transport; or further entertainment.
28. Clause 5(2)(f) - any other information the Council considers relevant When consulted, Riccarton Raceway management said they support a ban on New Zealand Trotting Cup Day but noted they would prefer a temporary ban was also imposed on the following Saturday at Riccarton Raceway for the Christchurch Casino 150th New Zealand Cup/New Zealand Bloodstock 1000 Guineas Day. Riccarton Raceway management noted that, in their experience, a tightening of controls on disorderly behaviour at New Zealand Trotting Cup Day tended to result in an escalation of poor behaviour at their event on the following Saturday. Management also noted that after last year’s event, they had received two complaints from their neighbours about groups of people walking to and from the event drinking and disorderly in the street.
Staff recommend that, during the 2013 event, alcohol-related disorder in the public spaces surrounding the venue is noted and that Council consider extending an alcohol ban to include the Christchurch Casino 150th New Zealand Cup/New Zealand Bloodstock 1000 Guineas Day in 2014.
2013/14 New Year’s Eve in Sumner
29. In respect of imposing a temporary ban for Sumner for New Year’s Eve 2013 the matters of Clause 5(2) of the Bylaw have been considered as noted below.
368 COUNCIL 3. 10. 2013
Planning Committee 4. 9. 2013
8 Cont’d
30. Clause 5(2) (a) - whether the proposed bans relate to events The proposed ban does not relate to an event.
31. Clause 5(2) (b) - the nature and history of alcohol-related problems usually associated with the areas, together with any anticipated alcohol-related problems There is already an alcohol ban in place in Sumner, which applies from Thursday to Sunday starting at 7.00pm on Thursday going through to midnight on Sunday. The area covers the Sumner Esplanade.
32. The Esplanade, Sumner, is a residential street adjacent to the beach. It is a recreational area and attracts a broad range of people from the local community and the greater Christchurch area. The seaward side of the Esplanade has a promenade and grassed reserve which includes a picnic area. Most of those attracted to the area are families and surfers enjoying the recreational facilities. There are often sporting events held along the Esplanade, including surf festivals and triathlons.
33. Prior to the ban being imposed in Sumner, ‘boy racers’ and others had caused disorder, often aggravated by the consumption of alcohol. Incidents of fighting, foul language and the smashing of glass were common. The problems tended to occur during the summer, particularly at weekends and especially when the weather was good. The congregation of youths watching boy/girl racers using the Esplanade as part of a circuit was common on the reserve areas of the road. These youths often consumed alcohol in the area, causing disorder problems.
34. Since the ban has been imposed Police note there has been little evidence of these kinds of problems. The Police are of the view that the circumstances that gave rise to the creation of the Sumner alcohol ban are highly likely to be replicated on a New Year’s Eve that falls outside the current ban days of operation. The only New Year’s Eve since 2008 that was not covered by the current ban was 2012. Council considered the issue and resolved to impose a temporary ban to cover New Year’s Eve in 2012.
35. Clause 5(2) (c) - whether the benefits to local residents and to the city would outweigh the restrictions the resolution would impose on local residents and other people, including those who may be attending any events, in the area covered by the resolution Staff consider that the benefits to local residents and to the city would outweigh the restrictions imposed on local residents and other people in the area covered by the resolution.
36. Clause 5(2) (d) - any information from the Police and other sources about the proposed dates, the event or the area to be covered by the resolution The local officers agree that the current alcohol ban has reduced alcohol intake and reduced potential disorder and crime. See also the information below under clause 5(2) (f). The Police support the following times for a temporary ban for Sumner - each New Year’s Eve from 7.00pm 31 December to 7.00am 1 January.
37. Clause 5(2) (e) - whether the Police support the proposed Temporary Alcohol Ban Area The Police support the proposed area for a temporary alcohol ban in Sumner.
38. Clause 5(2) (f) - any other information the Council considers relevant The Police are of the view that the circumstances that gave rise to the creation of the Sumner alcohol ban are highly likely to be replicated on any New Year’s Eve not covered by an alcohol ban. Police believe that currently there is an "alcohol ban culture" in Sumner. That is, residents are aware of, and used to the alcohol ban, and assume that the ban would be in operation on any given New Year’s Eve to address the problems that gave rise to permanent ban. Police also believe that in the absence of a ban on New Year’s Eve there is a significant risk that individuals or groups will hold ‘events’ in public places where the focus is on drinking alcohol. This would put significant pressure on Police resources and be a real nuisance for nearby residents. The only New Year’s Eve since 2008 that was not covered by the current permanent ban was 2012; a temporary alcohol ban was put in place for that New Year’s Eve which prevented alcohol-related disorder.
369 COUNCIL 3. 10. 2013
Planning Committee 4. 9. 2013
8 Cont’d
ALIGNMENT WITH LTCCP AND ACTIVITY MANAGEMENT PLANS
Do the recommendations of this report support a level of service or project in the 2013-16 TYP?
39. Introducing additional temporary alcohol bans, if required, could be considered to broadly align to the following LOS in the Strengthening Communities Activity Management Plan, 2.2.3.1. Maintain Safe City Accreditation every 15 years.
ALIGNMENT WITH STRATEGIES
Do the recommendations align with the Council’s strategies?
40. The Safer Christchurch Strategy aims to see rates of injury and crime decline, for people to feel safe at all times in Christchurch City and for Christchurch to have excellent safety networks, support people and services.
CONSULTATION FULFILMENT
New Zealand Trotting Cup Day 12 November 2013
41. Staff consulted the Spreydon-Heathcote and Riccarton-Wigram Community Board regarding the proposal for a temporary alcohol ban for New Zealand Trotting Cup Day 12 November 2013.
42. The Spreydon-Heathcote Community Board resolved on 21 June 2013 to “recommend to the Council the possibility of the creation of a temporary liquor ban in the areas on both sides of the road along Whiteleigh Avenue, Lincoln Road, Wrights Road and Princess Street on 12 November 2013 (Cup Day)”. It is understood that the Board considers that the introduction of a temporary ban will provide a safer environment for the public in the Addington area and that if the temporary ban is considered to be successful Council may wish to introduce a permanent ban. The Spreydon-Heathcote Community Board will discuss support for the extended ban area at its meeting on 23 August.
43. The Riccarton-Wigram Community Board reported that it would support the extended ban area and also suggested Annex Road for inclusion in the temporary ban area. It would support the ban being made permanent next year.
44. Staff contacted the relevant Police Inspector and Area Commander and asked if they would support the proposal for a temporary ban. The Police advised they support a temporary ban on New Zealand Trotting Cup Day 12 November 2013 in the proposed area and request that area be extended (see Attachment 2).
45. Staff also contacted Tower Junction management and attempted to contact the owners of twenty-three on and off licensed premises located in the proposed extended ban areas. Tower Junction management support the proposed ban in the extended area. Fourteen businesses support the ban in the extended area, two do not support a ban at all, and one was neutral. Staff were unable to contact the remaining six. The two who did not support the ban (one on-license and one off-license) were concerned it could affect business and did not support it as they had seen little evidence of alcohol-related public disorder associated with Cup Day. Those who did support the ban said it would help to manage public disorder on the streets and noted the majority of problems occur when people leave the event carrying alcohol and continue to bars in the nearby area.
46. The Addington Business Association and Addington Neighbourhood Association support the proposed time, date and area (see Attachment 2) for the temporary ban. They said that it made sense and the ban would limit the problems that could occur.
370 COUNCIL 3. 10. 2013
Planning Committee 4. 9. 2013
8 Cont’d
47. The management of the Addington Events Centre are concerned with alcohol-related behaviour occurring in and around the Event Centre during last year’s Cup Day and note a temporary ban will provide a safer environment for the public in the Addington area. They support the proposed time, date and extended area.
2013/14 New Year’s Eve in Sumner
48. Staff consulted the Hagley-Ferrymead Community Board via the Board Advisor regarding the proposal for an additional temporary alcohol ban for Sumner in 2013. The Board reported no knowledge of alcohol-related problems on New Year’s Eve. The Board support the temporary ban in 2013.
49. Staff contacted the Sumner Business Group and Sumner Community Residents Association who fully support the proposed temporary ban in Sumner for New Year’s Eve 2013.
50. Staff contacted the relevant Police Area Commander and asked if there had been any complaints relating to alcohol on New Year’s Eve in Sumner and whether they would support the proposal for further temporary bans. The Police advised they support imposing a temporary ban on New Year’s Eve during those years that New Year’s Eve falls on a Sunday, Monday, Tuesday or Wednesday as the current ban for Sumner applies Thursday to Sunday only and finishes at midnight on Sunday. The Police support the following times for a temporary ban for Sumner: each New Year’s Eve from 7.00pm 31 December to 7.00am 1 January.
51. In each year that New Year’s Eve falls on a Sunday, Monday, Tuesday or Wednesday a report to Council will need to be prepared addressing the matters in Clause 5 of the Bylaw, unless the Alcohol Restrictions in Public Places Bylaw 2009 is to be amended in the future and an SCP is required, which could include making a permanent ban in Sumner.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
It is recommended that the Council:
(a) Resolve to impose a Temporary Alcohol Ban Area for New Zealand Trotting Cup Day (being the area shown on the attached map of Attachment 2), from 9am-10pm on 12 November 2013.
(b) Resolve to impose a Temporary Alcohol Ban Area for Sumner (being the area shown on the attached map of the Sumner Alcohol Ban Area, Attachment 3), from 7pm 31 December 2013 to 7am 1 January 2014.
(c) Direct staff to investigate imposing an alcohol ban, prior to the 2014 Cup and Show Week, in the Riccarton Raceway area on Christchurch Casino New Zealand Cup/New Zealand Bloodstock 1000 Guineas Day when a ban is being imposed on the New Zealand Trotting Cup Day.
(d) Note that until these temporary bans can be made permanent in conjunction with other bylaw amendments or reviews, or the Alcohol Restrictions in Public Places Bylaw 2009 can be amended, it may be appropriate to make further temporary bans for New Zealand Trotting Cup Day and New Year’s Eve in Sumner as required.
COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION
That the Staff Recommendation be adopted.
371 COUNCIL 3. 10. 2013
Planning Committee 4. 9. 2013
9. ADOPTION OF REPORT ON DOG CONTROL POLICY AND PRACTICES 2012/13
General Manager Regulatory & Democracy Group, DDI 941 8462 General Manager responsible: Inspections & Enforcement Unit Manager Officer responsible: Mark Vincent, Animal Control Team Leader Author:
PURPOSE OF REPORT
1. The Dog Control Act 1996 (“the Act”), section 10A requires all territorial authorities to report on the administration of its dog control policy and practices annually. Once Council has adopted the report, a public notice must be given of the report and a copy sent to the secretary for Local Government. This provision in the Act was introduced by the Dog Control Amendment Act 2003. The Act lists the information required in the report.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
2. The Dog Control Act 1996 was amended by the Dog Control Amendment Act 2003 with a focus on increasing public safety. As part of the amendments Central Government has introduced the requirement for Territorial Authorities to report annually with certain information.
3. The annual report requires Territorial Authorities to provide details in relation to such matters as: dog exercise and leash control; dog prohibited areas; impounded animals; education programmes and initiatives and a range of specific annual statistics including aggressive/dangerous dogs, number of dogs classified as dangerous or menacing dog, the number of registered dogs, number of infringement notices issued, and the number of prosecutions etc.
FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS
4. There are no direct financial implications in relation to the preparation of the annual report nor any financial implications should Council adopt the recommendation contained in the report.
5. Covered by existing unit budgets.
Do the Recommendations of this Report Align with 2009-19 LTCCP budgets?
6. Yes.
LEGAL CONSIDERATIONS
7. Section 10A of the Dog Control Act requires that a Territorial Authority must report on Dog Control Policy and Practices –
(1) In respect of each financial year, report on the administration of – (a) Its Dog Control Policy adopted under section 10; and (b) Its Dog Control Practices
(2) The report must include, information relating to – (a) The number of registered dogs (b) The number of probationary and disqualified owners (c) The number of dogs classified as dangerous and the relevant provision under which the classification was made. (d) The number of dogs classified as menacing under section 33A (e) The number of dogs classified as menacing under section 33C (f) The number of infringement notices issued (g) The number of prosecutions taken
(3) The Territorial Authority must give public notice of the report – (a) by publishing the report in –
372 COUNCIL 3. 10. 2013
Planning Committee 4. 9. 2013
9 Cont’d (i) One or more daily newspapers circulating in the district (ii) One or more other newspapers that have at least an equivalent circulation in the district to the daily newspapers circulating in that district. (b) by any means that the territorial authority thinks desirable in the circumstances.
(4) The territorial authority must also, within one month after adopting the report, send a copy of it to the Secretary for Local Government.
Have you considered the legal implications of the issue under consideration?
8. As per above.
ALIGNMENT WITH LTCCP AND ACTIVITY MANAGEMENT PLANS
9. The annual report and recommendation contained in this report aligns with the LTCCP level of services for Animal Control as the levels of service detailed in the LTCCP require complaints in regards to aggressive behaviour by dogs to be responded to within stipulated timeframes (page 90 of the 2009-19 LTCCP, under “Regulatory Services”.
ALIGNMENT WITH STRATEGIES
Do the recommendations align with the Council’s strategies?
10. Not applicable.
CONSULTATION FULFILMENT
11. There is no requirement for consultation in relation to the preparation of the annual report. There is a statutory requirement (section 10A of the Dog Control Act 1996) for the report to be publicly notified once adopted by Council.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
It is recommended that the Council adopt the attached Christchurch City Council Report on Dog Control Policy and Practice for 2012/13, pursuant to Section 10A of the Dog Control Act 1996.
COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION
That the Staff Recommendation be adopted.
10. CANTERBURY EARTHQUAKES ROYAL COMMISSION OF INQUIRY - RESPONSE TO RECOMMENDATIONS FOR CHRISTCHURCH CITY COUNCIL.
General Manager, Regulation and Democracy Services, DDI 941-8462 General Manager responsible: Steve McCarthy, Resource Consents and Building Policy Manager Officer responsible: Steve McCarthy Author:
PURPOSE OF REPORT
1. The purpose of this report is to advise on the Christchurch City Councils work to address the Earthquakes Royal Commission’s recommendations to Territorial Authorities. Also to advise of decisions by the Government to accept the Commissions recommendations and also change the system for managing earthquake prone buildings.
2. Associated with the recent Government policy decisions there will be legislation introduced later in 2013 to change the system for managing earthquake-prone buildings. The proposed legislation change will affect the existing Christchurch City Council Earthquake Prone Buildings Policy.
373 COUNCIL 3. 10. 2013
Planning Committee 4. 9. 2013
10 Cont’d
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
3. On 28 February 2013, the Council considered a report on the recommendations of the Canterbury Earthquakes Royal Commission as they potentially related to the future work of territorial authorities. The report advised that staff would report back on work that would affect this Council and other territorial authorities work in the future.
4. In respect of a number of the recommendations that related to the Christchurch City Council, work had already commenced or was able to commence without legislative change. These recommendations included:
Volume 1: Section 4 Soils and Foundations Requiring geotechnical investigations for foundation design Maintaining a database of information about subsurface conditions in the Central Business District
Volume 4: Section 1.4 Earthquake - prone buildings policy and legislation Maintain and publish a register of earthquake prone buildings Sharing of information and research on assessment of and seismic retrofit techniques for different building types
Volume 7: Section 2 Building management after Earthquakes Make territorial authorities responsible for delivering a building safety evaluation operation Staff with civil defence and emergency management responsibilities required to attend compulsory building safety evaluation training Territorial authorities required to plan their building safety evaluation process as part of civil defence and emergency management plans.
Volume 7: Section 3 Roles and Responsibilities Building Consent Application (BCA) requires structural design features report from structural engineer to accompany building consent applications for complex buildings. BCA to ensure complex buildings are reviewed or peer reviewed by competent professionals.
Volume 7: Section 5 Canterbury Regional Council and Christchurch City Council – management of earthquake risk. Regional Councils and territorial authorities should ensure they are adequately informed about the seismicity of their regions and districts so that regional and district plans reflect the potential effects of earthquakes and liquefaction
5. In addition, in April 2013, Building and Construction Minister Maurice Williamson announced the Government had accepted, or accepted in principle, 170 of the 189 recommendations from the Royal Commissions report. There were 7 volumes to the report.
6. The vast majority of the recommendations (121) related to technical matters and there was no need to change the law before the Government could start to work on them. These mostly included structural performance, standards and practice, land and geotechnical matters.
7. The Ministry of Business, Innovation and Enterprise (MBIE) is the lead agency on 177 of the 189 recommendations and they have begun a multi - year programme to address the recommendations. The programme is split into 10 key areas:
Structural performance, standards and practice
Land and geotechnical
Earthquake-prone buildings
374 COUNCIL 3. 10. 2013
Planning Committee 4. 9. 2013
10 Cont’d
Existing buildings resilience
Post disaster building management
Professional practice and capabilities
Public information
Research
Property identification and information
Policy, regulatory and practice change work programme
A large amount of work is already underway to address the recommendations.
8. Christchurch City Council is involved in the above work streams, providing information and with Council Officers represented on industry sector groups. Presently the focus is on developing policy and guidelines on:
(1) Earthquake Prone Buildings
(2) Existing buildings resilience
(3) Post disaster building management
(4) Property identification and information collection.
9. The Royal Commission made 36 specific recommendations which focussed on earthquake prone buildings - seismic design standards, unreinforced masonry buildings and assessing and improving the seismic performance of existing buildings. In response a Government consultation document was issued to promote discussion around possible options for changing the way earthquake-prone buildings are managed. This consultation attracted submissions from over 500 people or groups.
As a result, the Minister of Building and Housing, Maurice Williamson has announced that the Government is now proposing a new system which is designed to strike a better balance between protecting people from harm in an earthquake and managing the costs of strengthening or removing earthquake prone buildings. It gives central Government a greater role in providing leadership and direction in relation to earthquake-prone buildings and is designed to make better use of the resources and capability of central and local government.
10. The new system will require legislative changes to the Building Act 2004. The existing Christchurch City Council Earthquake Prone Policy will either be superseded or require review at that time. However, the present process under the Policy of assessing and creating a register of earthquake prone buildings in Christchurch supports the new system and the proposed changes.
FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS
11. At this stage there are no financial implications. Input into the development of legislation, policy and guidance material to support the Royal Commissions recommendations will be funded from operational budgets. A desktop review of earthquake prone buildings is underway and this has been provided for in upcoming Annual Plans and LTP.
375 COUNCIL 3. 10. 2013
Planning Committee 4. 9. 2013
10 Cont’d
Do the Recommendations of this Report Align with 2009-19 LTCCP budgets?
12. Yes
LEGAL CONSIDERATIONS
13. There are no legal considerations at this stage.
Have you considered the legal implications of the issue under consideration?
14. Yes
ALIGNMENT WITH LTCCP AND ACTIVITY MANAGEMENT PLANS
15. A project to review and implement the Earthquake Prone, Dangerous and Insanitary Building Policy is proposed in the 2013-22 LTP.
Do the recommendations of this report support a level of service or project in the 2009-19 LTCCP?
16. Yes, the proposed review of the Earthquake Prone, Dangerous and Insanitary Building Policy.
ALIGNMENT WITH STRATEGIES
17. Yes. Aligns with page 89 LTP, administration of laws around building and development leading to safe buildings and reduction in environmental hazards plus page 187 LTP, developing our urban environment, sustainable use of buildings and our heritage is protected.
Do the recommendations align with the Council’s strategies?
18. As above.
CONSULTATION FULFILMENT
19. The requirement to consult on the implementation on the recommendations of the Royal Commission largely rest with MBIE however, where appropriate, Council will deliberate and communicate on the legislative and policy changes that come out of the recommendations.
20. A project to review and implement the Earthquake Prone, Dangerous and Insanitary Building Policy, including developing a comprehensive earthquake prone buildings register is proposed in the 2013-22 LTP. The special consultative procedure provided that all affected parties were notified at the time the policy was reviewed.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
It is recommended that the Council:
(a) Note that a number of the recommendations of the Earthquakes Royal Commission, affecting Christchurch City Council are being worked on or have already been implemented.
(b) Note that the Christchurch City Council is also participating in MBIE Sector Groups on the implementation of key recommendations affecting earthquake prone buildings, existing buildings resilience, post disaster building management and property identification and information, at this stage.
(c) Note that the Government has accepted 177 of the 189 recommendations of the Earthquakes Royal Commission and has commenced a 10 year programme to implement them.
376 COUNCIL 3. 10. 2013
Planning Committee 4. 9. 2013
10 Cont’d
(d) Note that the Government has recently announced it will introduce a new system for managing earthquake prone buildings and change the Building Act 2004, to provide for these changes.
(e) Note that the existing Christchurch City Council Earthquake Prone Policy will either be superseded or require review when the Building Act is changed. A register of earthquake prone buildings in Christchurch is currently bring compiled based largely on DEE’s (Detailed Engineering Evaluations) required by CERA.
COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION
That the Staff Recommendation be adopted.
BACKGROUND (THE ISSUES)
Canterbury Earthquakes Royal Commission Recommendations.
21. After the February 2011 earthquake, the Canterbury Earthquakes Royal Commission of Enquiry was established to report on the causes of building failure as a result of the earthquakes as well as the legal and best practice requirements for buildings in New Zealand Central Business Districts.
22. As previously reported, The Royal Commissions final report consisted of 7 volumes and made 189 recommendations. In April 2013, Building and Construction Minister Maurice Williamson announced the Government had accepted, or accepted in principle, 170 of the 189 recommendations from the Royal Commissions report.
23. The Ministry of Business, Innovation and Enterprise (MBIE) is the lead agency on 177 of the 189 recommendations and they have begun a multi - year programme to address the recommendations. The programme is split into 10 key areas:
Structural performance, standards and practice
Land and geotechnical
Earthquake-prone buildings
Existing buildings resilience
Post disaster building management
Professional practice and capabilities
Public information
Research
Property identification and information
Policy, regulatory and practice change work programme
24. A large amount of work is already underway within the sector and particularly in Christchurch, to address the recommendations.
377 COUNCIL 3. 10. 2013
Planning Committee 4. 9. 2013
10 Cont’d
New System to Manage Earthquake Prone Buildings in New Zealand.
25. The Royal Commission made specific recommendations which focussed on earthquake prone buildings - seismic design standards, unreinforced masonry buildings and assessing and improving the seismic performance of existing buildings.
26. In response a Government consultation document was issued in December 2012, to promote discussion around possible options for changing the way earthquake-prone buildings are managed. This consultation attracted submissions from over 500 people or groups.
27. Following consideration of the submissions, the Minister of Building and Housing, Maurice Williamson has announced that the Government is now proposing a new system to manage earthquake prone buildings in New Zealand. It gives central Government a greater role in providing leadership and direction in relation to earthquake-prone buildings and is designed to make better use of the resources and capability of central and local government.
28. The main features of new system are:
Territorial authorities will need to complete a seismic assessment of all non-residential and multi-unit, multi-storey residential buildings in their areas within five years of changes to new legislation taking effect. The assessment will include an evaluation of building plans, location and easily observable building characteristics.
Building owners will receive the results of assessments and this information will be entered onto a publicly accessible national register of earthquake-prone buildings established by MBIE.
Following assessments, earthquake-prone buildings will have to be strengthened or demolished within 15 years (except buildings that may be eligible for exemptions and/or extensions to this timeframe).
Certain buildings will be prioritised for assessment and strengthening, such as buildings likely to have a significant impact on public safety (including buildings with high risk elements such as potential falling hazards) and strategically important buildings, including those on transport routes identified as critical in an emergency.
Owners of some buildings will be able to get exemptions from or extensions to the national timeframe for strengthening. Exemptions will be for buildings where the effects of them failing are likely to be minimal. Owners of earthquake-prone Category 1 heritage buildings (listed on the Register of Historic Places under the Historic Places Act 1993) and those on the proposed National Historic Landmarks List will be able to apply for extensions of up to 10 years to the national timeframe for strengthening.
29. The Minister announced that the Government will introduce the required legislative changes to the Building Act later this year.
Christchurch City Council response to recommendations:
30. A number of the recommendations which specifically affect territorial authorities require legislative changes. However, a number of the recommendations reflected work that Christchurch City Council had already commenced or was able to commence without any legislative change.
31. An update on the implementation of these recommendations follows:
378 COUNCIL 3. 10. 2013
Planning Committee 4. 9. 2013
10 Cont’d
Volume 1: Section 4 Soils and Foundations. Requiring geotechnical investigations for foundation design. MBIE (Ministry Business, Innovation and Employment) guidance material has been produced for foundations in Technical Category 1- 3 land in Canterbury. The guidance includes new foundation standards for “poor” ground and geotechnical investigations are required. The complexity of the investigations depends on the status of the ground and the type of building works involved.
Maintaining a database of information about subsurface conditions – in the CBD. A comprehensive Canterbury geotech database of developed land in Canterbury has been established by CERA, with input from geotech engineers, EQC, Tonkin and Taylor and Councils. The information relates to individual lots and is on line and accessible to authorities and building professionals.
Volume 4: Section 1.4 Earthquake - prone buildings policy and legislation Maintain and publish a register of earthquake prone buildings. A database of Earthquake prone buildings in Christchurch is currently being compiled based on DEE’s (Detailed Engineering Evaluations) of commercial buildings in Christchurch. The DEE’s are received from CERA or supporting building consent applications. Currently we have DEE’s for 1545 buildings and 276 of these are earthquake prone and on the Earthquake prone Register.
Sharing of information and research on assessment of and seismic retrofit techniques for different building types. The Government, Christchurch City Council and some other Metro Councils have contributed funding to Canterbury University to undertake further research into the assessment of existing buildings and seismic retrofitting techniques.
Volume 7: Section 2 - Building management after Earthquakes Make territorial authorities responsible for delivering a building safety evaluation operation. Staff maintain a formalised 24/7 emergency response capability. On - call Building Evaluation Managers have access to emergency contact lists and the necessary documentation to undertake a building safety evaluation operation.
Staff with civil defence and emergency management responsibilities required to attend compulsory building safety evaluation training. A recent civil defence training exercise has been held including Building Evaluation Managers. The Resource Consents and Building Policy Manager and Inspections and Enforcement Manager are part of an initial Group set up to respond to any national or major emergencies. Compulsory building safety evaluation training is a requirement.
Territorial authorities required to plan their building safety evaluation process as part of civil defence and emergency management plans. The Christchurch City Council Civil Defence and Emergency Response Plans provide for the Building Evaluation Managers to implement a building safety evaluation operation.
Volume 7: Section 3 Roles and Responsibilities BCA requires structural design features report from structural engineer to accompany building consent applications for complex buildings. A structural design features report is only provided on occasions. It is a valuable piece of evidence in assessing whether a building is complex and helps to identify engineering requirements.
BCA to ensure complex buildings are reviewed or peer reviewed by competent professionals. This is a standard requirement for the processing of any application for
building consent for complex buildings in Christchurch. Applicants are encouraged to engage an engineering peer review of the structure of any such building.
379 COUNCIL 3. 10. 2013
Planning Committee 4. 9. 2013
10 Cont’d
Volume 7: Section 5 Canterbury Regional Council and Christchurch City Council – management of earthquake risk. Regional Councils and territorial authorities should ensure they are adequately informed about the seismicity of their regions and districts so that regional and district plans reflect the potential effects of earthquakes and liquefaction. A considerable body of research of the seismicity of Canterbury has been undertaken since the Christchurch earthquakes. This will be considered in the District plan review along with at risk areas which have been identified. The Canterbury database of information about subsurface conditions will also help to inform the review.
11. REVIEW OF TEMPORARY ACCOMMODATION STANDARDS AND THE TIMEFRAMES FOR PROCESSING TEMPORARY ACCOMMODATION APPLICATIONS
General Manager, Regulation and Democracy Services, DDI 941-8462 General Manager responsible: Unit Manager, Resource Consents and Building Policy Officer responsible: John Gibson, Planning Administration Manager and John Higgins, Resource Consents Author: Manager
PURPOSE OF REPORT
1. This report has been prepared in response to a request from the Planning Committee that the current standards for temporary accommodation and the timeframe for processing permitted and site specific temporary accommodation applications be reviewed.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
2. The Canterbury Earthquake (Resource Management Act Permitted Activities) Order 2011 (OIC) was made on 8 March 2011. It enables the Council to permit temporary accommodation for displaced people and businesses that otherwise would not comply with the City Plan and to permit depots and storage facilities incidental for construction work undertaken for earthquake recovery purposes.
3. Temporary accommodation, depots and storage facilities in specified locations are deemed to be a permitted activity under the OIC as long as they comply with any standards and requirements imposed by the Council. The locations, standards and requirements must be outlined in a public notice given by the Council. Such a notice was issued on 9 April 2011. A copy of the current standards is appended as Attachment 1.
4. Activities that comply with all of the requirements and standards of this general public notice are permitted under the OIC. Where an activity does not comply with any of the requirements and standards of this general public notice, the Council may issue a site specific public notice to permit the activity.
5. Site specific approvals can be sought in any of the following situations:
The proposal does not meet one or more of the prescribed standards in the public notice The activity is not listed in the public notice The activity is located in a different zone to those located in the public notice A combination of the above.
6. Site specific approvals provide the Council with the discretion to decline consents for activities which may create detrimental adverse effects or alternatively, impose conditions to mitigate adverse effects.
380 COUNCIL 3. 10. 2013
Planning Committee 4. 9. 2013
11 Cont’d
7. The overriding requirement for both permitted and site specific approvals is that the activity must fall within the scope of the OIC, that is, by being temporary accommodation for displaced businesses or residents, or being a depot or storage facilities for construction work for earthquake recovery purposes as defined in the OIC. If it does not meet this requirement, it cannot be dealt with under the OIC and must instead either comply with the City Plan or obtain a resource consent.
8. More than 800 businesses and other activities have used the temporary accommodation provisions to relocate. The number of applications being received however has dropped from around 35 a month in 2011 to 10 a month in 2013.
9. A review in October 2011 led to a number of changes to the standards. The report to Council which led to those changes is appended as Attachment 2. The changes are as set out under the heading Staff recommendations. The most significant change was to remove provision for retailing in Living Zones.
Timeframes
10. Currently the timeframe for processing an application which meets all the standards is three working days and the timeframe for processing an application which does not meet all the standards and requires a site specific application is five working days. In addition, site specific applications are forwarded to community boards for comment. Comments have to be provided to the Processing Planner within 72 hours. Decisions on site specific applications are then made by an independent Commissioner.
11. The timeframes for dealing with temporary accommodation proposals were deliberately kept short to ensure processing is done swiftly in order to facilitate post earthquake recovery. The short timeframes have ensured applications have been dealt with quickly but they are ambitious and it is often difficult to meet them. Site specific applications for example, usually require a comprehensive report to be prepared and it is difficult to complete a report and get commissioner sign off in five working days. This has meant that typically less than 50 per cent of site specific applications are processed in the five working day timeframe.
12. Permitted temporary activity applications also require checking to make sure they comply with all the relevant the standards. This process can be time consuming as it often involves discussion with applicants to clarify issues and in many cases this makes it difficult to meet the three day processing time frame.
13. In addition to the difficulty in meeting timeframes it is worth noting that the need for applications to be processed quickly has diminished as the urgency for businesses to find new premises quickly in order to keep going has largely gone.
14. Prior to writing this report an email was sent to each of the Community Boards asking whether they saw the need for any changes to the standards and timeframes. None of the responses referred to problems with the current timeframes. Staff are aware however from previous Community Board feedback that it has sometimes been difficult for them to provide meaningful comment in 72 hours.
15. For the reasons set out above staff consider it would be appropriate to adopt new and longer timeframes to process temporary accommodation applications. Suggested timeframes are five working days for complying proposals and 10 working days for site specific proposals. Staff also suggest that it would be easier for Community Boards if the 72 hour timeframe for them to provide comment on site specific applications was extended to five working days.
16. Changing the timeframes as suggested in paragraph 15 will need to be considered through the Annual Plan process. If accepted through that process, the timeframes would not take effect until 1 July 2014.
381 COUNCIL 3. 10. 2013
Planning Committee 4. 9. 2013
11 Cont’d
The Standards
17. Following the October 2011 changes the standards have generally worked well and given the number of activities which have relocated relatively few complaints have been received. None of the responses from Community Boards identified any need for changes to the standards.
18. The Council’s Inspections and Enforcement team were also asked if they saw any need for changes as they are involved in monitoring of conditions imposed on approvals as well as resolving complaints. They comment that the standards are generally working satisfactorily from an enforcement perspective and that where there have been problems they have been able to resolve them through negotiation.
19. They have raised a concern about the cumulative effects generated, particularly traffic effects, which can occur when a number of temporary activities establish in one localised area. An example of this is depots in the Quarry Zone. At present the Quarry Zone is the only area where this has happened and at this stage staff consider it would be premature to amend the standards to prevent it happening elsewhere. Planning Administration and Enforcement staff are plotting the location of depots to ensure they do not concentrate in other rural locations.
20. Another consideration is that there has also been a general increase in activities in the Quarry Zone as the demand for aggregate increases as a result of the rebuild. This activity is largely either provided for under the City Plan or by resource consent. What this means is that some of the perceived effects in this area may not be a direct result of temporary accommodation approvals.
21. Given that the standards are generally working well staff suggest that currently no changes to them are necessary.
FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS
22. Not applicable.
Do the Recommendations of this Report Align with 2013-16 TYP budgets?
23. Not applicable.
LEGAL CONSIDERATIONS
24. Not applicable.
Have you considered the legal implications of the issue under consideration?
25. Yes.
ALIGNMENT WITH LTCCP AND ACTIVITY MANAGEMENT PLANS
26. Yes.
Do the recommendations of this report support a level of service or project in the 2013-16 TYP?
27. Yes.
ALIGNMENT WITH STRATEGIES
28. Not applicable.
382 COUNCIL 3. 10. 2013
Planning Committee 4. 9. 2013
11 Cont’d
Do the recommendations align with the Council’s strategies?
29. Not applicable.
CONSULTATION FULFILMENT
30. Not applicable.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
It is recommended that the Council:
(a) Approve (b), (c) and (d) below to be considered through the next Annual Plan process.
(b) That the timeframe for processing complying temporary accommodation applications be extended from three working days to five working days.
(c) That the timeframe for processing site specific temporary accommodation proposals be increased to 10 working days.
(d) That the time for Community Boards to provide comments on site specific applications be increased to five working days.
COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION
It is recommended that the Council:
(a) Approve (b), (c) and (d) below to be considered through the next Annual Plan process.
(b) That the timeframe for processing complying temporary accommodation applications be extended from three working days to five working days.
(c) That the timeframe for processing site specific temporary accommodation proposals be increased to 10 working days.
(d) That the time for Community Boards to provide comments on site specific applications be increased to five working days.
(e) That the Committee instruct staff to report to the 3 October Council meeting a revised schedule of temporary activity standards. That schedule should seek to maintain provision for activities genuinely/directly displaced by the earthquakes.
12. PRESTONS ROAD PROPOSED PRIVATE PLAN CHANGE 76 –REZONING OF 4.6 HECTARES AT CORNER OF THE MARSHLANDS ROAD AND PRESTONS ROAD, CHRISTCHURCH, TO LIVING G.
General Manager Strategy and Planning, DDI: 941-8281 General Manager responsible: City Planning Unit Manager Officer responsible: Mark Stevenson, Senior Planner Author:
PURPOSE OF REPORT
1. The purpose of this report is to provide a recommendation to Planning Committee on how a private plan change request (Plan change 76) from Progressive Enterprises Limited should be processed and whether it should be publicly notified under Part 2 of Schedule 1 of the Resource Management Act (RMA). The request involves the proposed rezoning of approximately 4.6 hectares of land at the north eastern corner of Marshlands Road and
383 COUNCIL 3. 10. 2013
Planning Committee 4. 9. 2013
12 Cont’d
Prestons Road (referred to as ‘subject land’) from Rural 3 to Living G (Prestons), to enable commercial activities (Refer to Attachment 1 for the plan change locality and Attachment 2 for the plan showing the affected properties).
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
2. A private plan change request was lodged on 10th September 2012 by Progressive Enterprises Limited (Progressive) for the rezoning of approximately 4.6 hectares on the north eastern corner of Marshlands Road and Prestons Road from Rural 3 to Living G. The intent of the plan change is to enable commercial development of the land. (Refer to Attachment 1 for a locality plan and Attachment 2 for the plan showing the affected properties)). The site adjoins the western boundary of the existing Living G (Prestons) zone. The adjoining land on the south side of Prestons Road and to the east is zoned Living G (Prestons). The balance of the surrounding land, to the west and north, adjoining Marshland Road is zoned Rural 3. The land subject to the private plan change request is identified outside the urban limits and greenfield areas in Proposed Change 1 to the Regional Policy Statement (RPS), and outside the “Boundary of infrastructure supported priority, existing urban and greenfield areas” as well as greenfield priority areas identified in the Draft Land Use Recovery Plan. .
3. Requests for further information were issued by Council under Clause 23 of the First Schedule of the Resource Management Act (RMA) on 5 October and 15 October 2012, which the applicant formally responded to on 19 July 2013. A subsequent request for further information was made by Council on 13 August 2013 as insufficient information was provided in the response dated 19 July 2013. A formal response to Council’s request has not been received at the time of this report. However, a letter dated 15 August 2013 from Russell McVeagh acting for Progressive Enterprises states:
“ It (Progressive) is not willing to have its Request delayed for a further 6 months, and disagrees that the information requested is required before the Council can formally accept the Request for processing under Clause 25 of the RMA.
On this basis, Progressive requests that the PC76 Request be put on the agenda for the next meeting of the Planning Committee with a recommendation that the Request be accepted”,
Having regard to the response from Progressives, it is recommended that Council makes a decision to adopt, accept, or reject the request or process it as a resource consent application under Clause 25 of Schedule 1 to the RMA.
4. The Council has four options under Clause 25, Schedule 1 of the RMA on how the plan change request is processed as follows -
(a) Accepting the application as a private plan change request and publicly notifying it for submissions and a hearing at the cost of the applicant; (b) Adopting the change as the Council’s own change and accepting the responsibility and costs of processing it; (c) Rejecting the application; or (d) Processing it as a resource consent application.
5. It is not considered appropriate for the plan change request to be treated as a resource consent or adopted by Council as its own plan change for the reasons described in paragraphs 43 - 45. The primary options are therefore to accept or reject the plan change.
There are limited grounds for rejecting a plan change as follows –
Under clause 23 the applicant has declined to provide the further information requested; Under clause 25: o It is frivolous or vexatious (25(4)(a);
384 COUNCIL 3. 10. 2013
Planning Committee 4. 9. 2013
12 Cont’d
o The substance of the change has been dealt with by the Council or the Environment Court in the last two years (25)(4)(b); o The change is not in accordance with sound resource management practice (25)(4)(c); o The change would make the District Plan inconsistent with Part 5 of the Act (other policies or plans, such as Regional Policies or Plans) (25)(4)(d); or o The District Plan has not been operative for more than two years (25)(4)(e).
6. The merits of the plan change are not particularly relevant at this stage of the process except in limited circumstances where the effects and/or inconsistencies with the objectives and policies in the Christchurch City Council District Plan are clearly so significant that the change can be said to not be in accordance with sound resource management practice. Case law has suggested that the merits should only be assessed at a coarse scale when making a decision on how the request is processed under Clause 25 of Schedule 1.
7. Council officers have concluded that the plan change request is not frivolous or vexatious as the proponent has demonstrated a commitment to pursue the rezoning of the subject land. The District Plan has not been made operative in the last 2 years and clause 25(4)(e) is therefore not relevant. However, there are considered to be valid grounds for rejecting the plan change request as described below.
8. Firstly, the substance of the change sought has been considered by Council in the last two years. The merits of rezoning of the land for commercial purposes were considered and rejected by commissioners, and ultimately the Council in its decision on plan change 30 (Living G Prestons) on 27 October 2011.
9. Progressive Enterprises have also made a submission on the Preliminary Draft Land Use Recovery Plan (including Chapter 6 of the Regional Policy Statement), seeking that the subject land is identified as a Greenfield Priority Area. This was not accepted. While subject to a non- RMA process, the substance of the change has therefore been considered by the strategic partners, including the Council, since the decision on Private Plan Change 30.
10. Secondly, the plan change is not in accordance with sound resource management practice. It would be inappropriate for the Council to accept the plan change request when higher order documents are subject to review. The Draft Land Use Recovery Plan (LURP) proposes a new Chapter 6 for inclusion in the Regional Policy Statement, which will provide a framework for managing growth in Greater Christchurch.
11. For Council to accept the request at this time would not support an integrated approach to resource management in the Christchurch context. The proposed rezoning is being considered through another process (the draft LURP) which makes the proposed change somewhat irrelevant at this time. Consultation on the Draft LURP including Chapter 6 of the RPS has provided the means for Progressive to seek a change to the Regional Policy Statement rather than through the statutory plan change process. It would be more appropriate for the proposed plan change to be considered once the Minister has made his decision.
12. The third grounds for rejecting is that the plan change is the change would make the District Plan potentially inconsistent with Part 5 of the Act. Section 74(2) (a) of Part 5 to the RMA requires that the Council has regard to any proposed change to the RPS. Proposed Change 1 to the RPS provides a statutory basis for managing urban growth in Greater Christchurch, which has been subject to appeals and can therefore be given weight. In PC1, the subject land is outside the urban limits and not identified within a greenfield area. To allow urban activities in this location is therefore not consistent with nor envisaged by PC1.
385 COUNCIL 3. 10. 2013
Planning Committee 4. 9. 2013
12 Cont’d
13. While limited weight if any can be given to the Draft LURP at the time of writing, the proposed use of the subject land for urban activities is not envisaged in Chapter 6 of the RPS, forming part of the Draft LURP, which will effectively replace Proposed Change 1 if approved by the Minister of Earthquake Recovery. It is inappropriate to accept the plan change request when higher order documents are under consideration, and it would not be in accordance with sound resource management practice in the present circumstances to accept the plan change request. The Draft LURP is the appropriate mechanism for Progressive to pursue a change to the Regional Policy Statement and unless those documents change, the request will continue to be inconsistent with PC1 and the Draft LURP. The alternative method is for Council to request a change to the Regional Policy Statement, which is not supported by staff of Christchurch City Council or Canterbury Regional Council.
FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS
14. The financial considerations will differ depending on how the Council decides to process this request. Should it reject the request as recommended, it is likely that the applicant would challenge this decision in the Environment Court, which would be a costly process for the Council regardless of the outcome. Costs cannot be predicted accurately as this is likely to be a test case due to the limited case law on when the Clause 25 provision relating to sound resource management applies.
15. Should the Council accept and notify the change there will be no direct costs to Council as the Council’s costs would be recovered from the applicant. Should the Council adopt the change as its own then the Council will need to absorb all the costs. Considering the issues of concern, these could be considerable.
Do the Recommendations of this Report Align with 2006-16 LTCCP budgets?
16. Yes.
LEGAL CONSIDERATIONS
17. There is a statutory process that must be followed including a requirement under Clause 25 of Schedule 1 to the RMA for the Council to decide if the plan change should be accepted and publicly notified, or otherwise adopted or rejected. If the Council decision is to reject, or accept the request in part, the applicant has the right to appeal this decision.
18. There is a legal process of notification, submissions, reporting, hearings, decisions and appeals specified in Schedule 1 of the RMA which must be followed. This process is very familiar to the Council and process issues should create no particular risks or liabilities if followed correctly.
ALIGNMENT WITH LTP AND ACTIVITY MANAGEMENT PLANS
19. Processing private plan change requests is a statutory Council process, and as such is consistent with the LTP and Activity Management Plans. The plan change request itself raises issues of relevance to the LTP.
ALIGNMENT WITH STRATEGIES
20. No. The proposed private Plan Change conflicts with the Settlement Pattern established in the Urban Development Strategy and is inconsistent with Proposed Change 1 of the Regional Policy Statement. It is also not identified within a Greenfield Priority Area in the draft LURP, which has been submitted to the Minister for his consideration, and is therefore not recognised in the draft LURP as being appropriate for urban development.
386 COUNCIL 3. 10. 2013
Planning Committee 4. 9. 2013
12 Cont’d
CONSULTATION FULFILMENT
21. Senior planning staff from the UDS Partners (including the Canterbury Regional Council, Selwyn District Council and Waimakariri Council) have concerns over the proposal being outside of the existing urban area and priority greenfield areas as set out in the Draft Land Use Recovery Plan.
22, The rezoning of the subject land for commercial activities as sought in the submission from Progressive on Private Plan Change 30 has also been consulted on through the process of inviting further submissions on their submission as a part of the plan change process.
23. The draft Land Use Recovery Plan has also been subject to two periods of consultation, the first ‘round’ being on a preliminary draft in March and April 2012 and the second on the draft as presented to the Minister, which closed on the 2nd August 2013. This has enabled Progressive to seek a change to the draft LURP and in turn the Regional Policy Statement so as to enable development of the subject land for urban activities.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
That the Council reject the plan change pursuant to Clause 25 of the First Schedule to the Resource Management Act 1991.
COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION
That this matter be referred directly to the 3 October 2013 Council meeting for consideration as this matter has not been publicly available for sufficient time.
BACKGROUND AND DISCUSSION
The Plan Change Request
24. The request involves the rezoning of approximately 4.6 hectares of land at the north eastern corner of Marshlands Road and Prestons Road from Rural 3 to Living G (Prestons) in the Christchurch City Council District Plan (also known as the ‘City Plan’). The intent of the plan change is to enable commercial development of the land. (Refer to locality plan in Attachment 1 Attachment 2 for the plan showing the affected properties). The site adjoins the western boundary of the existing Living G (Prestons) zone. The adjoining land on the south side of Prestons Road and to the east is zoned Living G (Prestons). The Outline Development Plan for the Living G Prestons zone identifies the land to the south of Prestons Road for ‘Commercial’ activities and the adjoining land to the east for residential activities. The balance of the surrounding land, to the west and north, adjoining Marshland Road is zoned Rural 3.
25. As well as commercial activities, the private plan change request makes provision for higher density residential activities.
Strategic Policy Context
Proposed Change 1 to the Regional Policy Statement
26. Proposed Change 1 to the RPS (PC1), which gives effect to the Greater Christchurch Urban Development Strategy (UDS) in a statutory context and provides the Resource Management framework for managing urban growth in Greater Christchurch to 2041. PC1 identifies an urban limit within which growth is to be contained to achieve the primary of objective of urban consolidation, and greenfield areas to accommodate housing and business development. Decisions on Proposed Change 1 were made by the Canterbury Regional Council in December 2009, which were subsequently appealed by multiple parties to the Environment Court.
387 COUNCIL 3. 10. 2013
Planning Committee 4. 9. 2013
12 Cont’d
27. Policy 1 (Urban Limits), of PC1 provides that “Except as provided for in Policy 13 …. urban activities within in Christchurch shall occur only within the Urban Limits delineated on Map 1". This is a clear and directive statement that, except as provided for in Policy 13, urban development shall only occur within the urban limits. The land subject to this private plan change request is not defined within the urban limits or within a greenfield area as defined by the Commissioners decisions on Proposed Change 1 to the Regional Policy Statement. It is therefore inconsistent with Policy 1 of PC1.
28. Policy 13 (Resolution of Urban Limits) of PC1 to the RPS as referred to in Policy 1 provides that:
Policy 13 Development Outside Urban Limits
(a) During the process of completing district plan changes and Outline Development Plans, territorial authorities may make minor amendments to provide for urban zoning outside the Urban Limits shown on Map provided all the following conditions are met:
(i) Any proposed extension or reduction will not change the Outline Development Plan area by more than 5 %; and (ii) Any additional land is contiguous with the Outline Development Plan area; and (iii) Economies of scale or other efficiencies for infrastructure would arise; and (iv) All other provisions of Policy 8 are met.
(b) Resource consents or plan changes may provide for urban activities outside the Urban Limits on Map 1 only under the following circumstances:
(i) where the land concerned has been used for an industrial, business or rural activity which has resulted in site contamination or environmental degradation, and where the proposed use and development involves remediation, rehabilitation and/or on-site environmental off-sets and ensures a long-term net environmental (ii) where there is no conflict with the objectives and policies of all chapters of the RPS.
(c) Any use or development for urban activities, other than those specified in Policy 1 or elsewhere in this chapter, which is outside the Urban Limits on Map 1 shall only be progressed subject to a change to Map 1 which is underway prior to or at the same time as the consideration of the specific use or development, provided that the land is contiguous with the existing Urban Limits and the extension meets the criteria of Policy 13(a) (iii) and (iv).
29. Policy 8 sets out what must be shown on an outline development plan.
30. If conditions (i) – (iv) of policy 13 are met the Council may consider extending the ODP area past the urban limit. This implies a discretion on behalf of the Council and it is not mandatory that the area be extended if the conditions are met. Conditions (i)-(iv) are threshold tests that must all be passed before the Council could exercise its discretion as to whether or not to agree to the extension. The inclusion of the subject land does not meet all criteria as it does not provide economies of scale or other efficiencies for infrastructure and all provisions of Policy 8 are not met.
Draft Land Use Recovery Plan and Proposed Chapter 6 of the Regional Policy Statement
31. In November 2012, the Minister of Earthquake Recovery directed that the Canterbury Regional Council, in conjunction with its strategic partners (including the Council), prepare a Draft Land Use Recovery Plan to address the following amongst other matters:
388 COUNCIL 3. 10. 2013
Planning Committee 4. 9. 2013
12 Cont’d
A. Identification of the location, type and mix of residential and business activities within specific geographic areas necessary for earthquake recovery, including i. the priority areas to support recovery and rebuilding in the next 10 to 15 years, and ii. enabling and informing the sequencing and timescales for the delivery of infrastructure and transport networks and hubs to support the priority areas.
Minister’s Direction to develop a Land Use Recovery Plan dated 6 November 2012
32. A Preliminary Draft of the LURP was prepared and comments were invited from the public in March and April 2013 to inform the preparation of a draft that was presented to the Minister on the 5th July 2013. The Draft LURP as presented to the Minister has the purpose of ‘ensuring efforts to restore and enhance Greater Christchurch are well co-ordinated and to offer a timely and expedited process for recovery’. This is achieved by providing a clear direction on where and how new development should occur so it is integrated with infrastructure, avoids hazards and constraints.
33. Appendix 2 of the Draft LURP proposes changes to the Regional Policy Statement to include a new chapter 6 for the recovery and rebuilding of Greater Christchurch. Proposed Chapter 6 establishes a land use and infrastructure framework that identifies priority areas for urban development and the extent of the area for growth that can be supported by infrastructure. It is noted that, if the draft LURP is approved by the Minister, Chapter 6 will essentially replace PC1.
34. The Draft LURP and Chapter 6 do not define the subject land inside the “Boundary of infrastructure supported priority existing urban and greenfield areas” nor as a part of a priority greenfield area. Proposed Chapter 6 has an objective (6.2.1) that “Recovery, rebuilding and development is enabled within Greater Christchurch through a land use and infrastructure framework that… (3) avoids urban development outside of existing urban areas or priority areas for development, unless expressly provided for in the CRPS”. The draft LURP and proposed Chapter 6 to the CRPS does not provide for urban activities on the subject land.
35. Progressive made a submission on the Preliminary Draft LURP dated 22 April 2013, seeking “That the land (the subject of this report) … be included as on the Greenfield Priority Area Map (Map A) of the Appendix 2 of the Land Use Recovery Plan (LURP) as Residential Priority Area (Not Yet Zoned)”. This was not accepted as reflected in the Draft LURP presented to the Minister.
Progressive Enterprises Limited submission on Private Plan Change 30 Living G (Prestons) Zone
36. PEL submitted on PPC30 seeking inclusion of (amongst other land) the land described in paragraph 24 in the Living G (Prestons) zone for commercial and higher density residential development. The location plan for PEL’s submission on private plan change 30 is attached as Attachment 3. All of the land in the submission was rejected by the independent commissioners who were delegated to hear and make recommendations on the plan change submissions. The Council adopted this recommendation and released its decision on 27 October 2011. The reasons given by the commissioners were:
…the extent of the additional land is simply too great to be added without significant analysis of the effects of such addition which those submitters did not adequately address. Having said that, their submissions have helpfully demonstrated how a further stage of development could be achieved at some time in the future. Our assessment is that if PC 30 were to be approved it should be future proofed so that the concept can be extended through to a complete Marshlands Road urban edge.
37. When the commissioner’s decision on PC 30 was adopted by the Council, the Minister for Earthquake Recovery exercised powers under the CER Act and made it operative. Any right of appeal that PEL may have had was nullified by the Minister making the plan change operative.
38. The Living G (Prestons) zone is now fully operative in the District Plan.
389 COUNCIL 3. 10. 2013
Planning Committee 4. 9. 2013
12 Cont’d
RMA Process for plan change
39. The plan change request was lodged on 10 September 2012. Requests for further information were issued by Council under Clause 23 of the First Schedule of the Resource Management Act 1991 on 5 October and 15 October 2012, which the applicant formally responded to on 19th July 2013. A subsequent request for further information was made by Council on 13th August 2013 as insufficient information was provided in the response dated 19th July 2013. A formal response to Council’s request has not been received at the time of this report. However, a letter dated 15th August from Russell McVeagh acting for Progressive Enterprises states:
“It (Progressive) is not willing to have its Request delayed for a further 6 months, and disagrees that the information requested is required before the Council can formally accept the Request for processing under Clause 25 of the RMA.
On this basis, Progressive requests that the PC76 Request be put on the agenda for the next meeting of the Planning Committee with a recommendation that the Request be accepted”,
40. Having regard to the response from Progressives, it is recommended that Council makes a decision whether to adopt, accept, or reject the request under Clause 25 of Schedule 1 to the RMA. The options are described in more detail below.
THE OPTIONS
1. Accept the Plan Change
41. Under this scenario the private plan change is publicly notified in the form prepared by the applicant. Accepting the plan change proposal means:
(i) The nature of the plan change that is notified is largely consistent with the request as lodged (unless changes have been agreed), and if changes to the proposal are considered necessary for it to be ultimately approved, the Council may need to make a submission in opposition to the plan change in order to provide the necessary jurisdiction for changes to be made. (ii) The Council signals that it is not taking issue with the merits of the proposal prior to public notification, and reserving the ability to support or oppose the proposal on its merits at the latter stages in the process. (iii) The applicants will bear the cost of the complete plan change process (including costs associated with the resolution of appeals).
42. It the Council decides to accept the plan change request, there may be reasons why the Council may wish to make submissions in opposition to the plan change, particularly in respect of the issues identified later in this report. It is noted that if a submission is not received seeking an amendment to the plan change, there may well be jurisdictional issues in seeking to amend the plan change in the decision following the hearing of submissions.
2. Adopt the Plan Change
43. Under this scenario the plan change becomes a Council plan change. It is notified, heard and decided in the same way as a plan change prepared by the Council. The Council bears all of the associated costs. Adopting the plan change proposal would mean:
(i) The Council can control the proposal that is publicly notified. (ii) It implies from the Council’s initial assessment that the plan change is appropriate. (iii) The Council bears the costs of managing and processing the plan change.
390 COUNCIL 3. 10. 2013
Planning Committee 4. 9. 2013
12 Cont’d
44. There is the potential that more officer time and Council financial resources are spent relative to the process if Council were to ‘accept’ the plan change request due to Council taking responsibility for the plan change as its own. These would be resources that are diverted from other work of the City Planning team including the review of the District Plan. Such a decision would be unusual and the Council would have to have a high level of confidence that the proposal was consistent with the Council’s policies and strategies.
3. Treat the Plan Change as a Resource Consent
45. Under this scenario the Plan Change is processed as a resource consent application by the Council. The applicant bears all of the associated costs. Given the variable nature of the potential development sought to be permitted by the application, it is considered that it would be difficult to deal with it as a resource consent application.
4. Reject the Plan Change
46. There are very limited grounds in the Act for rejecting an application. A plan change can be rejected if:
Under clause 23 the applicant has declined to provide the further information requested; Under clause 25: o It is frivolous or vexatious; o The substance of the change has been dealt with by the Council or the Environment Court in the last two years; o The change is not in accordance with sound resource management practice; o The change would make the District Plan inconsistent with Part 5 of the Act (other policies or plans, such as Regional Policies or Plans); or o The District Plan has not been operative for more than two years.
47. As explained below the principal issues of concern with this plan change request relate to the substance of the plan change having been considered, and rejected, by the Council in the last 2 years (both through PC30 and the draft LURP); the plan change request not being in accordance with sound resource management practice, and the plan change making the City Plan potentially inconsistent with Part 5 of the Resource Management Act.
Implications of reconsidering the substance of the plan change within 2 years.
48. Progressive state that they have lodged the Plan Change request as “This course of action will ensure that Progressive is able to continue to retain the appeal rights that were removed as a result of the Minister’s actions.” Progressive state in their covering letter for the request:
12. In October 2011 the Minister decided to exercise his powers under section 27 of the Act7 and intervened in both the PC 1 and PC 30 proceedings. Pursuant to this section, the Minister revoked PC 1 and replaced it with a new Chapter 12A to the RPS and made PC 30 operative, with immediate effect. As section 68 of the Act removes the right of appeal against a decision of the Minister under section 27, Progressive effectively lost all rights to appeal its case in both proceedings to the Environment Court through no fault of its own. The practical effect of this has been that Progressive has been procedurally prevented from seeking to have its land included either within the Urban Limit or rezoned as Living Zone.
49. The substance of the proposed plan change has clearly been considered and rejected by the Council within the last two years through Progressive’s submission on Plan Change 30. However the fact that it has been considered and rejected is not an absolute prohibition on reconsidering the matter within the 2 year period. There is a discretion to be exercised where the Council must consider the implications of allowing the reconsideration of the substance of the plan change so soon after it has been ‘settled’.
7 Canterbury Earthquake Recovery Act 2011.
391 COUNCIL 3. 10. 2013
Planning Committee 4. 9. 2013
12 Cont’d
50. The Council has expended resources trying to settle issues associated with Proposed Change 1 to the RPS and Plan Change 30 to the City Plan. Progressive put their argument to the commissioners as a part of the PC 30 process, had the merits of their argument considered and rejected on the grounds that there was inadequate analysis of the effects of the addition of the land. The Council was satisfied with the PC30 decision. Nothing has changed in the intervening period that would cause the Council to re-evaluate that position, and no “need” has been established by Progressive other than a desire to ‘continue to retain appeal rights’. As noted earlier, this reason is likely to be redundant given the draft LURP process.
51. Progressive will likely appeal any decision by Council to reject the plan change for public notification to the Environment Court. It is likely that this issue, given the stance of the Regional Council in regard to Proposed Change 1 to the RPS and the Draft LURP (including Proposed Chapter 6), would come before the Environment Court under appeal even if Plan Change 76 were publicly notified and processed by the Council. There would be an unnecessary expenditure of Council resources processing the plan change when the matter could be before the Environment Court.
52. Progressive's complaint that the Minister's decisions precluded rights of appeal, does not change the application of the test regarding the substance of the request having been considered in the last two years, one of the grounds set out above for rejecting the plan change
53. In addition to the consideration of Progressive's submission on Plan Change 30, there has been a public consultation process on the preliminary Draft Land Use Recovery Plan and subsequently, consultation on the Draft Land Use Recovery Plan as presented to the Minister. Written comments to the Minister on the draft LURP closed on the 2nd August 2013. This process has enabled Progressive to seek a change to the LURP and Regional Policy Statement to enable development of the subject land for urban activities.
54. Progressive Enterprises Limited made a submission on the Preliminary Draft LURP dated 22 April 2013, seeking “That the land … be included as on the Greenfield Priority Area Map (Map A) of the Appendix 2 of the Land Use Recovery Plan (LURP) as Residential Priority Area (Not Yet Zoned)”. However, this was not accepted by the Regional Council and its strategic partners (including the Council). While subject to a non-RMA process, the substance of the change has therefore been considered since the decision on Private Plan Change 30. The Minister has yet to approve the LURP having regard to submissions made on the draft, and a decision on this is expected in September 2013.
In having regard to Proposed Change 1 to the RPS and the Draft Land Use Recovery Plan would Proposed Plan Change 76 be in accordance with sound resource management practice?
55. Legal advice from Simpson Grierson to Council has highlighted the limited case law on when the Clause 25 provision relating to sound resource management practice could apply, but staff understand that this could apply where the plan change contains fundamental flaws or deficiencies such that it is not worthy of further consideration and testing through notification, public submission, and hearings. The clause should only be considered with some caution as the Act clearly intends that private plan changes should be able to be requested and invariably plan changes will have some negative and some positive effects. So the fact that the Council may have some concerns about the merits of a plan change should not necessarily mean that it would be appropriate to reject a plan change
56. Case law has, though, defined that the analysis as to whether the plan change would be sound resource management practice is a ‘coarse’ test of merit:
‘… we have concluded that the reference to sound resource management practice is intended to address the question of merit only at a coarse scale. We consider that at the heart of sound resource management practice must surely be sustainable management, the purpose of the RMA. If a private plan change clearly does not accord with the purpose and principles of the Act then it should be a non starter. (Malory Corporation Limited v Rodney District Council Decision Number A65/2009).
392 COUNCIL 3. 10. 2013
Planning Committee 4. 9. 2013
12 Cont’d
57. The same case concluded that the consideration of sound resource management practice went beyond planning merit to include fundamental issues as to appropriate process, timing, and the like.
58. Under the hierarchy of plans set out in the RMA the Regional Policy Statement provides the overarching strategic framework for sustainable management of natural and physical resources in the Canterbury Region. Whilst Proposed Change 1 to the RPS remains under challenge, by appeal to the Environment Court, it follows that when determining ‘sound resource management practice’ consideration should be given to situations where the request is clearly contrary to objectives and policies of higher level planning documents such as the RPS. The plan change would enable urban development that is outside the Urban Limit in Proposed Change 1 to the RPS.
59. Section 74(2)(a) of the RMA requires that the Council must have ‘regard to’ a proposed change to the RPS when considering a change to the City Plan. Consideration must therefore be given to policies of Proposed Change 1 by the Council. While recognising it does not have legal effect there is also a need to have regard to Chapter 6 forming part of the Draft LURP, which will effectively replace Proposed Change 1 if approved by the Minister of Canterbury Earthquake Recovery.
60. The Draft Land Use Recovery Plan, which was prepared by the Canterbury Regional Council, following direction by the Minister of Earthquake Recovery in November 2012, is the appropriate mechanism for identifying the subject land for urban activities. Appendix 2 of the Draft LURP proposes changes to the Regional Policy Statement to include a new chapter 6 for managing the recovery and rebuilding of Greater Christchurch. Outside the planning process for PC1, it is through the LURP process, prescribed under the Canterbury Earthquake Recovery Act 2011 that any change to the LURP, including Proposed Chapter 6 of the Regional Policy Statement, could be sought by the proponent for the private plan change. In the present circumstances, the LURP process is considered to be the appropriate vehicle to pursue the subject matter of the plan change, rather than through the plan change request process.
61. The proponent for the private plan change has indicated that they have been in discussions with CERA in respect to the site and through the consultation process on the LURP and proposed Chapter 6 of the RPS. The applicant states in their letter dated 5th July 2013 that “The LURP process is now the mechanism that Progressive is using to ensure that the regional and district direction in respect to the site is aligned”. Notwithstanding this, the Draft LURP and Chapter 6 do not define the subject land inside the “Boundary of infrastructure supported priority existing urban and greenfield areas” nor as a part of a priority greenfield area. As noted above, the LURP process is the more appropriate vehicle for pursuing Progressive's desired outcome. It is therefore not considered to be ‘sound resource management practice’ from a process and timing perspective for a change to be sought to the zoning of the subject land ahead of any change to the Regional Policy Statement.
62. While the draft LURP does not have legal effect, it is worth noting the legal position once the LURP is approved. Section 23 of the CER Act requires that Council in exercising functions or powers under the RMA must not make a decision or recommendation that is inconsistent with the Recovery Plan on and from its notification in the gazette. In this respect, it prevails over the hierarchy of documents prepared under the RMA and Council cannot act in a manner inconsistent with the LURP. This is relevant to the question of whether accepting the plan change request would be in accordance with good resource management practice.
63. While the content of the LURP as approved by the Minister is not known, the draft LURP does not provide for what is sought by Progressive in the private plan change request. To accept or adopt the request, Council would run the risk of acting in a manner inconsistent with the LURP.
393 COUNCIL 3. 10. 2013
Planning Committee 4. 9. 2013
12 Cont’d
Conclusions
64. It is concluded that the change is not in accordance with sound resource management practice on the basis that the plan change request is inconsistent with Proposed Chapter 6 of the Draft Land Use Recovery Plan and Proposed Change 1 to the Regional Policy Statement. The request is also potentially inconsistent with Part 5 of the Resource Management Act.
65. Furthermore, the substance and merits of rezoning of the land for commercial purposes was considered and rejected by commissioners, and ultimately the Council in its decision on Private Plan Change 30 on 27 October 2011, and through its participation in the preparation of the draft LURP.
THE PREFERRED OPTION
66. The preferred option is Option 3 - Reject the Plan Change for public notification.
13. APPOINTMENT OF A DISTRICT PLAN REVIEW – WORKING PARTY (DPR-WP) AND PROGRESS UPDATE
General Manager Strategy and Planning Group, DDI 941-8281 General Manager responsible: City Planning Unit Manager Officer responsible: Brigitte de Ronde and Brent Pizzey Author:
PURPOSE OF REPORT
1. The purpose of this report is to:
update the elected members on progress with the District Plan Review; propose an effective method through the appointment of a new District Plan Review - Working Party (DPR-WP) that would ensure the necessary continuity and flexibility to achieve Governance involvement in preparation of the proposed recovery chapters for public notification through to hearings; and obtain the necessary resolutions to achieve the above.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
2. The District Plan Review (DPR) project began officially on 1 July 2013 and is well underway with a number of important tasks having been completed or in progress. This report only relates to the first year of the District Plan Review, involving what is commonly referred to as the “recovery chapters” and follows on from the other report on this agenda titled “District Plan Commencement”. The recovery chapters are under review now due to the directions set out in LURP. The “recovery chapters” are: City-wide Directions, Business, Residential, Natural Hazards and Contaminated Land, Transport, Subdivision Development and Earthworks and Future Urban Development Areas; and also objectives and policies for the built heritage part of the Heritage chapter. Updates to the Heritage schedules will be completed and added to the heritage chapter through a Variation to take place within the next two years.
3. Due to the complications arising from the timing of the proposed DPR notification and the local body elections, and the need for continuity given the timeframes involved for the recovery chapters, a new process is proposed to achieve governance input on the recovery chapters to enable the notification timeframe of 30 June 2014 to be achieved. Firstly that a District Plan Review Working Party (DPR-WP) of up to five people be established. It is suggested that the Working Party include three nominated Councillors, and that this team then work with staff to secure the services of two further specialists, an RMA practitioner, and RMA legal expert. The intention is to utilise this small group in an ongoing technical advisory capacity throughout the development phase of the project. It will necessitate frequent (at least weekly) meetings, to identify, review and provide direction to staff, and a rapid turn around of material. It will require
394 COUNCIL 3. 10. 2013
Planning Committee 4. 9. 2013
13 Cont’d
familiarity with the plan, the legal framework, and the direction of the RMA reforms, as well as being attuned to the community’s aspirations, and the need to balance outcomes.
4. The purpose of the establishment of this group is to support the task of drafting the first chapters over the period during which the council elections and establishment taking place. This method allows the Council to ensure it is continuing to meet the very tight timelines established by the draft Land Use Recovery Plan (LURP). As part of this establishment the incoming Council would have the option to amend or supplement the Councillor composition, and this should be considered as part of the Council’s committee establishment process. Having a number of external contributors would help to ensure continuity of the working party should the elected membership significantly change after the elections. However it is proposed that the initial working party be empowered to continue post election until the incoming council explicitly resolves otherwise. The key role of the DPR-WP at the conclusion of the first substantive drafting round would be to recommend to the Council (through the GM Strategy and Planning) the draft recovery chapters for notification.
5. The key functions of the Working Party would be to:
Advise and review the issues, content and overall integration of the chapters of the District Plan being reviewed Actively keep Council up to date on progress with the review Recommend to Council, via the General Manager Strategy and Planning Group, the plan for notification Ideally, recommend through the General Manager Strategy and Planning Group, the possible composition of any hearing panels to consider and make recommendations on submissions to the draft plan.
6. While there is a possibility that the DPR-WP may, in whole or in part, become part of any subsequent hearing panel(s), it is preferable that new expertise join the process at that point. It is recognised that any non Councillor members of the DPR-WP will need to be remunerated, as indeed may Councillor members depending on the intensity of the programme.
7. The DPR-WP would operate in a similar manner to the Council's Planning Committee (but would not be a committee of Council); its specific purpose and focus would be the District Plan Review, with powers specific to that purpose. It would allow a highly engaged group of people (two or three Councillors, and one or two Independent Consultants) to stay focused on the District Plan Review which is highly important given the tight timeframes the Council is working under, would enable continuity through the election period, and would allow sufficient flexibility to allow decisions on process to continue to be made during the election period and at relatively short notice through the Schedule 1 process.
8. There is at present ongoing dialogue with the government regarding the process for the review. As part of the LURP the strategic partners noted that to reasonably achieve the timeframes some modification to the standard Resource Management Act (RMA) process would be required. This is now being considered by Canterbury Earthquake Recovery Authority (CERA) and the Ministry for the Environment (MfE) on behalf of the government. It is possible that as part of any decisions made by the government that some changes to the structure and processes for developing and adopting the plan may be considered and may change the role and composition of any working party. There are no firm proposals in respect of this but the possibility that even this model may be required to change should be noted.
395 COUNCIL 3. 10. 2013
Planning Committee 4. 9. 2013
13 Cont’d
FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS
9. The establishment of the DPR-WP will add additional cost to the approved project, principally in the remuneration of members. It is intended to manage this within the current budget allocated for the project. At present the project is tracking at 80 per cent of its expected cost on a month by month basis, though expenditure is likely to be more volatile as the project moves through its various stages. The current budget already anticipates the cost of independent hearings panels.
Do the Recommendations of this Report Align with 2013-16 TYP budgets?
10. Yes.
LEGAL CONSIDERATIONS
11. In establishing this process there is still a lack of clarity around how, or if, the Government will support the Council in achieving the review, and in what form that will take. This may cause the Council to have to change process, timeframes, and direction. However to do nothing and wait for a government to demonstrate its intentions would both frustrate the programme already underway and put the proposed timetable beyond the Council’s achievement. The planning teams have already been placed under additional pressure as the government seeks to achieve more short term LURP actions, as well as expecting the Council to review the plan. Councillors may recall that at the time it signalled a commitment to the District Plan Review that this dual approach was considered by staff as being extremely challenging in a capacity context. Unfortunately we are currently facing this very outcome. It is therefore recommended that Council put in place the structures it considers will best support the review at this time. The recommendations provide for the Working Party not to be discharged upon the coming onto office of the new Council, and for Councillors appointed by this Council to continue to be members of the Working Party should they not be Councillors until the new Council reviews the composition and function of the DPR-WP as part of its consideration of committees and Councillor appointments.
12. The Local Government Act provides for Council to establish working parties that span triennial terms, and for elected members to serve on these after they have ceased to be members (should that arise), and until such time as they are replaced by elected members
Have you considered the legal implications of the issue under consideration?
13. In order to achieve the timeframes set out in the Draft LURP, and comply with the RMA schedule 1 process, the Council will have only five months for the development and drafting of the recovery chapters before notification in late November 2013. This timeframe allows for the full number of days for public consultation in the original and further submissions rounds. Informal consultation will also occur throughout the drafting phase.
ALIGNMENT WITH LTCCP AND ACTIVITY MANAGEMENT PLANS
14. This project is mandated in the City Planning Activity Management Plan.
Do the recommendations of this report support a level of service or project in the 2013-16 TYP?
15. Yes.
ALIGNMENT WITH STRATEGIES
16. Yes, see previous report.
396 COUNCIL 3. 10. 2013
Planning Committee 4. 9. 2013
13 Cont’d
Do the recommendations align with the Council’s strategies?
17. Yes.
CONSULTATION FULFILMENT
18. No formal consultation has been undertaken specifically regarding the establishment of the DPR-WP. CERA, MfE, and Environment Canterbury (ECan) have been involved in dialogue with the Council officers and the Chair of the Planning Committee on governance, scheduling and structure for the review. They are aware of the steps proposed by Council staff to address the timing situation it finds itself in. The District Plan Programme itself envisages extensive public consultation which has already commenced, with Community Boards, key stakeholder groups, as well as material being distributed to households and the community (see paragraphs below on progress of the DPR).
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
That the Council resolves:
(a) To establish a District Plan Review Working Party to support the General Manager Strategy and Planning Group in the development of the District Plan Review Recovery Chapters
(b) That the following Councillors (x), (x) and (x) be appointed to the District Plan Review Working Party and that Councillor [x] be appointed as Chairperson.
(c) That the appointed Councillors work with staff to identify and appoint up to two additional Resource Management experts (one planning expert and one legal advisor) to participate in the Working Party
(d) That, for the purpose of paragraph 30(7) of Schedule 7 of the Local Government Act 2002, the Working Party not be deemed to be discharged on the coming into office of the Councillors of the Council elected at the triennial general election on 12 October 2013
(e) That the District Plan Review Working Party undertake the following:
(i) to work with Council staff to develop and review the content of the draft recovery chapters of the District Plan; (ii) to regularly update the Christchurch City Council on progress with the development of the plan during its development process; (iii) to recommend to the General Manager Strategy and Planning Group for recommendation to Council the recovery chapters of the DPR for notification for submission; and (iv) to identify and recommend through the General Manager Strategy and Planning Group the composition of any hearing panels to consider and make recommendations on submissions to the draft plan (v) that the incoming Council review the composition and function of the District Plan Review Working Party as part of its consideration of committees and Councillor appointments.
(f) That the Councillors referred to in recommendation (b) continue to be members of the Working Party even if they are not Councillors after the coming into office of the Councillors elected at the triennial general election on 12 October 2013.
COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION
That the Staff Recommendation be adopted.
397 COUNCIL 3. 10. 2013
Planning Committee 4. 9. 2013
13 Cont’d
BACKGROUND (THE ISSUES)
19. This report is an update to the previous report on this agenda titled “2013 District Plan Commencement”. The Council raised the prospect of commencing the District Plan Review (DPR) as part of its response to issues raised in the Land Use Recovery Plan (LURP). This commitment was then further endorsed at the 20 June 2013 Council meeting. Work on the DPR commenced on 1 July 2013. The first draft proposed chapters known as the recovery chapters (focussed on meeting LURP actions) are to be completed with Decisions released by 30 June 2014. The remainder of the DPR is to be completed with Decisions released before the 2016 local body elections.
UPDATE ON PROGRESS
Project Structure (see Attachment 1)
20. Roles, responsibilities and behaviours have been agreed at all levels of the structure (apart from the Governance level) and achieving this has been a major milestone for the project. The Project team resource structure (matching people to chapters) is in place as are reporting and management processes.
21. The response from all Groups within Council and from the consultancy community has been overwhelmingly positive in their support for the project. The project team has been brought together in one area on the second floor to engender a collaborative working culture. There are over 100 staff and consultants (consultants make up 5 per cent of the team only) involved in the multidisciplinary project, and those with a high level of involvement are currently enjoying the co-location arrangements.
22. Independent planning firms have been engaged to provide advice and peer reviewing as the project continues. In addition, Simpson Grierson has been engaged to provide expert legal advice, alongside that of internal counsel to ensure all legal requirements are met, and working within a best practise environment (subject to time constraints)
23. Although the project structure has been in place for some time, the Governance structure has not yet been finalised due to the challenges as set out below. This issue and the recommended approach is largely the subject of this report.
Programme and Timing (see Attachment 2)
24. The project programme has been developed and approved. This programme, while extremely challenging, is accepted by the project team and is currently tracking to the major milestone of 25 November for public notification of the proposed recovery chapters in the plan change process under schedule 1 of the Resource Management Act 1991. The programme timing constraints were introduced through LURP where a date of 30 June 2014 is introduced by which all recovery elements of the DPR must be completed (i.e. decisions released). To date there has been no indication of assistance from government relating to the process and timing of the DPR. To this end, the programme currently complies with the consultation and hearing processes as required under the Resource Management Act schedule 1. Due to the consultation requirements under the Act the length of time allocated to drafting is challenging to review chapters of a District Plan however staff are on board and are dedicated to meeting the timeframes.
25. Due to the timing constraint the scopes for each chapter have been defined so as to deal with significant issues only and not to change any objectives, policies or rules that currently ‘work’. The DPR is not a project starting from scratch it is building on what currently works using existing strategies and policy documents (both internal and external e.g. LURP and the Regional Policy Statement) and changing what is necessary to achieve a speedy recovery while ensuring a best practise approach to planning in the City and Banks Peninsula.
398 COUNCIL 3. 10. 2013
Planning Committee 4. 9. 2013
13 Cont’d
26. While the New Zealand Government discussion document titled “Improving our resource management system” and released earlier this year is guiding the content of the DPR to some degree, the changes to the RMA indicated in that document can not be relied on to be delivered in time for the notification in November this year. This means that if/when the RMA is changed there will need to be a Variation undertaken to the draft proposed plan to deal with any changes to the number of resource consent categories or other changes. The Ministry for the Environment have been contacted to seek a timeframe for when the proposed changes to the RMA may be enacted but no advice has been received.
Joint Agency Stakeholder Engagement
27. Joint agency stakeholders, ECan, CERA, Ngai Tahu and MfE have been briefed and their involvement in the process has been requested. To date ECan and CERA have responded with their suggested level of involvement and the project team are working to implement these requests. The UDS partners, SDC, WDC, NZTA and ECan, along with the Council have re- established the planning managers group to ensure lines of communications are open and expectations are aligned.
Key Stakeholder Communications and Engagement
28. An engagement/ consultation, communications and marketing plan has been developed, and public and stakeholder engagement is underway.
29. Activities in the initial drafting phase include:
Two stakeholder presentations on 22 and 29 August at Civic Offices. Invitees included a cross-section of government and local body agencies, key organisations and individuals and affected parties; A series of public presentations across the city and Banks Peninsula during the three weeks from 26 August; Ongoing, informal dialogue of chapter writers and other project team members with key stakeholders.
30. In the week of 19 August a marketing campaign - 'Finding the Balance' - began. This involves:
An online engagement tool via the Future Christchurch website futurechristchurch.co.nz. whereby members of the public can take part in a two-way conversation about the District Plan Review. This informal mechanism is intended to be ongoing, for people to share comments through all phases of the review; An A5 booklet outlining the District Plan Review distributed to all households, and around the city at services centres, libraries and cafes, from 23 August; 'Pop-up' information sessions at key sites around the city; Advertising in newspapers, on radio and ambient sites such as web banners, posters and screens promoting 'Finding the Balance' and encouraging people to be part of the discussion on the District Plan Review; and Facebook and Twitter updates.
31. Throughout the development of the review, communications activities will include comprehensive information on the Council's website, and media releases and articles, as well as presentation material. Senior management, beyond Strategy and Planning, have been briefed on the DPR and a Steering Board incorporating the key departmental general managers is in place to ensure a consistent level of communication through the organisation. An internal newsletter introducing names and faces to the Council is into its third edition and available through the intranet.
32. Formal submissions on the drafted 'recovery chapters' will be invited when these are notified later in the year.
399 COUNCIL 3. 10. 2013
Planning Committee 4. 9. 2013
13 Cont’d
Technology
33. The structure of the Plan is to be streamlined and simplified and will reduce the number of resource consents required for activities. In addition, due to technology changes and changing public expectations, a new online system has been purchased and is being implemented in conjunction with the District Plan Review. The new DPR will be completely electronic with the ability to download material if needed but no hard copies will be available for sale thereby reducing costs as no updating service will be required. Once complete, the Plan will be easily accessible, simple to navigate and have fully interactive and ‘live’ maps allowing for real time updates and readily searchable terms, property addresses etc. Colour will also be introduced to the plans and maps for the first time, along with the ability to choose different layers, icons etc in an online environment, similar to that already available in other regions.
34. There are some legal issues with using an electronic format but these are not significant and the use of an electronic format is lawful. In addition, clause 2.17 of the Environment Court Practise Note currently states that:
“On any appeal, the respondent Council should bring to the hearing sufficient copies of the relevant regional and district plan(s) for the use of members of the Court during the hearing. The Court may need to retain a copy for reference in its deliberations and in the preparation of the decision.”
35. It should be noted that this is a practice rather than a legal requirement and it is likely that if it insisted on having hard copies of the plans the Court would accept printed hard copy versions provided their accuracy could be verified. In addition it is quite likely with the increasing use of electronic and web-based information including the trial of iPads and tablets within the Court, that the Practise Note will change to reflect technological advances and the increasing prevalence of electronic plans.
36. A new consultation package has also been purchased by the Council with the focus being to facilitate online submissions to ease the burden of administration through the Summary of Submissions phase of the programme. However submissions will also be accepted in hard copy by post, email or other as usual.
37. All drafting of the DPR is now being entered into the new system.
38. A comprehensive electronic search system will also be introduced to the package in the second or third year.
Governance Involvement and Council Approval of the Proposed Plan for Notification
39. Due to contracted timeframes the DPR requires a high level of governance involvement and engagement in preparatory work for the proposed Plan now. A high level of focused and effective governance (councillors) in the drafting stages is critical to meeting the timeframes necessary for notification and notification can not be achieved until the Council is satisfied with the content of the draft proposed chapters.
40. However the local body elections and hiatus in Council meetings during the critical drafting and stakeholder consultation phase means that an alternative process to the status quo (of planning matters going to the Planning Committee for a workshop, then a committee report and then on to Council for adoption) is not going to meet the timeframes.
41. To further complicate matters, the final drafting stage and the period for Council consultation of whether to notify the proposed Plan Change begins immediately after the local body elections, meaning a Council with some new members will be asked to approve content that, in some instances, they had no involvement in or development of.
42. A new process for the involvement in drafting and approval of draft proposed chapters for notification is proposed, as is delegation of other decision-making powers.
400 COUNCIL 3. 10. 2013
Planning Committee 4. 9. 2013
13 Cont’d
43. It is considered to be appropriate in this instance, for the Council to appoint a District Plan Review – Working Party who would report through the GM Strategy and Planning. It is considered appropriate that two or three members of that Committee be Councillors, with one or two independent member(s) who have the appropriate skills, attributes or knowledge that will assist the work of the DPR-WP. One of these independent members should have planning expertise. The intention is to utilise this small group in an ongoing technical advisory capacity throughout the development phase of the project. It will necessitate frequent (at least weekly) meetings, to identify, review and provide direction to staff, and a rapid turn around of material. It will require familiarity with the plan, the legal framework, and the direction of the RMA reforms, as well as being attuned to the community’s aspirations, and the need to balance
14. DRAFT LAND USE RECOVERY PLAN ACTIONS 2 AND 6 RECOMMENDATIONS TO THE MINISTER FOR CANTERBURY EARTHQUAKE RECOVERY
General Manager Strategy and Planning , DDI 941-8281 General Manager responsible: Urban Design and Regeneration Unit Manager Officer responsible: Scott Blair Author:
PURPOSE OF REPORT
1. The purpose of this report is to make recommendations to the Council on the Draft Land Use Recovery Plan (LURP) actions relating to the Comprehensive Development Mechanism (previously called the Floating Zone) and Exemplars which require the Council resolution to be included in final approved LURP.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
2. The Draft LURP has been developed to set a clear framework for rebuilding and recovery to support existing and new communities, commercial and business needs, infrastructure requirements and environmental constraints. The actions discussed in this report relate to incentivising a range of housing types (action 2) and affordable housing (action 6).
3. The LURP identifies that one of the key challenges for recovery is identifying ‘how to maximise the opportunity for the market to deliver comprehensive redevelopment in suitable existing neighbourhoods’ and the need to put in place measures for comprehensive development so that it is possible to take advantage of the opportunities to amalgamate vacant residential lots as a result of the earthquake.
4. Here, comprehensive development means amalgamation of two or more lots to create an integrated development. Taking such an approach means that on site services and amenity can be considered as a whole. Combined with criteria in relation to applicable zones and other spatial criteria, such an approach can also create opportunities for development with existing neighbourhoods located close to centres and facilities.
Mechanism to address Draft Action 2 (Floating Zone)
5. The Draft LURP identifies that:
Christchurch City Council to amend its district plan to introduce objectives, policies and methods to support a ‘floating zone’ to enable comprehensive redevelopment that provides for a range of housing types and sizes.
6. In regard to Draft Action 2 (Floating Zones) Council officers and staff of Canterbury Earthquake Recovery Authority (CERA) and Housing New Zealand (HNZ) have identified a mechanism under which a ‘floating zone’ can operate in the City Plan. A full copy of the Council officer suggested changes to the City Plan are in Attachment 1 of this report and the provisions are summarised below.
401 COUNCIL 3. 10. 2013
Planning Committee 4. 9. 2013
14 Cont’d
7. The intention of such a zone would be to provide for more intensive development in Living 2 and Living 3 zones and Brownfield sites and logical extensions into Living 1 zones. There is a current general policy direction in the City Plan that the Living 2 and 3 Zones will carry a higher density of development than the Living 1 zone. Scoping for the Residential Chapter of the District Plan review indicates that the general urban consolidation pattern promoted in the current City Plan seems unlikely to change over the course of the review.
8. It is proposed that the mechanism operates in two stages and is set out in the process chart shown in Attachment 2.
9. In Stage 1 the proposal must meet development and site criteria relating to minimum and maximum site size, yield, accessibility and constraints and be accompanied by a design statement. In Stage 2, assuming Stage 1 criteria are met, a restricted discretionary activity resource consent can be sought where the development is assessed for urban design outcomes to ensure the proposed development:
(a) Is sympathetic to or not incompatible with the existing area’s character and amenity; and
(b) Has quality urban design and amenity for new residents within the site.
10. If the proposal does not meet the Stage 1 criteria, the proposal will be treated as a non complying activity. The proposal would not proceed via the comprehensive development mechanism, but could proceed via other regulatory processes.
11. If the proposed development does not meet one of the standards specified in Stage 2 then the application shall be for a restricted discretionary activity.
12. Stage 2 applications for restricted discretionary activity applications would be processed on the basis of no public or limited notification.
13. The maps in Attachment 3 show the areas where the Mechanism can operate. The area in which comprehensive development mechanism could operate has been determined using a range of location criteria (e.g. does not apply within 400 metres of a Business 5 zone, or in the Riccarton wastewater interceptor catchment where there are capacity constraints which are not programmed to be resolved until 2020). The key driver of the amount of land in the city available to the comprehensive redevelopment mechanism approach is whether all land zoned Living 1 is included, or just the logical extensions based on the Living 2 and Living 3 zoned land.
Monitoring and Review the Effectiveness of the Floating Zone Mechanism
14. Issues of where the Mechanism should operate aside, there needs to be a review of the mechanism on a regular basis to ensure it is delivering the outcomes anticipated. It is recommended that a review be undertaken as part of the second phase of the district plan review and any changes needed are undertaken via that process. This does, however, depend on the final process adopted for the sign off of the first phase of the district plan review.
Draft Action 6 (Exemplars)
15. The Draft LURP notes that the quality, attractiveness and affordability of medium density developments directly influence the market demand for these housing types. Draft Action 6 (Exemplars) sets out that Christchurch City Council is to enable a range of housing types, particularly exemplar medium density development, for proposals within existing urban areas zoned for residential purposes. Further this action states the providers Council will work with – Housing New Zealand Corporation, Ngai Tahu, the private and third sector and on land owned by Council, including land for social housing – and that Council is to identify a minimum of two sites for exemplar development. It is envisaged that the exemplars will be implemented by one of the following regulatory mechanisms: the District Plan Review, use of the comprehensive development mechanism, resource consent, the CER Act.
402 COUNCIL 3. 10. 2013
Planning Committee 4. 9. 2013
14 Cont’d
16. In the draft LURP an exemplar is defined as ‘a model for future housing development that provides an innovative design solution for affordable, medium density housing, suited to the location and that is well insulated, energy efficient and attractive.
17. The intention with exemplars is to ‘invite’ proposals from development which would need to meet higher than usual tests around the housing proposals, for design, affordability, energy efficiency and tenure. The benefit for the developers of proposals who meet the tests would be that their development would be identified and promoted as an exemplar.
18. Housing New Zealand (HNZ) - Officers have been in discussion with HNZ staff about the potential location of exemplar sites to enable the redevelopment of their existing social housing stock. HNZ plan to redevelop sites the corporation owns at a higher density than currently on some sites. HNZ see a mixed tenure approach partnering with private sector housing providers. As a ‘rule of thumb’ about one-third of the stock would be for social housing, one- third for private sale and one-third for offer to third sector entities8 to be operated under affordable housing schemes. The actual mix would depend on the circumstances of the site and the best combination to deliver outcomes. Likely locations for exemplars have been identified in Bryndwr and Shirley.
19. Council Social Housing – Officers have also been in discussion with the Council’s Social Housing team about potential and prioritised sites for an exemplar development. There are opportunities to redevelop some of the Council’s social housing stock in accordance with the desired Draft Action 6 (Exemplar) outcomes. Discussions with Social Housing staff indicate that there are sites which could meet the exemplar criteria should the Council be minded to consider that approach. Any agreed exemplars would need to be determined by Council.
20. Te Runanga o Ngai Tahu - Preliminary discussions have occurred with Te Runanga o Ngai Tahu on opportunities they see for exemplar housing. At this stage these have not progressed to the point of a particular proposal, but discussions are ongoing.
21 Private Sector developments – discussions have also occurred with private sector developers to advance exemplars. While the discussions have been productive the proponents of the proposals are not in a position where they can be discussed publicly.
22. Over time, it would be expected that there would be other private developments which would be appropriate for consideration as exemplars.
23. These options have been discussed at a workshop with officers from CERA, HNZ, TRONT, MBIE and the Council. At that workshop it was identified that exemplars for all four sectors could be advanced, but as discussed above not all are in a position to be specifically identified within the final approved LURP.
FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS
24. The three year review of the City Plan has been budgeted for in the 2013-16 Three Year Plan. (TYP). A focus of the first year of the review is delivery of Draft Actions within the Draft Land Use Recovery Plan. The investigations outlined in this report and the recommendations fall within this focus and are budgeted in the Three-Year Plan.
LEGAL CONSIDERATIONS
Sections 24(1) (c) and Sections 24(3) of the Canterbury Earthquake Recovery Act 2011
25. Some discussion and recommendations in this report relate to actions the Council must take to amend the City Plan if a land use recovery plan directs such action. Specifically the sections say:
8 Such as housing associations.
403 COUNCIL 3. 10. 2013
Planning Committee 4. 9. 2013
14 Cont’d
24. Council’s to amend documents if required … (1) Despite anything to the contrary in Part 5 of the Resource Management Act 1991 a Council must amend an RMA document (to the extent that it relates to Greater Christchurch), if a Recovery Plan directs so, - … (c) to change or vary any objectives, policies or methods in the document to give effect to the provisions of the Recovery Plan. … (3) A council must make the amendments referred to in subsection (1) (c) within the time specified in the Recovery Plan or (if not specified) as soon as practicable in accordance with a public process determined by the Minister.
Draft statutory directions requiring the Council to amend the Operative City Plan
26. Section 8 Statutory Directions of the Draft LURP directs the Council to undertake actions in regard to review and amendment of the City Plan. As the Draft LURP is not operative the Council is not yet bound by the directions – however they clearly signal if they remain unchanged when the LURP is made operative then the Council will have to take the actions specified.
27. Specifically the Draft LURP says:
In accordance with section 24(1)(c) and section 24(3) of the Canterbury Earthquake Recovery Act 2011, the Christchurch City Council is directed to amend its district plan to change or vary the objectives contained in it to give effect to this Recovery Plan by providing for the matters set out under Actions 1, 2, and 6 … To give effect to this direction the Christchurch City Council shall undertake a public process approved by the Minister for Canterbury Earthquake Recovery for each of the Actions to enable the changes to be made within the time specified for each Action. This work is not required to comply with schedule 1 of the RMA or any other public process. It may be accompanied by a request that the Minister make other amendments pursuant to section 27 of the Canterbury Earthquake Recovery Act 2011 to support the changes and variations required by this Recovery Plan.
The public processes for the respective Actions shall involve consideration of the views and preferences of persons likely to be affected by, or to have an interest in, the matter. While it is not required to comply with schedule 1 of the RMA, it must as a minimum, provide an opportunity for public consultation. The process need not involve a hearing.
28. If the italicised wording remains in the final approved LURP some sort of public feedback process will need to be undertaken.
ALIGNMENT WITH LTCCP AND ACTIVITY MANAGEMENT PLANS
29. Activity Management Plans which provided the basis for the Three Year Plan consider and anticipate the recovery strategy and recovery plans. Most of the specific actions under consideration in this report can be provided for within existing budgets. Where there is further Council decision-making required further reporting will be undertaken.
ALIGNMENT WITH STRATEGIES
30. The recommendations in this report align with the Canterbury Earthquake Recovery Strategy, the Draft Land Use Recovery Plan, and the Urban Development Strategy.
404 COUNCIL 3. 10. 2013
Planning Committee 4. 9. 2013
14 Cont’d
CONSULTATION FULFILMENT
31. Officers have consulted with CERA, HNZ, TRONT and MBIE in the development of the provisions set out in this report relating to Draft LURP Actions 2 and 6. Discussions have also occurred with Council Social Housing staff and the agents/representatives of private sector developments identified as possible exemplars.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
It is recommended that the Council:
(a) Amend the Operative Christchurch City District Plan to add the Comprehensive Redevelopment Mechanism in Attachment 1 in accordance with LURP Action 2 – providing a ‘floating zone’.
(b) Direct the Chief Executive to:
(i) Work actively with Housing New Zealand to identify two exemplars for inclusion in the final approved LURP (ii) Work with Te Runanga o Ngai Tahu to identify a proposal which would meet exemplar criteria (iii) Work with at least one private developer to facilitate the inclusion of an exemplar in the District Plan Review.
(c) Approve two Council Social Housing sites for inclusion in the exemplar process.
COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION
That the Council recommend to the Minister for Canterbury Earthquake Recovery that he direct the Council to:
(a) Amend the Operative Christchurch City District Plan to add the Comprehensive Redevelopment Mechanism in Attachment 2 in accordance with LURP Action 2 – providing a ‘floating zone’.
(b) Direct the Chief Executive to:
(i) work actively with Housing New Zealand to identify two exemplars for inclusion in the final approved LURP (ii) work with Te Runanga o Ngai Tahu to identify a proposal which would meet exemplar criteria (iii) work with at least one private developer to facilitate the inclusion of an exemplar in the District Plan Review.
(c) Approve two Council Social Housing sites for inclusion in the exemplar process.
Note: Due to the timing of this report, the Committee requests staff to consider the rules in Attachment 2 and amend as appropriate. Councillor Keown asked that his vote against this recommendation be recorded.
BACKGROUND
Development and Progress of the Draft Land Use Recovery Plan
32. A Draft LURP has been developed in accordance with previous statutory directions under the CERA 2011. The Draft LURP has been publicly notified by CERA. CERA staff are considering the public comments and advising the Minister as to changes – if any – to the Draft LURP, before it is approved. It is understood that the LURP may be approved before the end of 2013.
On the 14 March 2013 the Council confirmed its support for the purpose, and the collaborative process adopted for the development of the preliminary draft LURP. On 25 July Council
405 COUNCIL 3. 10. 2013
Planning Committee 4. 9. 2013
14 Cont’d
approved a comment on the Draft LURP which broadly supported the draft LURP, but raised three issues for the Minister CER’s consideration:
(a) The need for new legislation to enable a comprehensive review of the District Plan and/or a review of the timeframe for the delivery of the ‘recovery’ chapters by 30 June 2014;
(b) The inclusion of the Plan Change 67, Highfield Park Limited, in the LURP;
(c) The need to address a minor error in the draft LURP.
33. The Draft LURP directs the Council to undertake actions (Draft Actions) in regard to review and amendment of the Operative Christchurch City Plan (the City Plan). The Draft Actions relevant to this report are 2 and 6. Officers have been in consultation with the staff outlined in paragraph 31 (usually in the form of workshops) to identify and discuss options for addressing the Draft Actions in the first year of the City Plan review.
Draft Action 2 (Floating Zone)
Number Action Agencies Implementation Cost Completion (Lead tool date agency in bold) Incentivising a range of housing types 2 Christchurch City Council CCC District Plan On approval of SD to amend its district plan to this Recovery introduce objectives, Plan. policies and methods to support a ‘floating zone’ to enable comprehensive redevelopment that provides for a range of housing types and sizes
34. Draft Action 2 (Floating Zone) (along with Draft Action 6 Exemplars) is the most ‘immediate’ – given that the ‘floating zone’ mechanism needs to be completed by the Council ‘On approval’ of the recovery plan. Officers have been working in consultation with CERA and HNZ staff to develop a mechanism for comprehensive redevelopment. CERA staff will be advising the Minister on the contents of the mechanism.
35. HNZ have made a comment on the Draft LURP that seeks that their own version of a ‘floating zone’ be used as the Draft Action 2 (Floating Zone) mechanism. HNZ have a programme to redevelop their social housing stock in Christchurch and see this as an opportunity to help enable the redevelopment of this stock.
36. Tripartite consultation workshops between Council, CERA, and HNZ staff have been undertaken over the last two months.
Options for Draft Action 2 (Floating Zone)
37. In those workshops it became apparent that it would not be possible to develop a mechanism that would enable the comprehensive redevelopment of existing sites without the consent authority reserving to itself:
(a) the ability to decline a proposed development on the grounds that it would have adverse effects on the existing communities around the development – that could not be avoided remedied or mitigated.
(b) the ability to decline a proposed development on the grounds of adverse effects on the internal urban design related amenity for residents – that could not be avoided remedied or mitigated.
406 COUNCIL 3. 10. 2013
Planning Committee 4. 9. 2013
14 Cont’d
38. A two stage consenting mechanism was therefore developed.
39. In the first stage the applicant/developer checks whether the site meets a range of location and constraint criteria. In the second stage, assuming the site meets the Stage 1 criteria, the applicant/developer can then apply for a restricted discretionary activity resource consent where the development is assessed for urban design outcomes. The development is also assessed against development standards designed as ‘bottom lines’ to protect amenity within and surrounding the site.
40. If the proposal does not meet the Stage 1 criteria it will be treated as a non complying activity.
Stage 1: Qualifying Criteria: Determining where Stage 2 of the mechanism can be used:
41. Inclusion Criteria
(a) Site Size – only on contiguous sites between 1500m2 and 10,000m2 in area;
(b) Only within Living 2 and Living 3 zones, with logical extensions into Living 1 zones and within brownfield sites;
(c) Within appropriate walking distances to:
district commercial centres and large supermarkets – 800m (the parties do not agree on what size the qualifying supermarket should be (CCC 1000m2 / CERA and HNZ 800m2). primary or intermediate schools – 800m 4000m2 of recreation open-space – 400m Core public transportation routes - 800m
42. Exclusion Criteria
(a) Special Amenity Areas (SAMs).
(b) 400m of the boundary of a Business 5 zone (CERA staff see this as 200m)
(c) Riccarton wastewater interceptor catchment (which is at capacity)
(d) the residential red zone
(e) the tsunami inundation area.
If the subject site satisfies these criteria the developer can apply for a restricted discretionary activity resource consent to under take the development.
43. Resource consent applications that do not meet these criteria will addressed as non complying activities.
Stage 2: Comprehensive Design Assessment, by Restricted Discretionary Activity
44. The Stage 2 Resource consent application will be assessed against Urban Design Assessment matters in the following categories:
(a) Context and character.
(b) Relationship to street and public open spaces.
(c) Built form and residential amenity.
407 COUNCIL 3. 10. 2013
Planning Committee 4. 9. 2013
14 Cont’d (d) Access parking and site services.
(e) Outdoor living space and amenity.
45. The proposed development also has to meet a number of residential performance standards that are either already within the respective zones and/or are specific to comprehensive redevelop. These standards are designed to ensure, as much as possible, that the edges of the development reflect the existing built character of the area around the site, while allowing flexibility within the site for more intensive development. They relate to:
(a) Height: permitted 8 metres at the site edge, permitted 11 metres internal to the site, buildings over 13 metres a non complying activity.
(b) Building setback from internal boundaries with other sites: 1.8 metres
(c) Setback from Road Boundaries – reflecting setbacks on the existing sites either side (depends on the zone.
(d) Recession planes (sunlight protection) and solar gain - reflecting recession planes of the existing sites on either side.
(e) Street Frontage – specifies the minimum length of the sites street frontage and the bulk of buildings on the site that can front these site frontages.
(f) Minimum unit size, and mix of units – requires minimum gross floor areas types of units and that a range of unit types be delivered.
(g) Access and Parking – specifies parking maximums for each unit type – 30 square metres.
(h) Specifies minimum outdoor Living Space sizes.
(i) Landscape areas – minimum 20 per cent of site.
(j) Acoustic Insulation required for units within certain distances of collector or arterial roads.
(k) Habitable Space at Ground Level – requires that there be a habitable space within a unit at the ground level
(l) Outdoor and indoor storage – requires that there 5 square metres of outdoor storage and 4 metres cubed of indoor storage for each unit
(m) Density – minimum of 30 households per hectare and a maximum of 56 households per hectare pro rata for the application site.
46. Additional assessment matters apply for the establishment of comprehensive development in brownfield sites. These relate to reverse sensitivity noise and contaminated land.
47. Consent Categories and Public Notification Status
(a) Residential activities that comply with all qualifying standards and the development standards shall be a restricted discretionary activity, with the exercise of the Council’s discretion restricted to the urban design assessment matters.
(b) Residential activities that comply with all qualifying standards but do not comply with one or more of the development standards shall be a restricted discretionary activity, with the Council’s discretion restricted to:
(i) the urban design assessment matters; and
408 COUNCIL 3. 10. 2013
Planning Committee 4. 9. 2013
14 Cont’d
(ii) the listed assessment matters for the development standard or standards that are not met.
(c) Residential activities that qualify as a ‘brownfield’ site under the zoning criteria shall be a restricted discretionary activity with the Council’s discretion restricted to:
(i) the urban design assessment matters; and (ii) matters arising from the former industrial or business use of the site and its relationship surrounding land uses. This would include, but not be limited to, contaminated land, reverse sensitivity and noise. (iii) any listed assessment matters for the development standard or standards that are not met.
48. Resource consent applications in relation to these rules shall not be publicly or limited notified, except in the case of brownfield sites where the application relates to one part of a larger area in multiple ownership. In this circumstance, notification would be limited to the owners or operators of sites within the larger brownfield area.
49. Discretionary Activities
(a) Residential activities where part of the site, but not all of the site complies with the accessibility or constraint criteria and complies with all other qualifying standards in rule shall be a discretionary activity.
50. Non-Complying Activities
(a) Residential activities that do not comply with the qualifying standards for:
(i) zoning; or (ii) site size; or (iii) housing yield;
shall be a non-complying activity
(b) Residential activities on a site where no part of the site complies with the accessibility or constraint criteria shall be a non-complying activity.
(c) Buildings that exceed a 13m height limit shall be a non-complying activity.
(d) Applications for resource consent that are not accompanied by a design statement shall be a non-complying activity.
51. For the purposes of this mechanism a design statement is a statement prepared by an expert suitably qualified in Resource Management Planning, Architecture, or Urban Design that is submitted as part of the overall assessment of effects for the proposal. A design statement outlines the design justification of the proposal, examines local character and site constraints, and explains the vision and concept of the proposal in terms of how it will contribute to creating a high quality development that responds positively to the surrounding context. Contextual plans illustrating the proposal within the surrounding environment shall be included.
52. If the proposed development does not meet one of the standards specified in the second stage then the application shall be for a restricted discretionary activity.
53. Second stage applications that are not non complying activities would be processed on a non public or limited notified basis.
409 COUNCIL 3. 10. 2013
Planning Committee 4. 9. 2013
14 Cont’d
Applicable Zone Options for Draft Action 2 (Floating Zone)
54. In developing the mechanism to deliver the Floating Zone identified in the draft LURP, a range of options were explored by CERA, CCC and HNZ which explored the most appropriate geographic applicability of the provisions.
Draft Action 2 (Floating Zone) Applicable Zone Options Option 1 That the mechanism apply to the Living 1 and Living 2 zones Option 2 That the Mechanism apply to the Living 2 and Living 3 zones with small logical extensions into the Living 1 zone Option 3 That the Mechanism apply to Brownfield sites, Living 2, and Living 3 zones with small logical extensions into the Living 1 zone
55. Attachment 3 to this report contains maps of where the mechanism might be used under the various options. It is critical to note these maps need further refinement to be completely satisfactory for the purposes of this mechanism.
Discussion of the applicable zone options for Draft Action 2 (Floating Zone) Option 1
Option 1 Advantages Disadvantages That the mechanism It would enable the delivery of This option would enable the apply to the Living 1 and developments that would intensification of pockets of Living 1 Living 2 zones have a range of unit types areas that are intended to be the and tenures, and potentially lowest residential density areas. affordable housing in a range This is inconsistent with the general of locations. approach in the District Plan. Furthermore, residents within these areas are likely to have a range of views in regard to intensification within this low density area. For the first year of the District Plan review it has been identified that consultation with the residents in these areas is necessary before any informed decision can be made about intensification. Current scoping of the residential chapter of the District Plan review has yet to conclude that there is a need to enable intensification within these areas. It is also noted that a key outcome of CERA’s Christchurch Central Recovery Plan is intensification of residential development within the ‘four avenues’. This is also Council’s primary area for intensified residential development. Enabling pockets of intensification within the lower density outer suburban areas would appear to undermine this intent.
410 COUNCIL 3. 10. 2013
Planning Committee 4. 9. 2013
14 Cont’d
Option 2 Advantages Disadvantages That the Mechanism Scoping of the residential May be restricting opportunities to apply to the Living 2 and chapter of the District Plan provide for housing for recovery Living 3 zones with review would indicate that purposes small logical extensions this is unlikely to change in into the Living 1 zone the first year of the review – if at all over the life of the review. If comprehensive design of developments between 30 and 65 houses a hectare is to be enabled – it should be within these zones which are already signalled for a higher of development. While Living 3 already allows Would limit applicability to HNZ for medium to high density social housing sites. development the mechanism would allow for the consideration of comprehensive design of large areas without needing to consider the possibly restrictive existing standards in the plan Building stock and character is not uniform over the whole Living 1 area and there may be areas that would fall within the location criteria that could be intensified
411 COUNCIL 3. 10. 2013
Planning Committee 4. 9. 2013
14 Cont’d
Option 3 Advantages Disadvantages That the Mechanism Living 2 and Living 3 zones May be restricting opportunities to apply to Brownfields, are signalled in the current provide for housing for recovery Living 2 and Living 3 District Plan as intensification purposes zones with small logical areas. Scoping of the extensions into the residential chapter of the Living 1 zone District Plan review would indicate that this is unlikely to change in the first year of the review – if at all over the life of the review. If comprehensive design of developments between 30 and 65 houses a hectare is to be enabled – it should be within these zones which are already signalled for a higher level of development. Living 2 and Living 3 zones Would limit applicability to HNZ are signalled in the current social housing sites. District Plan as intensification areas. Scoping of the residential chapter of the District Plan review would indicate that this is unlikely to change in the first year of the review – if at all over the life of the review. If comprehensive design of developments between 30 and 65 houses a hectare is to be enabled – it should be within these zones which are already signalled for a higher of development. While Living 3 already allows Building stock and character is not for medium to high density uniform over the whole Living 1 development the mechanism area and there may be areas that would allow for the would fall within the location criteria consideration of that could be intensified comprehensive design of large areas without needing to consider the possibly restrictive existing standards in the plan May promote the There are potential issues in regard redevelopment of parts of to reverse sensitivity on existing larger brownfield areas which uses within the brownfield sites may historically have been (incoming residents raising too complex to deliver as one complaints about the adverse scheme. effects of existing activities). There are issues regarding exposing incoming residents to potential contaminated land. Promoting piecemeal development of brownfield sites limits opportunities for a comprehensive redevelopment
412 COUNCIL 3. 10. 2013
Planning Committee 4. 9. 2013
14 Cont’d
56. Disadvantages in relation to reverse sensitivity and potential contaminated land can be addressed by:
(a) Limited notification of Stage 2 resource consent applications to owners and occupiers of any existing activities within the Brownfield sites; and
(b) Extending the Stage 2 resource consent application assessment criteria to include consideration of reverse sensitivity effects on existing owners and operators of existing activities within the Brownfield sites.
(c) Extending the Stage 2 resource consent application assessment matters to include consideration of noise and contaminated land.
Overall Conclusion on the Applicable Zone Options for Draft Action 2 (Floating Zone)
57. It is recommended that the mechanism operate in the Living 2 and 3 zones, primarily because there is a current general expectation signalled in the District Plan, that these zones will carry a higher density of development than the Living 1 zone. Scoping for the Residential Chapter of the District Plan review has yet to conclude how the general urban consolidation pattern promoted in the current plan may change during the course of the review.
Time Limit for the Floating Zone
58. Issues of where the Mechanism should operate aside, there needs to be a review of the mechanism on a regular basis to ensure it is delivering the outcomes anticipated. It is recommended that a review be undertaken as part of the second phase of the district plan review and any changes needed are undertaken via that process. This does, however, depend on the final process adopted for the sign off of the first phase of the district plan review. With this in mind the provisions set out in Appendix 1 apply for a three year period ending on 31 December 2016.
15. CANTERBURY WATER MANAGEMENT STRATEGY: ADDENDUM (AUGUST 2013) TO THE SELWYN-WAIHORA ZONE COMMITTEE IMPLEMENTATION PROGRAMME (2012)
General Manager Strategy and Planning, DDI 941-8281 General Manager responsible: Unit Manager Natural Environment and Heritage Officer responsible: Helen Beaumont Author:
PURPOSE OF REPORT
1. To give the Council an understanding of the recommendations of the Selwyn-Waihora Zone Committee to improve the cultural and environmental outcomes for the Te Waihora catchment while maintaining farm viability and economic growth.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
2. The Canterbury Water Management Strategy (CWMS) identifies Canterbury’s water resources as important to the region and to New Zealand. These resources are used for a wide range of purposes including drinking water, agriculture, electricity generation, customary use and recreation. Over the last 15 years our water resources have come under increasing pressure.
3. The Council endorsed the CWMS in December 2009 subject to, amongst other matters, “that any future funding or governance issues associated with implementation of the Strategy would need to be considered as part of the 2012-2022 LTCCP or other process.”
413 COUNCIL 3. 10. 2013
Planning Committee 4. 9. 2013
15 Cont’d
4. In April 2013 the Council endorsed the zone implementation programmes (ZIP) for the Banks Peninsula and Christchurch-West Melton zone committees. Councillors Claudia Reid and Sally Buck played an active role in the preparation of these implementation programmes and Council officers provide considerable ongoing support to the committees. We have had much less involvement with the Selwyn-Waihora zone committee as most of the catchment falls outside the Council boundary.
5. Since 2010 Stewart Miller, Akaroa-Waiwera Community Board, has been the Council representative on the Selwyn-Waihora zone committee. The zone committee completed their Zone Implementation Plan (ZIP) in April 2012 establishing five key areas of work: nutrient and water management; water supply; Te Waihora and lowland waterways; braided rivers/upper plains/high country; and biodiversity. A number of recommendations were made taking an integrated approach to water management across a wide geographic area stretching from Te Waihora across the plains to the Southern Alps.
6. The recommendations in the ZIP Addendum focus on regulatory improvements (to form the basis for the Selwyn-Waihora sub-regional section of the Land and water Regional Plan) and voluntary methods to improve both the quantity and quality of water across the catchment. This sub-regional section is confined to the rivers and streams that flow into Te Waihora, the related groundwater system and the lake itself – it does not include the Rakaia and Waimakariri Rivers or the alpine river catchments. The Addendum was completed in August 2013 and was received and endorsed by Environment Canterbury on 5 September 2013.
7. The Addendum focuses on restoring the mauri of Te Waihora over a timeframe of about 30 years – reflecting the reality that the health of Te Waihora and many lowland streams will decline before they get better. This is due to the legacy of phosphorous accumulation in lake sediments, the 10 to 20 year time lag between agricultural nitrogen losses to the land and the nitrogen load reaching the lake, and the expectation of additional nitrogen from the consented Central Plains Water irrigation development.
8. The recommendations also seek enhanced co-governance for Te Waihora – with Environment Canterbury and Ngai Tahu taking responsibility for leadership and working with other parties. The ZIP Addendum acknowledges that significant funding, of the order of $200 million, would be required to implement all of the solutions proffered. The Zone Committee has not addressed how all of this work this would be funded.
9. Specific recommendations for the Selwyn-Waihora sub-regional chapter of the Land and Water Regional Plan include:
water allocation limits to be set to provide for ecological and cultural flows reduction in takes through – new takes being prohibited, water permit transfers allowed when 50 per cent surrendered, annual volumes on consents being revised to reflect actual metered use, requirement for efficient water use water storage requirements and the need to avoid sensitive sites restricting total nitrogen load within the catchment through nitrogen load limits and targets reducing agricultural nitrogen loads through on-farm good practice and requiring improvements where discharge rates are high requiring audited farm environment plans – for soils, nutrients, irrigation, wetland, riparian and cultural health management reducing phosphorous and microbial contaminants by excluding stock from lakes, wetlands, rivers, streams and drains.
10. Recommendations for action on the ground for Te Waihora include:
improved lake-level and lake-margin management addressing the legacy of phosphorous in the lake sediments restoring macrophyte beds and constructing floating wetlands.
414 COUNCIL 3. 10. 2013
Planning Committee 4. 9. 2013
15 Cont’d
11. Recommendations for actions to improve water quality across the wider catchment include:
protection and enhancement of wetlands active management and enhancement of riparian margins effective drain management – stock exclusion and planting while maintaining flow sediment detention options and in-stream sediment removal CPW to should look at possibility of managed recharge of groundwater and augmentation of stream flow.
12. The final set of recommendations address requirements for monitoring, further investigations and review:
review progress every five years and revise work programmes if necessary Central Plains Water and Environment Canterbury to measure the impact of irrigation development on flows investigate and address impacts of increasing nitrate levels in water supply wells.
FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS
13. The ZIP and this Addendum are not statutory Plans under the Resource Management Act and the committee does not have the power to commit any Council to any path or expenditure. However some of the recommendations are being addressed through existing Council work programmes.
Do the Recommendations of this Report Align with 2013-16 TYP budgets?
14. Generally yes although most of the recommendations impact on Environment Canterbury and Selwyn District Council work programmes. Where the Council is involved, the detailed timelines and project scope for works to achieve and/or contribute to the recommendations in the ZIP Addendum will need to be considered by the Council through its standard annual planning and other budgetary processes.
LEGAL CONSIDERATIONS
15. The ZIP and this Addendum are not statutory Plans under the Resource Management Act.
Have you considered the legal implications of the issue under consideration?
16. Yes. The committee is a joint committee of the Christchurch City Council, the Selwyn District Council and Environment Canterbury. The ZIP Addendum does carry the weight of the wider Council commitment to the Canterbury Water Management Strategy. The recommendations encompass the changes the zone committee wishes to see in the sub-regional section of the Land and Water Regional Plan.
ALIGNMENT WITH LTCCP AND ACTIVITY MANAGEMENT PLANS
17. The ZIP Addendum supports a wide range of environmental, prosperity, health and recreation community outcomes.
Do the recommendations of this report support a level of service or project in the 2013-16 TYP?
18. Not applicable.
ALIGNMENT WITH STRATEGIES
19. The ZIP Addendum is generally consistent with and supports the Council’s healthy environment strategies.
415 COUNCIL 3. 10. 2013
Planning Committee 4. 9. 2013
15 Cont’d
Do the recommendations align with the Council’s strategies?
20. Yes. The outcomes and recommendations of the ZIP and the Addendum are generally consistent with the Surface Water Strategy 2009-2039, the Water Supply Strategy 2009-2039, the Biodiversity Strategy 2008-2035, the Climate Smart Strategy 2012-2025, the Public Open Space Strategy 2010-2040 and the Wastewater Strategy 2013.
CONSULTATION FULFILMENT
21. Thorough public consultation occurred during the preparation of the ZIP and the Addendum. This included a submission process and public meetings.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
It is recommended that the Council:
(a) Receive the Selwyn-Waihora Zone Implementation Programme Addendum
(b) Endorse the Addendum as the basis for the Selwyn-Waihora sub-regional section of the Land and Water Regional Plan.
COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION
That the Council:
(a) Receive the Selwyn-Waihora Zone Implementation Programme Addendum
(b) Endorse the Addendum as the basis for the Selwyn-Waihora sub-regional section of the Land and Water Regional Plan.
(c) Thank Stewart Miller for representing the Council on this matter and reconfirms his continued participation on this committee.
Councillor Reid was absent for the conclusion of this item and took no part in voting.
PART B – REPORTS FOR INFORMATION
16. 16.1 Paul Zaanen from the New Brighton Business and Land Owners Association addressed the Committee regarding item 7, New Brighton Evaluation of Aquatic Development Options.
16.2 David East addressed the committee regarding Item 7, New Brighton Evaluation of Aquatic Development Options.
17. INSPECTIONS AND ENFORCEMENT UNIT ANNUAL PERFORMANCE REPORT 2012/13
The Planning Committee resolved to note and acknowledge receipt of the 2012/13 Inspections and Enforcement Unit Annual Performance Report.
PART C – DELEGATED DECISIONS
18. RESOLUTION TO EXCLUDE THE PUBLIC
It was resolved that the resolution to exclude the public as set out on page 421 of the agenda and page 111 of the reconvened meeting agenda be adopted.
416 COUNCIL 3. 10. 2013
Planning Committee 4. 9. 2013
19. APOLOGIES
An apology was received and accepted from Aaron Keown for clauses 1 to 7, and from Claudia Reid and Peter Beck for clause 16.
The Committee resolved to adjourn the meeting and reconvene on 20 September 2013, in Committee Room One, at 9.15 am.
20. RESOLUTION TO BE PASSED - SUPPLEMENTARY REPORTS
It was resolved on the motion of Councillor Buck seconded by Councillor Beck that the reports be received and considered at the meeting of the Planning Committee on 20 September 2013.
The meeting adjourned at 1.50pm on 4 September 2013. It reconvened at 9.15 am on 20 September 2013, and concluded at 12.26 pm.
CONSIDERED THIS 3rd DAY OF OCTOBER 2013
REGARDING ITEM 24 (14.) DRAFT LAND USE RECOVERY PLAN ACTIONS 2 AND 6 PLANNING COMMITTEE REPORT TO COUNCIL 4. 9. 2013 417
MEMO
To: Mayor and Councillors
From: General Manager Strategy and Planning
CC: Acting Chief Executive
Date: 24 September 2013
Re: Draft Land Use Recovery Plan (draft LURP) Actions 2 and 6 – responses to Planning Committee Meeting questions
Actions 2 and 6 of the draft LURP were considered by the Planning Committee on 20 Septemb er 2013 and will be reported to the Council on 3 October 2013. At the Planning Committee there were a number of questions raised which are set out below, with officer responses provided. The Council report also contained an error, which is noted here, with the correct information. Note that this errors does not affect the recommendations in the report. Q1. Use of S23 or S27 vs the District Plan Review (Paragraph 14 of the Council Report) The report recommends that the provisions are reviewed as part of the second phase of the District Plan Review. As this is a statutory direction within the draft LURP, the only authority who can change the District Plan provisions is the Minister for Canterbury Earthquake Recovery. On that basis, if Council subsequently considers that the provisions need to be amended, it would need to request the Minister to amend the approved LURP as provided by s22 CER Act.
Q2 Attachment 2 ‐ Section 16.3 ‐ Duration of comprehensive development mechanism It is recommended that a review be undertaken as part of the second phase of the district plan review and any changes needed to improve the effectiveness of the provision are progressed via requests to the Minister as set out above in the response to Q1.
Q3 Attachment 2 – Section 16.4.3 Non‐Complying Activities Wording change for clarification of qualifying standards.
Q4 Attachment 2 Section 16.5.1(b) Definition of Contiguous Footnote clarifies the definition of contiguous. In addition, a Restricted Discretionary Activity assessment matter in relation to “Context and Character” has been added as Assessment Matter 16.7.1(d) as follows: “(d) through the amalgamation of properties, a development site of sufficient size and with shape and dimensions is created that: ‐ provides a residential built form structure that is permeable (ie movement through the site is easy and safe); and ‐ creates a legible and cohesive neighbourhood (ie a sense of place)”
REGARDING ITEM 24 (14.) DRAFT LAND USE RECOVERY PLAN ACTIONS 2 AND 6 PLANNING COMMITTEE REPORT TO COUNCIL 4. 9. 2013 418
Q5 Attachment 2 Section 16.5.2 (c) Suitability of location Constraint Criteria These provisions need to be written so that each can apply individually so the ‘and’ is amended to ’or’. The reference to “residential red zone” in (iv) requires a footnote setting out the definition of the residential red zone for clarification. (v) the tsunami inundation area – the Committee asked for the words ‘natural hazards’ to be inserted. The criteria need to be more specific than simply ‘natural hazards’. Until the natural hazards maps are updated via the District Plan Review, the tsunami inundation area is a good proxy for those parts of the city that are prone to sea level rise and coastal flooding. Further none of the these areas potentially subject to tsunami inundation are shown on the planning maps as being suitable for the comprehensive development mechanism.
Q5 Attachment 2 Section 16.5.3 is yield gross or net? The yield should be “net” in accordance with the definition in Proposed Chapter 6 – Recovery and Rebuilding of Greater Christchurch to the Regional Policy Statement (ie excludes stormwater, geotechnically constrained, ecological etc areas).
Q6 Attachment 2 Section 16.6.9 Landscape areas The word “permeable” has been added in relation to stormwater.
Q7 Attachment 2 Section 16.6.11 Habitable Space at Ground Level Staff recommend no change needs to be made. The provision (16.6.11(a)) already applies only to ‘ground level residential units’. Q8 Attachment 2 Section 16.5 c)(i) Suitability of Location Special Amenity Areas The text in attachment 2 is correct. The text in the Council report refers to Special Amenity Areas (SAMs), but should be amended to read: Special Amenity Areas (SAMs) which are subject to external design and appearance rules in this plan.
Report correction: A correction is required in Paragraph 45(m) of the Staff Report as follows: “….and a maximum of 65 56 households per hectare pro rata for the application site.”
- 2 -
419
AUDIT AND RISK SUBCOMMITTEE 28. 8. 2013 Clause 25
AUDIT AND RISK SUBCOMMITTEE 28 AUGUST 2013
A meeting of the Audit and Risk Subcommittee was held in Committee Room 1 on 28 August 2013 at 1pm.
PRESENT: Councillors Carter (Chair) and Buck (from 1.20am), and Messrs John Hooper and Michael Rondel.
APOLOGIES: Councillors Button, Chen and Gough
It was resolved on the motion of Councillor Carter, seconded by Councillor Buck, that the apologies be accepted.
The Committee reports that:
PART A – MATTERS REQUIRING A COUNCIL DECISION
1. CORPORATE RISK MANAGEMENT REPORT
General Manager responsible: Bob Lineham, CEO, Christchurch City Holdings DDI 941-8475 Officer responsible: Sue Chappell, Unit Manager, Corporate Services Author: Sue Chappell, Unit Manager, Corporate Services
PURPOSE OF REPORT
1. The purpose is to provide the Subcommittee with a report on the key corporate risks that the Council currently manages. This report is provided on a six-monthly basis.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Overview
2. Prior to the earthquakes, the Council engaged PricewaterhouseCoopers to assist in the development of a Council Wide Risk Management Framework as part of an overall Internal Audit and Risk Management engagement. The resultant Risk Management Framework methodology (Appendix B) and the first report on risks were presented to the Audit and Risk Subcommittee on 01/06/2011.
3. As part of the ongoing process, new risks are identified across all Council groups. These have been analysed, ranked and had controls or treatments identified and implemented. Ongoing risk levels are being monitored as part of a quarterly internal review.
4. The current key corporate risks have been identified and reviewed, and are reported now to the Audit and Risk Subcommittee (Appendix A). These will continue to be reported on a six monthly basis.
5. There was a request at the last Sub committee meeting for more detail to enable better understanding of these risks. It is proposed and trialled in this report, that we will do this through splitting some overarching risks into separate detail and add in further risks that are of a less significant nature (mainly through better controls).
420
AUDIT AND RISK SUBCOMMITTEE 28. 8. 2013
1 Cont’d
Background
6. Risk Hierarchy Levels: Risks are identified and managed at different levels in the organisation in line with the responsibilities, abilities and skills of staff, and the specific nature of many risks.
i. Corporate Risk – Highest level covering risks for the entire organisation ii. Activity Risk – Considers risks from all perspectives of each activity performed iii. Specific Risks – Considers risks which relate to specific risks (eg infrastructure)
7. Corporate risks are identified and managed by senior management. The focus of these risks is likely to be on: External influences affecting Council’s service levels and effective operations Risks that are common to more than one activity Risks to Council’s ability to meet service levels, react to emergencies, support the activities or projects of the Council The most critical activities and specific risks.
8. Corporate risks will also summarise or combine a number of Activity or Specific risks (eg inadequate project management resource). These risks can be evaluated for each activity and the combined results used to form a corporate risk view.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
That the Key Corporate Risk Report be received.
SUBCOMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION
It was decided on the motion of Councillor Carter, seconded by Councillor Buck, that:
1. The Committee express its concern with the level of detail provided in the proposed risk report.
2. Staff further review the content of the report and identify key risks and their respective status/risk level
3. The risk report be aligned with the Executive Risk Register.
4. A progress tracker be employed to identify changes to risks.
5. The Corporate Risk Management Report is to be included in each Audit and Risk Management Committee Agenda, noting that the 25 September 2013 agenda is solely for Performance Reports.
421
AUDIT AND RISK SUBCOMMITTEE 28. 8. 2013
Appendix A Key Corporate Risks that impact the Council
The following risks are the key organisation risks – they form a “top-down” approach and are interdependent with the business units’ risks:
Balanced Score Category Risk (Event / Condition) Controls card *Infrastructure rebuild works proceed as Maintaining resilience of per published programme and complete by Resilience of damaged underground Customer 2017. Infrastructure infrastructure until rebuild *Governance and management to completed. programme
*Monthly internal performance management report (KPI’s) and resulting Levels of Delivery of core Council levels Customer improvement plans Service of service to the community *Quarterly report to Corporate & Financial Committee and Council.
Council is able to meet its *Implementation of Crown Manager quality and time frame directives Capacity requirements in processing * Programme of developing contracted Customer Planning consents for repairs and also resource the delivery of Council repair * Workforce management planning, projects including recruitment & retention of staff
* Detailed analysis of costs, funding & Delivery of Council’s capital involvement of right groups Delivery of programme to meet its * Forward planning throughout planning Capital Customer completion milestones within process. Programme to the specified budget and has * Early engagement for critical projects to milestones resolved insurance recoveries ensure accurate, timely & relevant briefings and scope.
* 4 Avenues group has limited powers. Delivery delays of citywide Offset & minimise delays with: rebuild projects due to Delivery of - CCC & 4 Avenues group unresolved strategic and Customer Capital - CCC / CCDU Operational Delivery Group operational delivery Programmes - Council Workshops conducted as agreements between external necessary to gain councillor feedback prior agencies and CCC to formal Council deliberation
* Land drainage recovery programme Risk of serious flooding which * Working with SCIRT on strawman Customer Natural Event could happen as a result of drainage solutions earthquake land settlement *Influence District Plan Review & Stormwater management plans
SCIRT rebuild based on level Levels of Service & financials are regularly Service of service functionality poses reviewed & reported to give clear picture of Customer Delivery potential long term asset progress against total infrastructure rebuild renewal contingent liability estimate.
* CTOC established * Public Information, education Service Impact of rebuild works on Customer * Transport for Christchurch Delivery traffic flow * Review code of practice for traffic management
422
AUDIT AND RISK SUBCOMMITTEE 28. 8. 2013
Key Corporate Risks that impact the Council - continued Balanced Risk (Event / Score Category Controls Condition) card * Undertake repairs in a timely manner Maintain availability of Social * Prioritised as part of Facilities Rebuild Plan Customer Social Good Housing Top 30 * Insurance negotiations as a priority
* LTP Annual Plan processes Addition or removal of * Submissions on legislative changes administration requirements Legislative * By-law review process Customer due to legislative change (eg Changes * Senior management participation in Liquor Act, Building Act, Sale steering groups (eg. MBIE, MPI Food Bill, & Supply of Alcohol) LGNZ, SOLGM)
* Cost sharing agreement with Crown Forecast/planned Crown & * Insurance programme established insurance funding of the Recovery * Advisors appointed by Council Earthquake Recovery Finance Funding & * Quarterly reporting to Corporate & Programme is achieved Delivery Finance Committee Meeting without delays and within * Project Managers & Finance working forecast amounts together
* In-depth understanding of financial Ongoing and unpredictable strategy by Unit Managers involved Delivery of market forces, insufficient * Robust forecasting of costs Finance Capital resources and * Utilisation of tracking systems Programmes interdependencies with other * Three Year delivery plan external programmes * Prioritisation of work with SCIRT & CCDU
* Monthly performance management The Council operating within monitoring. Finance Budget its approved capital and * Quarterly performance reporting to operational budgets Corporate & Finance Committee.
* Fraud & Protective Disclosures policy The Council having robust * External Audit Finance Integrity processes in place to combat * Regular management reviews possibility of staff fraud * Sufficient division of duties
* Maintain Professional Indemnity Insurance * Technical/ legal auditing services * Technical training services The Council meeting its legal * Implement & maintain Quality Legal Process compliance requirements (as Management Systems across regulatory Compliance regulator and corporate body) functions (ISO, BCA etc) * Strategy & Policy documents * Information systems & management * Briefings provided to Audit & Risk Sub- committee on legal risks
Options required where no policy exists for Govt evacuation of residential red External Working group established to explore the Process zones – impacting levels of Standards options service and high costs of service for any occupants remaining
423
AUDIT AND RISK SUBCOMMITTEE 28. 8. 2013
Key Corporate Risks that impact the Council - continued
Balanced Risk (Event / Score Category Controls Condition) card * Reinforce back to BAU for contractors * Prepared to still close roads Risk of injury during CBD Process Public Safety * Manage & restrict use of public space by rebuild contractors where possible * Keep road corridors open & safe
* Contaminated Land project in progress including HAIL identification solutions Availability of data on hazards * Flood management modelling (nearing Information such as contaminated land, Process completion) Availability slip, flooding, rockfall & * Geotech reports due approx Jan 2014 liquefaction * Ecological & Contaminated Land IT project awaiting prioritisation
Information confidentiality, * IT security policy and compliance IT Security & Process integrity & availability in * IT Governance Availability systems * IT Disaster Recovery Process
* Leaders manage demand & prioritise Productivity and retention of * Use different delivery structures staff caused by fatigue & * Workforce planning well in advance Staff burnout due to aggressive * Relevant recruitment is timely/ fast People Wellbeing & ramping up of recovery work, * Me@CCC promoted (support tools for Resilience increased workload and managers & staff intensity of work in third year * Lunch time forums available on support of post disaster. options
424
AUDIT AND RISK SUBCOMMITTEE 28. 8. 2013
Appendix B Methodology Followed
1. Definitions
Definition of key terms
The following definitions are used:
. Council Objective – an organisational goal (for example those included in LTP or Plan on a Page or regulatory set objectives) . Risk – threat or enabler to the achievement of a Council objective . Control – any process or tool that assists in the achievement of an objective . Gap – any gap between the desired and existing activity . Net Risk – the impact and likelihood of a risk, taking into account existing controls
2. Tools used to facilitate Risk Identification
A) The Governance, Risk and Compliance Model
This model will presented at the workshop as a tool for framing further discussions around Risks and the purpose of Risk Management. In moving towards an effective Risk Management process, the model illustrates three key activities and the surrounding cultural, technology and emerging requirements expected of stakeholders – applicable to an organisation such as the Council. We have tailored a model for CCC during the course of this review (see section 4).
425
AUDIT AND RISK SUBCOMMITTEE 28. 8. 2013
B) The PwC Business Risk Model
The PwC Business Risk Model was used as a guide during the interview processes and will also be revisited at the workshop as a useful checklist to assist in the discussion of the identified of risks. The tool provides a generic list of risk types by categories of risk. Reviewing the categories of risk outlined in this model enables participants to assess whether they have considered all categories of business risk. Again, this model can be applied in a Council setting.
426 AUDIT AND RISK 28. 8 .2013
COUNCIL 3. 10. 2013 3. The Council’s Objectives / Priorities
Identification of Mission and Vision and Strategic Objectives
By definition, the key risks to Council should be those that have the potential to impact on the achievement of the LTP, the Executive Team’s “Plan on a Page” and other regulatory/ statutory responsibilities to the community. Therefore these objectives must be recognised in order to ensure that: a) All key risks associated with those objectives are identified; and b) Risks that do not affect the achievement of those objectives are excluded (as not being key).
The Council’s organisational goals are stated below:
Christchurch City Council – Organisational Goals
1. being customer-driven and community-orientated
2. thinking strategically and acting as one organisation
3. building leadership capability throughout the organisation
4. being performance-driven and accountable for results
5. behaving according to shared values
Christchurch City Council – Vision
"Making Christchurch a world-class boutique city".
The organisational goals and vision of the Council are summarised in the following Council diagram
427 AUDIT AND RISK 28. 8 .2013
COUNCIL 3. 10. 2013
The Council’s organisational goals and visions have been translated into the Executive Team’s “Plan on a Page”. The objectives are aligned to the Council’s balance scorecard approach and are as follows:
Customer Finance Process People
Satisfy Customers Manage service Prepare annual plan Build Customer focus delivery in budget
Deliver LTP services Maintain sustainable Implement Improve staff and projects financial health opportunities for engagement improvement
Manage elected Manage capital Manage for Ensure ET workload is member relationships project delivery in performance manageable (ET) budget
Note: The above objectives were current to 6 July 2010. These objectives will be reset given current priorities before the start of the new financial year. The “bold” objectives are organisation objectives and appear in all staff performance agreements. These will remain in place.
428 AUDIT AND RISK 28. 8 .2013
COUNCIL 3. 10. 2013
4. The Council’s Risk Methodology
The risk assessment process starts by identifying the appropriate risks. These risks are then rated as “Net Risks” – i.e., the impact and likelihood of these risks are assessed taking into account the controls that currently exist to mitigate the risk.
Step 1: Linking identified risks to objectives
The first step is to ensure that the identified risk is a risk to the achievement of Council’s vision and objectives. In order to make this relevant to the Council, each risk was, in the first instance categorised under the balanced scorecard headings (Finance, Customer, Process and People) and then categorised by “risk type”. The “risk type” category is designed to align the risk to an area of service delivery.
Risk Type Categories (in no particular order)
Projects Other Agencies Staff Safety Events
Organisational External Standards Integrity Central Government
Contracts Service Delivery Security Decision Making
Policies Assets Legal Compliance Political
Information Public Safety Skills Resourcing
Change Management Finance Industrial Relations Planning
NB: The approach to risk categorisation will be based on an appropriate derivation of the Risk Model.
Step 2: Determine the impact of the risk
The second step was to determine the impact the risk would have on each business unit and the wider Council. To achieve this, each Business Unit used the risk ratings and criteria as set out in Table 1 below.
We identified four key types of possible impact Operational, Health and Safety, Reputational and Financial), and five levels of impact for each type – ranging from “Minor” to “Extreme”.
It should be noted that each type of impact must be considered separately, and comparison is not made between them. For example, whilst we suggest that a risk with an economic impact greater than $10m is extreme, this does not mean that the financial value of the other extreme impacts (such as “Serious or sustained public and media attention”) is also valued at greater than $10m.
429 AUDIT AND RISK 28. 8 .2013
COUNCIL 3. 10. 2013
Table 1: Risk Impact Criteria
Impact Critieria F H R C Service Delivery Image, Reputation Impacts on Public Impact on Measure Financial Impact and Public health and safety Customers and Support Community No health or safety No media Very localised- Impact +ve or - impact. Injury attention or 1 Insignificant st little effect.< 20 ve:<$100,000 managed with 1 reputational Customer hours Aid impact. Minor health or Minimal media Impact on small safety impact on Impact +ve or -ve: attention. May be group of small number of $100,000 - some local residents. 20 to 2 Moderate people. Injury dealt $1,000,000 with. No coverage-not front 500 Customer Hospitalisation page Hours Serious health or safety impact on Local media small number Some impact on coverage, Impact +ve or -ve: (injuries require a wider group. 3 Significant community $1m to $5m hospitalisation) or 500 to 20,000 interest in Council minor impact on Customer Hours large number of performance people. Extensive injuries Significant impact or significant National media on large group. health or safety coverage, major Impact +ve or -ve: Political 4Major impacts, impact on $5m to $10m involvement. permanent community 20,000 to 500,000 disablement or support. single fatality. customer hours Widespread health International or safety impacts, media coverage Significant impact multiple fatalities. and impact on on community at Impact +ve or -ve: community 5Extreme large. Over > $10m support. External 500,000 customer Enquiry. hours. Appointment of a Commissioner.
430 AUDIT AND RISK 28. 8 .2013
COUNCIL 3. 10. 2013
Step 3: Determine the likelihood of the risk occurring
The second axis on which the risk is assessed is the likelihood of the risk occurring. The following definitions of likelihood were agreed:
Likelihood Criteria
Unlikely to occur within the next 10 1Rare years
2 Unlikely May occur within the next 10 years
3 Possible May occur within the next 5 years
4Likely May occur within a one year period
5Almost certainAt least one event likely per month
431 AUDIT AND RISK 28. 8 .2013
COUNCIL 3. 10. 2013
Step 4: Multiply the Impact and Likelihood Ratings to produce the Risk Rating
The final step is to multiply Impact by Likelihood to produce the overall risk rating.
Impact x Likelihood = Overall Risk Rating
Given that we have used a five-scale rating for Impact and Likelihood, this will result in a number between 1 and 25.
The following definitions were agreed to categorise the overall risk ratings:
5 10152025 5
4 8 12 16 20 4 t
3 3 6 9 12 15 Impac
2246810
112345
12345 Likelihood
Overall Risk Ratings 1, 2, 3 Insignificant 4, 5, 6 Moderate 8, 9, 10, 12 Significant 15, 16 Major 20, 25 Extreme
Key points to note when applying risk ratings a) Only risks that are rated “Significant” or above (Net Risk) will be taken forward into the action planning stage. b) For the Risk Ratings, when assessing a general risk (such as, “Critical ICT system failure resulting in loss of critical data”), the impact and likelihood of the event will vary widely, depending on the exact nature of the event.
It is not practical to attempt to define all ICT system failure events that may lead to loss of data since many will not be of sufficient significance to warrant this effort.
Therefore, the approach is to apply the lowest Impact and Likelihood Ratings that will still result in the risk being rated as Significant.
Either: “Impact = 3, Likelihood = 3, Risk Rating = 9” OR “Impact = 2, Likelihood = 4, Risk Rating = 8” OR “Impact = 4, Likelihood = 2, Risk Rating = 8”
432 AUDIT AND RISK 28. 8 .2013
COUNCIL 3. 10. 2013
PART B – REPORTS FOR INFORMATION
2. DECLARATION OF INTEREST
There were no declarations of interest
3. DEPUTATIONS BY APPOINTMENT
John Walley, CEO of the NZ Manufacturers and Exporters Association addressed the subcommittee on Government procurement principles, explicit procurement practices in Australia, particularly that of steel, as well as local rebuild and quality control.
4. OFFICE OF THE AUDITOR GENERAL – PUBLICATIONS
Julian Tan, Audit Director, advised that the Office of the Auditor General Publications could be assistance to members, as an information source.
The reports circulated were for members information only.
PART C
5. RESOLUTION TO EXCLUDE THE PUBLIC
It was resolved on the motion of Councillor Carter, seconded by Mr Hooper, that the resolution to exclude the public set out on page 17 of the agenda be adopted.
CONFIRMED THIS 24TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2013
COUNCILLOR CARTER (CHAIR)
433 CLAUSE 26
MINUTES COUNCIL 3. 10. 2013
CHRISTCHURCH CITY COUNCIL
MINUTES OF A MEETING OF THE AUDIT AND RISK MANAGEMENT SUBCOMMITTEE HELD AT 3.30PM ON 24 SEPTEMBER 2013
PRESENT: Councillors Carter (Chair), Button, Chen and Gough, and Messrs Julian Tan, Andrew Timlin, Sonja Healing, John Hooper and Michael Rondel.
APOLOGIES
Apologies for absence were received from Councillor Chen, Councillor Buck, and Murray Harrington.
It was resolved on the motion of Councillor Carter, seconded by Councillor Button, that the apologies be accepted.
The Committee reports that:
PART B – REPORTS FOR INFORMATION
1. DECLARATION OF INTEREST
There were no declarations of interest.
2. DEPUTATIONS BY APPOINTMENT
Nil.
PART C
3. CONFIRMATION OF MINUTES OF MEETING: 28 AUGUST 2013
It was resolved that the minutes from the Subcommittee’s meeting of 28 August 2013 be confirmed.
4. RESOLUTION TO EXCLUDE THE PUBLIC
The Subcommittee resolved to adopt the Resolution to Exclude the Public, as set out on page 6 of the agenda and that Sonja Healing and Messrs Tan, Timlin, Hooper and Rondel be permitted to remain in the room for the consideration of this item.
CONFIRMED THIS 3RD OF OCTOBER 2013
COUNCILLOR CARTER (CHAIR) 434 435
COUNCIL 3. 10. 2013 Clause 27
COMMUNITY, RECREATION AND CULTURE COMMITTEE TUESDAY 3 SEPTEMBER 2013
A meeting of the Community, Recreation and Culture Committee was held in the No. 1 Committee Room on 3 September 2013 at 9am.
PRESENT: Councillor Yani Johanson (Chairperson), Councillors Peter Beck, Helen Broughton, Tim Carter, Barry Corbett, Jimmy Chen, Jamie Gough, and Glenn Livingstone (Deputy Chairperson).
IN ATTENDANCE: Councillor Ngaire Button for part of clause 5.
APOLOGIES: Councillor Helen Broughton. Councillor Jamie Gough for part of clause 1 and clauses 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19 and 20. Councillor Glenn Livingstone for clauses 4, 5, 6, 9, 10, 11, 12, 15, part of clause 17, and clauses 18, 19 and 20. Councillor Beck for clauses 4, 6, 9, 10, 11, 13, 14, 15, 18, 19, 20. Councillors Carter and Chen for clauses 9, 18, 19 and 20.
The Committee reports that:
PART A - MATTERS REQUIRING A COUNCIL DECISION
1. FACILITIES REBUILD PLAN - MONTHLY UPDATE REPORT INCLUDING TOP 30 PROJECTS STATUS UPDATE
General Manager responsible: General Manager Community Services, DDI 941 8607 Officer responsible: Facilities Rebuild Portfolio Manager Author: Darren Moses, Facilities Rebuild Portfolio Manager
PURPOSE OF REPORT
1. To provide a monthly update to the Council on the Facilities Rebuild Programme (FRP).
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
2. This information report provides a monthly programme update on some key FRP activities for the month mid-July to mid-August 2013.
3. The programme is being re-focused for the remainder of this calendar year to ensure that the team are targeting resources on getting closed buildings open as a first priority. This will align with the expectations of our community. Over time, all the open buildings in the programme will require an insurance claim and minor repairs completed and these will be progressed as a second priority.
4. A full status update on those projects prioritised into the Top 30 can be found in Attachment 1 and a programme schedule, including TOP 30, Work Package 2 (WP2) and Work Package 3 (WP3) can be found in Attachment 2.
COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT
5. Monthly advertorials continue to be published in the Mainland Community newspapers and the Akaroa Mail highlighting good news and providing the latest updates.
6. Media continue to be updated on progress of the programme. 436 COUNCIL 3. 10. 2013 COMMUNITY, RECREATION AND CULTURE COMMITTEE 3. 9. 2013
1 Cont’d
7. Both the Future Christchurch and Council Facilities Rebuild web pages have had minor revisions to the layout and content to be more intuitive and informative.
8. Signage continues to be erected at facilities to advise of building status.
CLOSURES AND OPENINGS
9. Little Akaloa Community Hall, Okains Bay Community Hall, Pigeon Bay Hall and Duvauchelle Community Hall re-opened following safety checks and electrical repairs.
HOUSING PROGRAMME
10. A full and comprehensive report on Social Housing can be found in Attachment 3.
HERITAGE PROGRAMME
11. A full and comprehensive report on the Heritage programme can be found in Attachment 4.
EXEMPTIONS
12. At the Council meeting of 27 June 2013, staff tabled a list of six buildings which could be given interim exemption from the Council’s Occupancy Approach. A building was inadvertently omitted from the list at that time as follows:
Port Levy Community Hall (refer paragraph 61b)
13. This is a light, timber frame building which itself suffered no damage in the Canterbury earthquakes. An external chimney had appeared to have separated from the building however this chimney has since been removed. The Detailed Engineering Evaluation (DEE) assessment identified that the building has a seismic capacity of less than 34 per cent New Building Standard (NBS) due to a lack of subfloor bracing (between the floor bearers and the piles), and low wall bracing. As this is a simple, light, timber framed building, with no brittle collapse risk identified and with no significant earthquake damage, it is recommended that this building be granted an exemption from our Occupancy Approach.
14. Subsequently the other buildings have been reviewed, and have been assessed to have a seismic capacity less than 34 per cent NBS, but with the exception of the Port Levy Community Hall, the remaining buildings all present more complex issues that could not be dealt with by a simple exemption process.
COMMERCIAL PROGRAMME
Work Package 1 (TOP 30)
15. Construction work on the transitional community facility at South Brighton is progressing well, despite the recent spells of wet weather. The estimated opening is October 2013.
16. Planning and investigation work is progressing on the Bishopdale Community Centre and Library project. Both the Community Facilities and Libraries teams have had input into the design brief. A damage assessment to capture all relevant earthquake damage is underway to further the discussions with Loss Adjustors.
17. On 6 August 2013, the Community, Recreation and Culture Committee (CRAC) approved a recommendation to initiate the rebuild of a new Community Centre and Library in Sumner. This report will be heard by the Council on 29 August 2013. 437 COUNCIL 3. 10. 2013 COMMUNITY, RECREATION AND CULTURE COMMITTEE 3. 9. 2013
1 Cont’d
18. Demolition of the Sumner surf club and toilets has been completed. The land on which the new building sits is owned by the Crown, therefore the surf lifesaving club and the Council will apply for separate leases directly with the Crown. Council staff have negotiated the land appointment with the surf lifesaving club and both parties have submitted their lease applications to Land Information New Zealand (LINZ). Staff are preparing a report to seek approval from the CRAC Committee and the Council to engage in such a lease.
19. Earthquake damage has been quantified at Linwood Service Centre and strengthening concepts / estimates developed. Work is targeting completion before the end of October 2013 to meet corporate accommodation requirements resulting from the closure of Rebuild Central staff accommodation. In principle staff agree with the insurer’s scope of repairs, however to date the strengthening works are unlikely to be covered by insurance.
20. Lyttelton Service Centre: the Loss Adjustment Team have been reviewing a Council repair and strengthening options report provided (with associated costs) in February 2013. Staff are awaiting a response and Insurers have requested additional information. Investigations are underway to look at the option of combining the facility with the neighbouring library.
21. South Library: a geotechnical report and level survey have identified differential settlement to the land. A damage assessment has been completed, including foundation repair and re-levelling methodology. This has identified a cost of $6.6 million. Staff are progressing with developing the remaining repair methodology for the “above ground” structure. It is expected that the total cost to repair will exceed the total sum insured. Initial estimates of the total repair cost are around $8-9 million; these costs will be refined over the next two months.
22. Voluntary Libraries: St Martins Voluntary Library will be demolished. Staff are investigating options for the reinstatement of a similar sized community facility.
23. Waltham Pool: staff have completed a report outlining the best value repair/replacement option. If approved by the CRAC Committee and the Council the pool will be open in summer 2014/15. This target means the report will be on the 3 September CRAC Committee Agenda.
24. Norman Kirk Pool: repair costs identified for Norman Kirk pool have exceeded the total sum insured. Loss adjusters are “unable to give a definitive timescale” of when they will have reviewed this report. Staff have presented the information to the Lyttelton/Mount Herbert Community Board. Feedback from the community workshops indicates a strong community desire to re-instate the pool on its existing site with only minor improvements such as increased sun shading and access to the lawn area outside in summer, (in line with the Lyttelton Master Plan 2012). This target means the report will be on the 3 September CRAC Committee Agenda.
25. Lyttelton Recreation Centre and Trinity Hall: repair costs identified for Lyttelton Recreation Centre and Trinity Hall have exceeded the Indemnity value. Loss adjusters have employed review engineers to do their own damage assessment; no timeframe for delivery of this report has been supplied. Feedback from community workshops indicates a strong community desire to repair the Lyttelton Recreation Centre and Trinity Hall as soon as possible, with specific interest in the possibility of reopening Trinity Hall quickly, due to the upcoming loss of the Lyttelton School Hall. This target means the report will be on the 3 September CRAC Committee Agenda.
26. Botanic Gardens Paddling Pool: staff have developed a low cost scheme that will allow the pool to operate normally in summer.
27. Scarborough Paddling Pool: the pool has now been removed and the buildings demolished. Grass is being grown on the area to allow it to be used while decisions on the future use are considered. Staff from the Council’s Recreation and Sport Unit will investigate the options for reinstatement and consult with the community. 438 COUNCIL 3. 10. 2013 COMMUNITY, RECREATION AND CULTURE COMMITTEE 3. 9. 2013
1 Cont’d
Work Package 2
28. At its meeting on 27 June, the Council approved an exemption list to permit the re-opening of six Community Facilities with a seismic strength of less than 34 per cent NBS. The following buildings from work packages two and three have been re-opened:
Okains Bay Community Hall Little Akaloa Community Hall Pigeon Bay Community Hall Risingholme Craft Workshops Harewood Community Centre / Creche Duvauchelle Community Hall.
29. N.B.: Minor earthquake repairs will be undertaken at a future date in conjunction with scheduled maintenance.
30. Whilst the building is now open, strengthening work has commenced at Duvauchelle Community Hall and was expected to be completed in mid August.
31. Jellie Park Main Plant Room Strengthening: building consent processing is nearly complete, following this the construction tender and works will commence.
32. Pioneer Leisure Centre: temporary works have been completed to allow the hall to be used. The damage assessment is ongoing.
33. Wharenui Pool and Recreation Centre: temporary works have allowed the pool entranceway to operate. The pool building is open; however, the gymnasium and recreation centre portion of the building will require significant works as a result of earthquake damage. A damage assessment is underway.
34. Sockburn Squash Centre: damage assessment is complete and insurance negotiations have opened.
35. Wigram Gym: minor damage has been identified, the repairs are of a low value and will be able to be instructed under staff delegation. Loss adjusters have met staff on site and agreed earthquake damage. Documentation has now been forwarded to the insurer’s Loss Adjusters with no response. Additional earthquake damage noted by the building operator may delay the process. The site is currently operational and has an NBS above 34 per cent.
36. Denton Oval: strengthening of the amenities building (rugby club change rooms) to 67 per cent NBS is delayed as a fire report is needed. Works at Denton will proceed once building consent is received. This work is funded by the Recreation and Sport Unit directly and will allow part of the facility to re-open. Repair of other damage can be completed once the facility is operational. Damage assessment for the complex is 75 per cent complete.
37. Governors Bay Pool: closed for season. The damage assessment is complete and being costed, and is due to be submitted late August 2013.
38. Halswell Aquatic Centre: damage assessments will be completed prior to the start of the capital project to build a new community facility on site.
39. Cuthberts Green: damage assessment will complete in late August 2013.
40. Parklands Library: this building has minor to moderate damage. A damage assessment will be complete in late August 2013. The building has an NBS rating of 62 per cent. 439 COUNCIL 3. 10. 2013 COMMUNITY, RECREATION AND CULTURE COMMITTEE 3. 9. 2013
1 Cont’d
41. New Brighton Library: this building has minor to moderate damage, some crack repairs were completed to stop damage to the rebar (likely to rust due to proximity to the sea). A damage assessment will be complete in late August 2013. The building has an NBS rating of 36 per cent.
42. Shirley Library: this asset has minor to moderate damage. The Heating, Ventilation and Air Conditioning (HVAC) system was damaged and repairs were completed early in 2013. The building has an NBS rating of 68 per cent. A damage assessment is underway.
43. Spreydon Library: damage assessment is complete.
44. Milton Street Depot: this site is a grouping of 11 assets. Damage varies from minor to extensive. The damage assessments will be complete by the end of October 2013. Access to a section of the “Tradesman’s Workshop” has been restricted following a DEE since the last report. The closure is due to a single beam which is below building code. The beam will be strengthened from an existing budget as soon as possible and the workshop will be returned to service.
45. Upper Riccarton Library: this asset has moderate damage including damage to the under-floor heating. A damage assessment will be complete in September 2013.
46. R&R Sport / Penny Lane / Rohits / Mayur: negotiations are underway for the Christchurch Central Development Unit (CCDU) to purchase these buildings later in the year. Damage assessments and insurance negotiations are progressing.
47. Dog Pound: this building has moderate damage. A damage assessment is currently in progress; discussions with insurers are progressing in parallel with the damage assessment.
48. Lyttelton Library: damage assessment is underway. Staff are progressing with investigations into how the services offered by the Library and the neighbouring destroyed service centre building could be integrated.
Work Package 3
49. Insurers have confirmed that the earthquake damage caused to Governors Bay Community Hall is substantial. They have issued a Statement of Position advising that the building is a total economic loss against the sum insured. The CRAC Committee approved demolition of this building, the toilets and ancillary structures at its meeting on 6 August. Staff were asked to work with community representatives to ensure removal of the Pierman Library (a building with historic interest) from the site. Community Services will confirm the strategic position with regards to re-instatement of the asset.
50. Pages Road City Care Yard: damage assessment is underway.
51. Jellie Park (all assets excluding the plant room which is in Work Package 2): a whole-of-site damage assessment framework is being prepared in conjunction with an assessment of the Business As Usual (BAU) issues on site. The intent is to share reporting costs between the Recreation and Sport Unit and the insurer. Site assessment will commence late August 2013 following the development of the offers of service from consultants.
52. Tram Barn: staff are working to ensure the badly damaged block work wall which has caused Canterbury Earthquake Recovery Authority (CERA) to restrict access to the building and the neighbouring car park is removed to allow unrestricted access to the Tram Barn and Heritage hotel car park. Damage Assessment and other repairs will be completed once the access restrictions on the building are lifted by CERA. Engineers have advised that the DEE will be updated and will be above 34 per cent once the block work wall has been replaced. Initial investigations point to the building having suffered notable earthquake damage that is likely to be repairable within the insured sum. Staff expect the Tram Barn will re-open in September. 440 COUNCIL 3. 10. 2013 COMMUNITY, RECREATION AND CULTURE COMMITTEE 3. 9. 2013
1 Cont’d
FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS
53. Housing units with damage at over $100,000 cap per event will qualify for a legitimate insurance claim with the Local Authority Protection Programme (LAPP).
54. The building assessment work required to inform the Facilities Rebuild Plan is initially funded by the Council however, where a building’s structure is damaged and a legitimate successful insurance claim is processed, the Council will recoup these costs from insurance as a legitimate policy entitlement.
55. Where buildings have no damage, the full cost to bring a building up to code will be a cost to the Council. This is the case with most of the buildings on Banks Peninsula. The Council’s Earthquake Prone Building Policy requires buildings to be strengthened to a target of 67 per cent NBS.
Do the Recommendations of this Report Align with TYP budgets?
56. Yes. The Facilities Rebuild Programme was approved as part of the Three Year Plan.
LEGAL CONSIDERATIONS
57. Not applicable.
Have you considered the legal implications of the issue under consideration?
58. As above.
ALIGNMENT WITH TYP AND ACTIVITY MANAGEMENT PLANS
59. The FRP was approved as part of the Three Year Plan.
Do the recommendations of this report support a level of service or project in the TYP?
60. This supports the FRP.
ALIGNMENT WITH STRATEGIES
61. The work being undertaken by the FRP team involves alignment with existing Facilities Strategy documents to inform decision making.
Do the recommendations align with the Council’s strategies?
62. As above.
CONSULTATION FULFILMENT
63. Not applicable. 441 COUNCIL 3. 10. 2013 COMMUNITY, RECREATION AND CULTURE COMMITTEE 3. 9. 2013
1 Cont’d
STAFF AND COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION
That the Council:
(a) Receive the information in this report.
(b) Exempts Port Levy Community Hall from its current building closure policy on the basis that it is not considered dangerous to occupy. (Refer paragraph 12.)
Councillor Carter asked that his vote against (b) be recorded.
COMMITTEE CONSIDERATION
1. The Committee requested that staff report to the next meeting of the Community Recreation and Culture Committee on the following possible options:
(a) Repair of the Riccarton Community Centre - the original building and the 1960 building, to 67 per cent NBS. Complete the betterment work specified in the next report.
(b) Allocation of $614,000 from the Building and Infrastructure Allowance for the repair work of the Riccarton Community Centre, understanding that an insurance claim has not been settled.
(c) Repair the Hei Hei Community Centre to 100 per cent NBS. Complete the betterment work specified in the next report.
(d) Allocate $550,000 from the Building and Infrastructure Allowance for the repair work of the Hei Hei Community Centre, understanding that an insurance claim has not been settled.
(e) Resolve that all proceeds of insurance relating to the Riccarton Community Centre and the Hei Hei Community Centre are applied to the Building and Infrastructure Allowance.
2. The Committee requested that staff provide a report to the Council on the following matters:
(a) A high level cost estimate to repair/rebuild all of the Council’s damaged community facilities in comparison with the amount on budget in the Building and Infrastructure Allowance.
(b) Options for moving forward with the design and planning of the Heathcote Joint Facility noting the delay in any insurance settlement.
(c) On the possibility of a temporary library facility in Sumner and an extension to the Linwood Library opening hours to Sunday. (Note: The Committee reaffirms its support for the Scarborough Lifeboat being a priority.)
(d) A list of all outstanding requests/responses from the Council’s insurer.
442 COUNCIL 3. 10. 2013 COMMUNITY, RECREATION AND CULTURE COMMITTEE 3. 9. 2013
2. FACILITIES REBUILD WALTHAM POOL, LYTTELTON POOL, LYTTELTON RECREATION CENTRE
General Manager responsible: General Manager Community Services, DDI 941-8607 Officer responsible: Recreation and Sports Unit Manager Author: John Filsell, Recreation and Sports Unit Manager
PURPOSE OF REPORT
1. The purpose of this report is to seek Council approval for the repair of the Waltham Pool, repair of the Lyttelton Recreation Centre, and the rebuild of the Lyttelton Pool ahead of an insurance settlement and at the Council’s risk.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Waltham Pool
2. Waltham Lido Pool (Waltham Pool) has been damaged as a result of the earthquakes and is closed indefinitely. Waltham Pool is prioritised as a Top 30 Project. Council and Community feedback indicates a strong preference for the facility to be open for summer 2014/15.
3. Waltham Pool is repairable and geotechnical assessment confirms that the ground conditions are suitable for the buildings and their current foundations.
4. Repair to 34 per cent New Building Standard (NBS) is estimated at $1,717,847; repair to 67 per cent NBS at $1,839,393. Full replacement is estimated at between $5,700,000 and $6,000,000. The recommended option is repair to 67 per cent NBS.
5. In addition to the repairs it is further recommended that $250,000 of betterment funds are allocated from the Building and Infrastructure Allowance to the project to cover signage, landscaping, raising the profile of the roof from the flat pitch, re-size the plant room, safe fencing, painting, shade sails and other small improvements.
6. It is also recommended that $400,000 be allocated to the project from the capital governance pool to replace and modernise the existing pool water treatment plant including the boiler, filtration and circulation systems. The pool plant is largely original (circa 1965); it is at the end of its useful life and should be replaced within the larger repair project.
7. An insurance claim is currently being prepared and it is estimated that the Council is entitled to $1,234,334 from its insurer to offset repair costs. This has not been agreed by the insurer.
8. The nett total cost to the Council for the repair of Waltham Pool detailed in this report after deducting the estimated proceeds of insurance is estimated at $1,255,059. This is subject to the Council receiving an insurance settlement that it believes it is entitled to.
9. No loss adjustor or insurer agreement has been reached or is likely to be reached in the foreseeable future. It is proposed that the Council proceed with the repair understanding the risk of not having a finalised insurance settlement. Proceeding with repairs does not alter the basis for insurance recovery. The risk protection wording in place at the time the damage occurred informs the level of recovery.
10. The earlier a decision is made the greater the possibility of opening Waltham Pool for the 2014/15 summer season will be. 443 COUNCIL 3. 10. 2013 COMMUNITY, RECREATION AND CULTURE COMMITTEE 3. 9. 2013
2 Cont’d
Lyttelton Recreation Centre
11. Lyttelton Recreation Centre and Trinity Hall (Lyttelton Recreation Centre) has been damaged as a result of the earthquakes and is closed indefinitely. Lyttelton Recreation Centre is prioritised as a Top 30 project. Community consultation indicates a strong preference for the facility to be open as soon as reasonably possible, the wider use of the facility as an all-in-one community centre and the possibility of a staged opening to allow early access to some areas.
12. Lyttelton Recreation Centre is repairable to 34 per cent NBS within the insured sum. The geotechnical report states that the foundations have a strength of 34 per cent NBS. It is not possible to meet 67 per cent NBS without significant ground improvement works at the Council’s cost; this would be tantamount to full replacement. The foundations are not damaged and meet 34 per cent NBS and do not need to be replaced.
13. Repair of above ground structures to 34 per cent NBS is estimated at $2,315,000; repair of above ground structures to 67 per cent NBS at $2,541,500. Full replacement of the entire facility is anticipated at $4,500,000. The recommended option is to repair the building to 67 per cent NBS and the foundations to 34 per cent NBS.
14. In addition to the repairs it is further recommended that $600,000 of betterment funds are allocated from the Building and Infrastructure Allowance to the project to cover soundproofing and modernising of meeting rooms, upgrading primitive mechanical ventilation, reroofing (the office and squash court area) and a slightly better fit out. This work is important as the facility will serve as the primary community facility for the Lyttleton area.
15. An insurance claim process is underway but not concluded. Council staff estimate that the Council is entitled to $2,315,000 from its insurer to offset repair costs. Should the Council choose to replace the facility Council staff believe it would only be entitled to the indemnity value of $1,662,325. The total sum insured is $3,734,294.
16. The nett total cost to the Council for the repair of the Lyttelton Recreation Centre as detailed in this report after deducting the estimated proceeds of insurance is estimated at $826,500.
17. No loss adjustor or insurer agreement has been reached or is likely to be reached in the foreseeable future. It is proposed that the Council proceed with the repair understanding the risk of not having a finalised insurance settlement. Proceeding with repairs does not alter the basis for insurance recovery. The risk protection wording in place at the time the damage occurred informs the level of recovery.
Lyttelton Pool
18. The Norman Kirk Memorial Pool (Lyttelton Pool) has been extensively damaged as a result of the earthquakes and is closed indefinitely. Lyttelton Pool is prioritised as a Top 30 Project. Community consultation indicates a strong preference for the facility to be reinstated largely as is and that work is completed to open for the 2014/15 summer season. Minor improvements suggested by the community include sun shading and year round access to the adjoining lawn area.
19. Theoretically the facility is repairable. Repair to 34 per cent NBS is estimated at $2,050,000 but there is a risk that the existing foundations will not support a repaired structure. The repair option is not supported as it carries significant construction risks and the community is left with a extensively repaired facility. 444 COUNCIL 3. 10. 2013 COMMUNITY, RECREATION AND CULTURE COMMITTEE 3. 9. 2013
2 Cont’d
20. The cost to replace the facility to 100 per cent NBS is estimated at $2,359,000; this includes a $250,000 contingency for the retaining wall and a $250,000 contingency for piling. A geotechnical investigation is underway to advise the detailed design of replacement foundations. The recommended option is replacement to 100 per cent NBS. Due to the location of the pool on a steep hill there is a risk that the cost of foundations will exceed the contingency.
21. In addition to the replacement it is further recommended that $300,000 of betterment funds from the Building and Infrastructure Allowance are allocated to the project to cover increasing the size of the toddlers/children’s pool, sun shading, year round access to the lawn and other small improvements.
22. An insurance claim process is underway but not concluded. Council staff estimate that the Council is entitled to $954,424 from its insurer to offset replacement costs. The total sum insured is $954,424.
23. The nett total cost to the Council for the replacement of the Lyttelton Pool after deducting the estimated proceeds of insurance is estimated at $1,704,576.
24. No loss adjustor or insurer agreement has been reached or is likely to be reached in the foreseeable future. It is proposed that the Council proceed with the repair understanding the risk of not having a finalised insurance settlement. Proceeding with repairs does not alter the basis for insurance recovery. The risk protection wording in place at the time the damage occurred informs the level of recovery.
25. The earlier a decision is made the greater the possibility of opening Lyttelton Pool for the 2014/2015 summer season will be.
FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS
26. The recommendations of this report require the Council to set aside a total of $7,889,893 from the Building and Infrastructure Allowance and $400,000 from the Capital Governance Pool. The potential proceeds of an insurance claim in respect of the three facilities is estimated by the Council staff at $4,503,758. Under a best case scenario the nett cost to the Council’s Building and Infrastructure Allowance will be $3,386,135, and the nett cost to the Capital Governance Pool will be $400,000. The current balance of the Building and Infrastructure Allowance is $74,574,499.
27. The recommendations of this report require the Council to proceed with the repairs and replacement understanding the risk of not having a finalised insurance settlement. Proceeding with repairs does not alter the basis for insurance recovery. The risk protection wording in place at the time the damage occurred informs the level of recovery. The approval of the recommendations of this report does not constitute a decision to authorise an insurance settlement. Receipts of insurance settlements would be returned to the Building and Infrastructure Allowance.
28. Provision for Operating Expenditure (OPEX) has been included in 2014/15 budgets.
Do the Recommendations of this Report Align with 2013-16 TYP budgets?
29. No, funding for the recommendations of this report is provided for in the Council’s Building and Infrastructure Allowance. Funding repairs or replacements ahead of the results on an insurance claim was not the intended purpose of the fund.
30. Yes, $400,000 from the Capital Governance Pool to fund plant replacement at Waltham is provided by existing budgets. 445 COUNCIL 3. 10. 2013 COMMUNITY, RECREATION AND CULTURE COMMITTEE 3. 9. 2013
2 Cont’d
LEGAL CONSIDERATIONS
Have you considered the legal implications of the issue under consideration?
31. There are no legal implications, the facility rebuild process has been followed.
ALIGNMENT WITH LTCCP AND ACTIVITY MANAGEMENT PLANS
32. Yes, the operation of Waltham Pool, Lyttelton Recreation Centre and Lyttelton Pool are specified levels of service in section 7.0.1 of Activity Management Plan 7.0 Recreation and Sports Services.
Do the recommendations of this report support a level of service or project in the 2013-16 TYP?
33. Yes, the operation of Waltham Pool, Lyttelton Recreation Centre and Lyttelton Pool under the section Recreation and Leisure.
ALIGNMENT WITH STRATEGIES
Do the recommendations align with the Council’s strategies?
34. Yes, the Physical Recreation and Sport Strategy 2002, Goal One, to manage, maintain and redevelop existing facilities to meet current and future participation trends where ever possible.
CONSULTATION FULFILMENT
35. The Waltham Pool, Lyttelton Recreation Centre and Lyttelton Pool are all Top 30 Projects. Officers have engaged the Spreydon Heathcote Community Board and the Community Board have made a submission the Three Year Plan (TYP). The Board and Community are strongly in favour of repairing the Waltham Pool as soon is reasonably possible.
36. Officers have engaged the Lyttelton Mt Herbert Community Board who empowered a subgroup to provide feedback on the Lyttelton Recreation Centre and Lyttelton Pool. The feedback and that of the Board is reflected in sections 11 and 18 of this report and ultimately in the recommendations. 446 COUNCIL 3. 10. 2013 COMMUNITY, RECREATION AND CULTURE COMMITTEE 3. 9. 2013
2 Cont’d
STAFF AND COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION
That the Council:
(a) Repair the Waltham Pool to 67 per cent NBS, complete betterment work specified in this report and replace the water treatment plant.
(b) Allocate $2,089,393 from the Building and Infrastructure Allowance and $400,000 from the Capital Governance Pool for the repair of Waltham Pool understanding that an insurance claim has not been settled.
(c) Repair the Lyttleton Recreation Centre buildings to 67 per cent NBS and complete betterment work specified in this report.
(d) Allocate $3,141,500 from the Building and Infrastructure Allowance for the repair of Lyttelton Recreation Centre understanding that an insurance claim has not been settled.
(e) Replace the Lyttelton Pool to 100 per cent NBS and complete the betterment work specified in this report.
(f) Allocate $2,659,000 from the Building and Infrastructure Allowance to replace Lyttelton Pool understanding that an insurance claim has not been settled.
(g) Resolve that all proceeds of insurance relating to the Waltham Pool, Lyttelton Recreation Centre and Lyttelton Pool are applied to the Building and Infrastructure Allowance.
COMMITTEE CONSIDERATION
Note: Staff have taken notice of the importance of the memorial gates at the Waltham Pool.
3. DEMOLITION OF ST MARTINS OPAWA TOY LIBRARY BUILDING
General Manager responsible: General Manager Community Services, DDI 941-8607 Officer responsible: Project Manager Author: Peter Donovan, Project Manager
PURPOSE OF REPORT
1. The purpose of this report is to seek approval for the demolition of the Council-owned St Martins Opawa Toy Library Building located at 65 Sandwich Road, Beckenham, Christchurch. Refer Figure 1.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
2. Refer Figure 2. The 154 metres squared building is a single storey unreinforced load bearing brick structure. The building has a red placard and both safety fencing and temporary propping has been put in place.
3. The St Martins Opawa Toy Library Building received minor damage as a result of the earthquakes. This damage was assessed by City Care Ltd and a repair calculated at $26,010. The Loss Adjustment Team (LAT) confirmed its support of this by way of a Statement of Position (SOP). 447 COUNCIL 3. 10. 2013 COMMUNITY, RECREATION AND CULTURE COMMITTEE 3. 9. 2013
3 Cont’d
4. The building has been assessed by engineering consultants. Due to the type of construction, there are very few methods to strengthen the building to 67 per cent or 100 per cent of the National Building Standard (NBS).
5. The cost estimate to strengthen the building to 67 per cent or 100 per cent NBS is the same - $359,000 plus GST.
6. The estimated cost to rebuild a like-for-like facility is $595,000. This report seeks approval for demolition only.
7. Canterbury Earthquake Recovery Authority (CERA) will be asked to obtain three demolition quotes to carry out the demolition work and removal and disposal of materials from site. Based on previous demolition projects, it is estimated that the cost to demolish this site will be between $25,000 and $35,000. The approved contractor will be required to meet CERA’s demolition standards.
8. The Council’s agreement is sought for the demolition of the St Martins Opawa Voluntary Library. Discussion around a replacement facility in this community is ongoing.
9. The Asset Management Team recommend that due to the cost of strengthening and ongoing maintenance costs, this building is uneconomic to retain.
81 year old building City Care re-roofed and new spouting in August 2011 at a cost of $58,000 City Care earthquake repair works in August 2011 $30,162
Future maintenance:
Strengthening building to 67 per cent or 100 per cent NBS $359,000 Maintenance anticipated over the next 10 years approximately (reactive) $100,000 Maintenance anticipated over the next 10 years approximately (preventative) $100,000 Total $559,000
10. The Community Support Unit has indicated that the previous occupant, the Opawa St Martins Toy Library, has alternative temporary accommodation. The school has expressed interest in purchasing the site should it become available. The cost of demolition for St Martins Toy Library (if approved) will be met from the Community Facilities Renewals and Replacements budget.
FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS
11. The cost of demolition and the removal of the demolition debris will be met by the Community Facilities Renewals and Replacement budget.
12. To summarise from above, the estimated cost for demolition and site clearance is between $25,000 and $35,000 plus GST.
DO THE RECOMMENDATIONS OF THIS REPORT ALIGN WITH 2013-16 THREE YEAR PLAN BUDGETS?
13. As the recommendations are a consequence of the earthquake events, this issue is not addressed in the Three Year Plan (TYP). 448 COUNCIL 3. 10. 2013 COMMUNITY, RECREATION AND CULTURE COMMITTEE 3. 9. 2013
3 Cont’d
LEGAL CONSIDERATIONS
14. Consent is not required for demolition.
HAVE YOU CONSIDERED THE LEGAL IMPLICATIONS OF THE ISSUE UNDER CONSIDERATION?
15. Not applicable.
ALIGNMENT WITH THREE YEAR PLAN AND ACTIVITY MANAGEMENT PLANS
16. As the recommendations are a consequence of the earthquake events, this issue is not addressed in the TYP.
Do the recommendations of this report support a level of service or project in the 2013-16 TYP?
17. Not applicable.
ALIGNMENT WITH STRATEGIES
18. Due to the exigencies of the Earthquake Recovery process, this recommended action is outside of ‘normal’ strategic process.
Do the recommendations align with the Council’s strategies?
19. Not applicable.
CONSULTATION FULFILMENT
20. Consultation is not required.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
That the Council approve the demolition of the St Martins Opawa Toy Library Building.
COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION
That the item lie on the table in order to gain feedback from the local community regarding the report.
COMMUNITY BOARD RECOMMENDATION
The Board decided to advise the Community, Recreation and Culture Committee and the Council that it supports the demolition of the Opawa/St Martins Plunket Toy Library building. Further the Board supports engagement with the Toy Library and the St Martins Volunteer Library about future venues for them in the area. 449 COUNCIL 3. 10. 2013 COMMUNITY, RECREATION AND CULTURE COMMITTEE 3. 9. 2013
3 Cont’d
Figure 1 - St Martins Opawa Toy Library Building North facing aerial view.
Figure 2 - St Martins Opawa Toy Library Building South Elevation.
450 COUNCIL 3. 10. 2013 COMMUNITY, RECREATION AND CULTURE COMMITTEE 3. 9. 2013
4. CONSERVATION COVENANT CONSENT– ACLAND HOUSE, 85 PAPANUI ROAD, CHRISTCHURCH
General Manager responsible: General Manager Strategy and Planning, DDI: 941-8281 Officer responsible: Natural Environment and Heritage Unit Manager Author: Amanda Ohs, Heritage Policy Planner
PURPOSE OF REPORT
1. The purpose of this report is to obtain a Conservation Covenant Consent for the proposed removal of heritage fixtures and fittings from Acland House, 85 Papanui Road, Christchurch.
85 Papanui Road, March 2013
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
2. The Heritage Grants and Covenants Subcommittee approved a Heritage Incentive Grant for conservation and maintenance works in June 2009. As part of this funding approval the applicant agreed to a 20 year Limited Conservation Covenant in December 2009 not to demolish or remove, in whole or in part, the building (including fixtures and fittings which form part of the Heritage Fabric) within a period of 20 years from the date of the Covenant. The property is owned by The Ministry of Education and the applicant is the Christchurch Girls’ High School Board of Trustees.
3. Acland House is a Group 3 listed heritage item, which has already had a series of changes to its fabric over time. Acland House was built as a large private home for John Rutland in circa 1895. Subsequent owners include Robert Struthers, of the hardware firm Mason Struthers and William Strange of Strange’s Department Store. In 1922 the property was transferred to the Canterbury College for use as a boarding hostel – a use which has continued to the current day. For 90 years the hostel has played an integral role in the life and identity of the school. The eclectic style of the large timber dwelling gives the building landmark significance on Papanui Road and relates to the grand domestic character which characterised the street up to the mid-twentieth century. With its corner turret, large double bay projecting gable and timber detailing, Acland House is a large colonial timber dwelling with a variety of stylistic references. 4 Cont’d
451 COUNCIL 3. 10. 2013 COMMUNITY, RECREATION AND CULTURE COMMITTEE 3. 9. 2013
4. Alterations have been made to the building to adapt it for use a hostel. This has included the removal of some internal walls, the widening of some original openings, and an addition to the principal entrance – changes which have affected the original layout, particularly in the ground floor entrance and hallway area. Additional buildings have also been added to the site in order to support hostel use. The building retains original interior detailing in the ceiling work, entrance hall and staircase. The exterior retains a high degree of originality, aside from the circular staircase on the north and entry addition to the east. Interior details remain as evidence of the level of craftsmanship in Christchurch at this time including decorative plaster detailing and ceiling roses, timber panelling and decorative wall and ceiling vents. Attachment 1 provides a Statement of Heritage Significance.
5. The building is not registered by the New Zealand Historic Places Trust Pouhere Taonga (NZHPT).
6. The works for which grant funding was given in 2009 were for conservation and maintenance works including roofing and sash window repairs, with external repainting. The grant given by the Council for the work was $27,876.00, this being approximately a third of the total cost of works undertaken.
7. The Canterbury Earthquakes caused moderate to severe damage to the building and the building has been closed since the February 2011 earthquake.
8. The Consent forms part of a July 2013 approved Resource Consent (RMA92022515). The resource consent authorises “earthquake related stabilisation works, processes of deconstruction, repairs and alterations”. The proposed works are required for earthquake repair, strengthen the building and to meet the Board’s wishes to increase the capacity of the dining area in order to accommodate 100 boarders in one sitting. As part of this application for this consent the building owner engaged a conservation architect to provide a heritage assessment and inventory, heritage impact statement, and temporary protection plan.
9. The applicant’s conservation architect’s Heritage Impact Statement states:
“Of the proposed changes the repositioning of the internal stairs… will have the most impact on heritage values. The impact will, however, be mitigated in part by the reuse of the stairs in a new location”
“The majority of the other changes are less intrusive and their impact on heritage values is relatively minor. This includes the changes to the building exterior. Some of the changes can be said to have a positive effect in that they return the building to a form that is more like the original. In particular, the removal of the spiral stairs on the north face of the building and the reinstatement of the balcony and railing will have a positive effect on heritage values.”
“Overall, it is considered that the proposed changes will have a positive effect in that they will allow the building to be retained and to have a viable use for the future. It is also considered that the positive effects of the proposal will outweigh any negative impacts of the proposed changes on the building’s heritage values.”
10. As part of the resource consent process, the Council’s Heritage team completed an assessment of the application for the works to the building and concluded that:
“On consideration, overall the proposed changes will retain the building’s heritage values, enabling the historical, social and cultural value of the house’s use as a hostel for the past 91 years will be enabled to continue well into the future. As the ICOMOS NZ Charter 2010 Conservation Principle 8 states, “the conservation of a place of cultural heritage value is usually facilitated by the place serving a useful purpose. Where the use of a place is integral to its cultural heritage value, that use should be retained.” As discussed in the heritage significance discussion above, the continued historical use of the former dwelling as a hostel for the school is a key aspect of its heritage value;” and 452 COUNCIL 3. 10. 2013 COMMUNITY, RECREATION AND CULTURE COMMITTEE 3. 9. 2013
4 Cont’d
“The proposal involves substantial change to the heritage fabric of the building. It appears that every effort has been made to ensure important heritage fabric will be retained or reinstated within the building, albeit in some instances in a different location. It is recognised that ultimately the works will enable its retention, and continued viable use as a hostel, a use which is of key historical and cultural significance to the heritage value of the building. ”
11. The Council Resource Consents and Building Policy Unit concluded in their RMA Section 104 Report that:
“The proposal will result in a degree of irreversible damage to the heritage fabric of the building, however the proposed strengthening, repair and reconfiguration works to the building are required in order to ensure the sustainable longevity of the building, will allow the school to resume activities from the building, will allow it to function in accordance with its purpose.”
12. Building Consent has not yet been obtained for these works. In the event that Building Consent cannot be obtained for the relocation of the original staircase the applicant will seek separate Resource Consent or a change of conditions under Section 127 of the Resource Management Act to remove the staircase, and a further application for Conservation Covenant Consent will be lodged for consideration by this Committee.
SCOPE OF WORK
13. Proposed works approved through the Resource Consent process (RMA92022515) that relate to the removal of heritage fabric to accommodate the enlarged dining area and improved kitchen facilities include:
14. Proposed Changes:
Removal and reinstatement of heritage fabric (two windows; mantelpiece and fire surround) to elsewhere in the building Removal and reinstatement of heritage fabric in original location (skirting boards, architraves, picture rails, internal doors; decorative plaster ceiling elements) Removal of heritage fabric (three windows; door; fire surround; some internal walls; basement stair) Removal and relocation of internal staircase (including timber panelling, timber arches, balustrades, newel posts, handrails, treads and risers and understair door). Removal of lathe and plaster to both the walls and ceiling throughout and replacement with structural Gib Board.
FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS
15. There are no financial implications arising from a Covenant Consent.
Do the Recommendations of this Report Align with TYP budgets?
16. Not applicable. 453 COUNCIL 3. 10. 2013 COMMUNITY, RECREATION AND CULTURE COMMITTEE 3. 9. 2013
4 Cont’d
LEGAL CONSIDERATIONS
17. The Limited Conservation Covenant was registered against the property title on 14 January 2010. The removal of heritage fabric proposed requires consent under the conditions of the covenant. Below are the relevant extracts from the Limited Covenant:
3.1.1 In consideration of the Council agreeing to pay the Owner the Grant in the terms of this Covenant, the Owner covenants: 3.1.2 not to demolish or remove, nor permit to the demolished or removed, nor apply for a consent for demolition from the Christchurch City Council as territorial authority in whole or in part, any buildings on the Property
within a period of 20 years from the date of this Covenant. Such period is the term of this Covenant (“the Term”).
4. The Owner acknowledges that” 4.1 “buildings” means not only the physical structure but also extends to include those fixtures, fittings, light fittings and electrical switches and sockets which form part of the Heritage Fabric. Any chattels, plant, fixtures, fittings and equipment owned by any tenants of the Property are excluded from the definitions of “buildings”.
Have you considered the legal implications of the issue under consideration?
18. Yes. Extensive works have been approved through the Resource Consent process, and only some of the works come within the scope of the Limited Covenant, and therefore require covenant consent. These works are outlined in Scope of Works, paragraph 13 above.
Do the recommendations of this report support a level of service or project in the 2013-16 TYP?
19. Yes.
ALIGNMENT WITH TYP AND ACTIVITY MANAGEMENT PLANS
20. The Heritage Incentive Grants Scheme is aligned to the Community Outcomes ‘The city’s heritage and taonga are conserved for future generations’ and ‘The central city has a distinctive character and identity’. Heritage Incentive Grants and associated covenants contribute towards the number of protected heritage buildings, sites and objects, which is a measure for these outcomes.
21. The Heritage Protection activity includes the provision of advice, the heritage grants schemes, heritage recovery policy, and heritage education and advocacy. The Council aims to maintain and protect built, cultural and natural heritage items, areas and values which contribute to a unique city, community identity, character and sense of place and provide links to the past. The Council promotes heritage as a valuable educational and interpretation resource which also contributes to the tourism industry and provides an economic benefit to the city.
Do the recommendations of this report support a level of service or project in the TYP?
22. Yes. 454 COUNCIL 3. 10. 2013 COMMUNITY, RECREATION AND CULTURE COMMITTEE 3. 9. 2013
4 Cont’d
ALIGNMENT WITH STRATEGIES
23. Alignment of the provision of Conservation Covenants stems from the Heritage Conservation Policy which in turn is relevant to:
Christchurch Recovery Strategy 24. This Recovery Strategy is the key reference document that guides and coordinates the programmes of work, including Recovery Plans, under the Canterbury Earthquake Recovery (CER) Act. Retention and conservation of restorable heritage buildings, places, archaeological sites and places of cultural significance, and restoration of access to heritage collections, will help recreate that distinctive sense of place and identity that has defined the region and contributed to its economic development.
Christchurch City Plan 25. Heritage redevelopment projects are consistent with the Heritage provisions of the City Plan: Volume 2, Section 4, City Identity, Objective 4.3 Heritage Protection provides for objectives and policies in relation to Heritage protection. It recognises that Christchurch is a cultural and tourist centre, a role mainly dependent on its architectural, historic and scenic attractions. Much of its distinctive character is derived from buildings, natural features, other places and objects which have over time, become an accepted part of the cityscape and valued features of the City’s identity. Protection of heritage places includes cultural, architectural, areas of character, intrinsic or amenity value, visual appeal or of special significance to the Tangata Whenua, for spiritual, cultural or historical reasons. This protection may extend to include land around that place or feature to ensure its protection and reasonable enjoyment. A heritage item may include land, sites, areas, buildings, monuments, objects, archaeological sites, sacred sites, landscape or ecological features in public or private ownership.
Heritage Conservation Policy 26. Conservation Covenants are provided for under sections 5.3 and 12 of the Heritage Conservation Policy. As noted above, the Heritage Conservation Policy aligns with the Community Outcome “An attractive and well-designed City” through the indicator “Number of heritage buildings, sites and objects”.
Greater Christchurch Urban Development Strategy (UDS) 27. Heritage development projects provide opportunities for increased commercial and residential activity in the City while at the same time enhancing the heritage townscape. The UDS considers heritage as an integral part of Christchurch and an aspect of growth management provided for is through the protection, maintenance and enhancement of heritage.
New Zealand Urban Design Protocol 28. Heritage projects improve the quality and design of the urban environment by protecting the heritage of the city, which is stated in the Protocol as being an attribute of successful towns and cities. The Limited Covenants will contribute towards the implementation of the New Zealand Urban Design Protocol of March 2005 of which the Council is a signatory body.
Do the recommendations align with the Council’s strategies?
29. Yes.
CONSULTATION FULFILMENT
30. There is no requirement for community consultation for Conservation Covenants. 455 COUNCIL 3. 10. 2013 COMMUNITY, RECREATION AND CULTURE COMMITTEE 3. 9. 2013
4 Cont’d
STAFF AND COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION
That the Council resolve to provide Conservation Covenant Consent to the owner of the property of Acland House, 85 Papanui Road, Christchurch, to undertake the removal of those heritage fixtures and fittings, which form part of an approved Resource Consent (RMA92022515) for strengthening, repair and alteration of the building.
5. INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS POLICY REVIEW
General Manager responsible: General Manager Strategy and Planning, DDI 941-8281 Officer responsible: Unit Manager, Strategic Policy Unit Manager, Marketing
Authors: Paul Cottam, Principal Advisor Social Policy (Strategy & Planning); Duncan Sandeman, Civic and International Relations Manager (Public Affairs)
PURPOSE OF REPORT
1. This report seeks approval for the proposed revision of the Council’s International Relations Policy (Attachment 1), and to the revoking of two current Sister City policies.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
2. In August 2012 the Council resolved to establish a Working Party to review the International Relations Policy (the Policy) and Sister Cities Strategy/policies (see Attachment 2 for current copies). On 24 April 2013 the Council approved the process for reviewing the Policy, and the terms of reference for a working party.
3. The overall goal of the review was to provide future direction for the Council’s international relationships. The objectives of the review were to:
examine the categorisation of international relationships and their relevance identify what the appropriate focus and direction of relationships should be, i.e. consideration of cultural, educational and economic elements explore how the life course of relationships should be managed, including the best means to initiate and end them in the interests of developing other relationships that may offer greater benefits determine the best ways in which the Policy can contribute to the Christchurch Economic Development Strategy’s goals and themes determine effective elected member roles and responsibilities in relation to the Policy and the Sister Cities Strategy the level of funding for Sister City committees and reporting to the Council identify ways to recognise and communicate the implementation of the Sister Cities Strategy, including its benefits.
4. A review of other local authority international relations practices and policies took place in the development of a revised draft Policy. Consultation took place with a range of stakeholders such as the Sister Cities Committees, the Canterbury Development Corporation, the Department of Internal Affairs, and the education sector (see Attachment 3 for a list of stakeholders consulted with). 456 COUNCIL 3. 10. 2013 COMMUNITY, RECREATION AND CULTURE COMMITTEE 3. 9. 2013
5 Cont’d
5. Stakeholders considered international relations to be integral to achieving both the Council and city-wide goals, with many cities being keen to identify specialist, niche areas that can be high quality and productive. The importance of education was a consistent theme, and the work of Sister City Committees was acknowledged by many as giving a strong relationship basis on which this and other work can (and does) build. Mayoral engagement in international relations and sister city relations was identified as very influential. The need for a clear and transparent purpose of international relations work, and to leverage for the greatest benefit across the city, was noted. Timely strategic planning with all agencies being focused on developing the Christchurch international relations arena was identified as critical to achieving the best outcomes for Christchurch.
6. Once a draft was developed stakeholders were given the opportunity, including via a workshop, to provide feedback on the draft Policy, which was then considered by the Working Party and incorporated into the final revised Policy. The Working Party met five times in the development of the draft Policy (see Attachment 3 for the membership of the Working Party).
7. Compared to the current Policy, the revised Policy adopts a more outward looking approach and seeks to proactively work with other key stakeholders, both locally and nationally, in the international relations field. It has the aim of enhancing Christchurch as a sustainable, dynamic, modern international city in order to contribute to a stronger community, a prosperous economy, and good governance. The revised Policy contains a set of principles, and adds a series of goals, to assist the Council in assessing, reviewing and developing international relationships and opportunities. There is also more emphasis in the revised Policy on shared understandings and effective communications between the Council and other key stakeholders. The current Policy contains some content under its principles section that is better placed within the schedules of the revised Policy (e.g. reviewing Sister City relationships). The revised Policy updates the framework of relationships that describes the range of the Council’s international relations.
8. The revised Policy includes a number of operationally focussed schedules to try and capture these matters in one overall document. It is intended that some of these schedules replace existing Sister City policies (i.e. the Sister Cities Committees: Chairpersons’ Selection Process Policy (1994), and the Sister City Committees: Funding for Overseas Travel Policy (1991) – see Attachment 4). The schedules also confirm the status of Sister City Committees, and propose guidelines for the selection and role of elected members on the Committees. The schedules can also be reviewed and amended independently of the Policy itself.
9. Schedule One in the revised Policy aims to address the mayoral and elected member travel in support of international relations. This schedule includes the principle of developing, with Council approval, a programme for mayoral Sister City visits after each triennial election.
10. A complete review of the Council’s Sister Cities Strategy was not able to be completed within the short timeframe and resources available for this piece of work. Priority was given to reviewing the International Relations Policy, within which it notes the importance of reviewing the Sister Cities Strategy to support and give effect to the Policy goals. It should also be pointed out that many of the objectives and implementation elements of the existing Strategy have been included in the revised Policy, especially within its schedules.
FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS
11. Giving effect to the revised Policy will be funded from the Civic and International Relations Activity Management Plan.
Do the Recommendations of this Report Align with 2013 – 16 TYP budgets?
12. Yes – as above. 457 COUNCIL 3. 10. 2013 COMMUNITY, RECREATION AND CULTURE COMMITTEE 3. 9. 2013
5 Cont’d
LEGAL CONSIDERATIONS
13. None.
Have you considered the legal implications of the issue under consideration?
14. Yes.
ALIGNMENT WITH LTCCP AND ACTIVITY MANAGEMENT PLANS
15. A review of the International Relations Policy was consistent with the City and Community Long-Term Policy and Planning Activity and the Civic and International Relations Activity. The revised Policy provides direction for the development and delivery of the international relations component of the Civic and International Relations Activity Management Plan. The Council will make decisions on the appropriate Levels of Service and resourcing to give effect to the Policy through the Long Term Plan and Annual Plan decisions on the Civic and International Relations Activity Management Plan.
Do the recommendations of this report support a level of service or project in the 2013-16 TYP
16. Yes - advice is provided on key issues that affect the social, cultural, environmental and economic wellbeing of the City.
ALIGNMENT WITH STRATEGIES
17. Aligns with the Canterbury Economic Development Strategy.
Do the recommendations align with the Council’s strategies?
18. Yes.
CONSULTATION FULFILMENT
19. Yes – completed with key stakeholders as part of the development of the revised Policy (see paragraphs 4-6, and Attachment 3).
STAFF AND COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION
That the Council:
(a) Approve the revised International Relations Policy.
(b) Revoke the Sister Cities Committees: Chairpersons’ Selection Process Policy (1994), and the Sister City Committees: Funding for Overseas Travel Policy (1991).
(c) Recommend to the incoming Council that a review of the Sister Cities Strategy be undertaken in 2014. 458 COUNCIL 3. 10. 2013 COMMUNITY, RECREATION AND CULTURE COMMITTEE 3. 9. 2013
5 Cont’d
COMMITTEE CONSIDERATION
The Community Recreation and Culture Committee requested that:
(a) The Council note that elected members appointed to Sister City Committees will not be precluded as a matter of course from taking part in Council consideration of Sister City matters except where there is a direct individual advantage.
(b) Staff report back by way of a memo to the Committee on the feasibility of the Council joining the United Nation’s Disaster Risk Reduction Programme.
(c) It be noted that the Committee would like to thank those individuals from external organisations who have helped with the work relating to this policy.
6. SUMNER SURF CLUB TOILETS
General Manager responsible: General Manager , City Environment Group, DDI 941-8608 Officer responsible: Unit Manager Asset and Network Planning Author: Lewis Burn, Property Consultant
PURPOSE OF REPORT
1. The purpose of this report is to obtain approval for the Council to:
(a) enter into a lease with the Crown to secure the occupancy of the site for the rebuild of the Sumner Surf Club toilet Block
(b) authorise the Corporate Support Manager to approve the terms and conditions of the lease and further such arrangements as may be necessary for the control and management of the surrounding crown land, which is used as a public park, should this area not form part of a lease (Attachment 1).
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
2. The Sumner Surf Life Saving Club (SSLSC) pavilion and the connected Council owned toilet block adjacent to 305 Main Road Clifton were severely damaged in the earthquakes and as a consequence both buildings have been demolished.
3. The Council’s Facilities Rebuild team have been working in conjunction with SSLSC to rebuild both their club facilities and the Council’s toilet block as one project on the same site with the expectation that building of both facilities can commence early 2014. Staff will present the new design to the Committee at a later date, following approval of the resource consent, completion of the detailed design and cost estimate, and following approval of the replacement cost by the loss adjusting team.
4. The site of the new development for both the surf club building and adjoining Council toilet block is Crown land under the Land Act 1948. Discussions with SSLSC have culminated in agreement over the boundary between the area SSLC will occupy and the toilet block foot print (refer Attachment 2).
5. SSLSC are underway with the development of its new clubrooms having applied to the Crown through the Land Information New Zealand (LINZ) property manager for a lease. It is in the process of lodging a resource consent for both the new pavilion and the toilet block which will be housed under one roof line.
459 COUNCIL 3. 10. 2013 COMMUNITY, RECREATION AND CULTURE COMMITTEE 3. 9. 2013
6 Cont’d
6. The Council has made an application to the Crown through LINZ (without prejudice to Council approval to enter into a lease) for a lease of at least the toilet block footprint of 61.2 metres squared and a lease or management agreement for the balance of the site.
7. The Crown land area that surrounds the premises intended to be leased by the Surf Club and the Council has been developed and maintained by the Council for many decades as part of the Sumner beach front park/recreation area. The application to the Crown is to secure at minimum, a lease over the built toilet facility, and if not by lease, a management agreement of the balance of the site to formalise the ongoing maintenance and oversight by the Council over this high value piece of community recreation space. Discussions are presently underway with the Crown’s agent as to the best way to document this position. The lease duration (for both SSLSC and the Council) is likely to be 33 years, the maximum term permitted by statue and without the need for a subdivision consent.
8. Given that the Council has developed and maintained the area for public recreation and amenity, it is not expected that other than a nominal rental would be set by the Crown, and at the time of writing this report this has been the approach taken in making the application. The level of rent has yet to be agreed. Indications at this stage are that some rental will be attached to the toilet block footprint, but the balance of Crown land may not attract a charge. It is understood Land Information New Zealand (LINZ) will account for the public benefit nature of the occupation when addressing the level of rental.
9. Crown Property Management have given SSLSC indicative approval of their occupation recognising that their facilities were an established community asset damaged by earthquakes that is being totally rebuilt.
10. For reasons of expediency this report is being presented to obtain council authority before the recess for elections, to allow staff to conclude discussions with Crown Property Management and enter into lease management arrangements that will enable the SSLSC project to proceed incorporating the Council’s toilet block.
FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS
11. The toilet rebuild is being funded from insurance proceeds. There will be fees and process costs with the lease application, but these will be relatively minor in relation to the project benefit. These are expected to be in the vicinity of $1,500. As mentioned a rental cost will be incurred but this charge is not expected to be of significance, and is likely to be less than $500 per annum.
12. This report focuses on getting approval to enter into a lease with the Crown. Detailed design and costing for the replacement toilet block will be completed when Resource Consent has been issued. A further report to the Committee and the Council will be presented when this information is finalised.
Do the Recommendations of this Report Align with 2013-16 TYP budgets?
13 Yes. The Facilities Rebuild Programme is included in the Three Year Plan. 460 COUNCIL 3. 10. 2013 COMMUNITY, RECREATION AND CULTURE COMMITTEE 3. 9. 2013
6 Cont’d
LEGAL CONSIDERATIONS
14. The land outlined in blue on Attachment 1 has been confirmed by LINZ as above the level of Mean High Water Springs (MHWS) and is administered by LINZ as Crown Land under the Land Act 1948. The vegetated land to the north-west between the car park and beach comprising approximately 950 metres squared shown as Area B on Attachment 1 has not at this point been confirmed as being outside the coastal marine area. A survey of the MHWS would need to be undertaken to confirm that Area B is not within the common marine coastal area. At this stage this survey is not intended by LINZ and will be the subject of further discussion. This area is a vegetated strip that buffers the carpark (RS 4030) from the beach foreshore and for the time being can be managed by the Council informally.
15. Section 54 of the Land Act 1948 allows for the disposal of Crown land including by way of lease or licence. The Crown is able to deal preferentially with an applicant where the Crown land is required for “any purpose which in the opinion of the Commissioner of Crown Land makes the alienation desirable in the public interest or in the interest of the inhabitants of any particular locality”.
Have you considered the legal implications of the issue under consideration?
16. As above.
ALIGNMENT WITH TYP AND ACTIVITY MANAGEMENT PLANS
17. Yes. The Facilities Rebuild Programme is included in the Three Year Plan.
Do the recommendations of this report support a level of service or project in the 2013-16 Three Year Plan?
18 Yes. The Facilities Rebuild Programme is included in the Three Year Plan.
ALIGNMENT WITH STRATEGIES
19. The rebuild design team have been liaising with staff working on the Sumner Master Plan and Costal Pathway to ensure that the design and development of the site conforms with their plans and strategies.
Do the recommendations align with the Council’s strategies?
20. Not applicable.
CONSULTATION FULFILMENT
21. The Council are working in conjunction with the Sumner Surf Life Saving Club to rebuild their club facilities and the council’s public toilet facilities in a joint project. Therefore, conversation occurs regularly between the two parties.
22. In applying to lease Crown land, before approving any application under Section 54 of the Land Act 1948, the Commissioner of Crown Land may require the applicant to advertise the application in some newspapers circulating in the locality; and may also require a notice of the application to be served on the owner, lessee, licensee, or occupier of any land adjacent to the Crown land applied for. There is no adjoining lessee, licensee, or occupier adjoining, and as the proposal does not involve new work but re-establishing an existing use, the advice received at this stage from Crown Property Management is that public notification of the application will not be required. 461 COUNCIL 3. 10. 2013 COMMUNITY, RECREATION AND CULTURE COMMITTEE 3. 9. 2013
6 Cont’d
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
That the Council:
(a) Enter a lease with Land Information New Zealand for up to a maximum term of 33 years to secure occupation rights to the land required to site the new toilet block as part of the rebuild of the Sumner Surf life saving Club Facility as shown on Attachment 1.
(b) Authorise the Corporate Support Manager to conclude such lease and or management agreement with the Crown as may be necessary to formalise the ongoing control and management of the toilet block and surrounding recreation /amenity area within the land area identified as Crown land marked A on Attachment 1.
(c) Authorise the Corporate Support Manager to continue with discussions with the Crown and conclude such arrangement as may be appropriate and agreed over the control and management of Area B on Attachment 1.
COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION
That the item be referred directly to the Council for a decision.
PART B - REPORTS FOR INFORMATION
7. DEPUTATIONS BY APPOINTMENT
7.1 Neil Roberts and the Wizard of New Zealand, addressed the Committee regarding the role of the Wizard in Christchurch, his relationship with the Council, and the possibility of becoming more involved with the Council’s promotional activities.
COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION
That staff provide a report to the Council on the role of the Wizard in Civic Affairs and for opportunities for further involvement going forward.
7.2 Bill Cowen and Terry Mann, Board Members of the Cashmere Technical Football Club, and Luke Piper, General Manager of the Woolston Club, addressed the Committee regarding the lack of suitable football training fields in Christchurch generally, and in particularly for players at the Cashmere Technical Football Club.
7.3 Linda Rutland, Coordinator, Mount Pleasant Memorial Community Centre and Residents Association, made a deputation to the Committee regarding funding shortfall and possible rebuild of the Centre.
COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION
That staff provide an urgent report to the Council on possible funding options and sources towards the rebuild of the Mount Pleasant Memorial Centre.
462 COUNCIL 3. 10. 2013 COMMUNITY, RECREATION AND CULTURE COMMITTEE 3. 9. 2013
8. ARTS UPDATE
STAFF AND COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION
That the Council receive this report.
COMMITTEE CONSIDERATION
The Committee requested that the Acting Chief Executive Officer provide a memo regarding the future of the Red Zone and how the Council is involved in any discussions or decisions with the Crown. The Committee notes that this request is due to the ongoing concern regarding the Bill Sutton House.
9. CHAIRPERSON’S REPORT
COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION
That this item lie on the table.
10. SPORTS AND RECREATION UPDATE
COMMITTEE CONSIDERATION
The Community Recreation and Community Committee requested that staff:
(a) Provide a response to the deputation from the Cashmere Technical Football Club on the issue of the opportunity of a sports hub in the Woolston area.
(b) Investigate joint opportunities with the Woolston Club in regards to facilities and sports field provision.
(c) Provide a memo regarding what the conditions are for hosting the 2015 Cricket World Cup and 2015 Under 20 FIFA World Cup and what actions are being taken as a result to meet them.
(d) Before any repairs are carried out at Denton Oval staff will provide a memo attached to this report to the Council back on the level of service that this facility provides, its long-term future and any new plans for a new velodrome.
11. NEW ZEALAND MEN’S OPEN GOLF CHAMPIONSHIP
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
That the Community Recreation and Culture Committee note the contents of this report as a written update on the New Zealand Men’s Golf Open 2013.
COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION
That the report lie on the table. 463 COUNCIL 3. 10. 2013 COMMUNITY, RECREATION AND CULTURE COMMITTEE 3. 9. 2013
PART C – DELEGATED DECISIONS
12. CREATIVE INDUSTRIES SUPPORT FUND - FUNDING RECOMMENDATIONS
It was resolved that the Community Recreation and Culture Committee approve the following grants from the Creative Industries Support Fund:
(a) $49,408 to 241 Chambers Ltd to contribute to operational costs and capital items, with the following conditions to the grant:
Before 3 December 2013
(i) Copies of venue hire agreements and a schedule of venue hire fees that demonstrate a range of venue hire options for community groups and commercial hirers is provided to the Urban Design and Regeneration Manager.
(ii) A venue hire strategy for 241 Chambers Ltd is provided outlining the organisations plan for generating increased revenue streams for the facility over a 24 month period.
(b) $30,838 to Fledge for operational costs and capital items with the following conditions to the grant:
Before 3 December 2013
(i) Documentation of the legal entity that Council would be entering into agreement with is provided.
(ii) Providing a schedule of Central City events to the Urban Design and Regeneration Manager.
(c) $80,000 to Cantabrian Society of Sonic Artists for operational costs and capital items over a two year period. This will be paid as one lump sum and specifically tagged to The Auricle Sonic Arts Gallery and not any hospitality component with the following conditions to the grant:
Before 3 of December 2013
(i) A lease agreement is signed for a Central City building and a copy of this agreement is provided to the Urban Design and Regeneration Manager; and
(ii) Written confirmation is provided that the proposed building is certified suitable for public use (particularly with regard to the building code).
During the operation of the Auricle Sonic Arts Gallery
(iii) Progress reports including documentation of income and expenditure will be provided to Council after six, 12, and 24 months of operation respectively.
(d) $35,600 to Arts Epi Centre towards operational costs and capital items associated with year one of operation on a Central City site with the following conditions to the grant:
Before the 3rd of December 2013
(i) Documentation of the legal entity that Council would be entering into agreement with is provided.
(ii) A lease agreement is signed for a Central City site for a minimum of 12 months from the date of confirmation of funding and a copy of this agreement is provided to the Urban Design and Regeneration Manager.
464 COUNCIL 3. 10. 2013 COMMUNITY, RECREATION AND CULTURE COMMITTEE 3. 9. 2013
13. HERITAGE GRANT APPROVAL, 39 HOLMWOOD ROAD, FENDALTON
It was resolved that the Community Recreation and Culture Committee approve a Heritage Incentive Grant of up to $3,324 for conservation and maintenance work for the stone bridge, a Group 4 heritage structure, at 39 Holmwood Road, subject to certification of compliance with the above scope of works.
14. HERITAGE GRANT APPROVAL, 49 OXFORD STREET, LYTTELTON
It was resolved that the Community, Recreation and Culture Committee approve:
(a) A Heritage Incentive Grant of up to $27,240 for conservation and maintenance work for the ‘Notable’ heritage building at 49 Oxford Street, Lyttelton, subject to certification of compliance with the above scope of works.
(b) That payment of this grant is subject to the applicants entering a ten year Limited Conservation Covenant with the signed covenant having the Council seal affixed prior to registration against the property title.
15. HERITAGE INCENTIVE GRANT APPROVAL REPORT, 18 RUE BALGUERIE, AKAROA
It was resolved that the Community, Recreation and Culture Committee approve:
(a) A Heritage Incentive Grant of up to $47,145 for conservation and maintenance work for the ‘Protected’ heritage building at 18 Rue Balguerie, Akaroa, subject to certification of compliance with the above scope of works.
(b) That payment of this grant is subject to the applicants entering a 10 year Limited Conservation Covenant with the signed covenant having the Council seal affixed prior to registration against the property title.
16. RESOLUTION TO EXCLUDE THE PUBLIC
It was resolved that the resolution to exclude the public be adopted and that Paul Swallow, Director of the Christchurch Earthquake Appeal Trust, and Digby Prosser, Peter Mechaelis and Mary Griffiths, from the International Association of Lions Clubs, be permitted to remain in the room for consideration of item 12: the Aranui Community Centre Rebuild.
The meeting was adjourned at 3.25pm and reconvened at 12.30pm on 26 September 2013.
CONSIDERED THIS 3RD DAY OF OCTOBER 2013
MAYOR 465 Clause 28 COUNCIL 3. 10. 2013
CORPORATE AND FINANCIAL COMMITTEE FRIDAY 6 SEPTEMBER 2013
A meeting of the Corporate and Financial Committee was held in Committee Room 1 on 6 September 2013 at 9.17am.
PRESENT: Councillor Helen Broughton (Chairperson), Councillors Tim Carter, Jimmy Chen, Jamie Gough and Yani Johanson
APOLOGIES: An apology for absence was received and accepted from Councillor Ngaire Button.
An apology for lateness was received and accepted from Jimmy Chen who arrived at 11.35am and was absent for clauses 1 to 10 and 14.
An apology for early departure was received and accepted from Councillor Jamie Gough who departed at 10.55am and was absent for clauses 3, 4, 5, 8, 12 and part of clause 2.
The Committee reports that:
PART A - MATTERS REQUIRING A COUNCIL DECISION
1. FINAL STATEMENT OF INTENT FOR THE CHRISTCHURCH AGENCY FOR ENERGY TRUST
General Manager responsible: General Manager Corporate Services, DDI 941-8528 Officer responsible: Corporate Finance Manager Author: Patricia Christie – External Reporting and Governance Manager
PURPOSE OF REPORT
1. This report presents the final Statement of Intent (SOI) for one of the Council Controlled Organisations (CCOs).
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
2. The SOI from the Christchurch Agency for Energy Trust (CAfE) is attached for information (Attachment 1).
3. Also attached (Attachment 2) is a comparison between the 2013/14 Draft SOI reported to the Committee in April and the final SOI submitted.
4. CAfE as a CCO is required by statute to submit an annual SOI to the Council. A SOI must set out the entity’s objectives and performance measures, as well as certain other information.
5. CAfE is required by the Local Government Act 2002 to deliver to their stakeholders a draft SOI on or before 1 March. The CCOs must then consider comments received from their stakeholders by 1 May, and issue a final SOI by 30 June.
6. CAfE have been delayed in providing a final SOI to the Council as the Trustees, subsequent to presenting the draft SOI to Council, undertook a review of the services it was providing. The Trustees wanted to incorporate any changes resulting from the review into the final SOI which delayed the provision of the SOI to Council.
1 Cont’d 466 COUNCIL 3. 10. 2013 CORPORATE AND FINANCIAL COMMITTEE 6. 9. 2013 - 2 -
7. At 30 June 2013 Meridian Energy Limited, Orion New Zealand Limited and Solid Energy Limited (Renewables Division) withdrew as appointer organisations from the Trust. The Trustees reviewed the operations of CAfE and agreed that it should be focusing on supporting the uptake of renewable energy and enhanced energy-efficiency in rebuild projects. When looking at the activities that CAfE had previously been undertaking it was recognised that most could be picked up by other parties such as the Council, EECA and Environment Canterbury and that there would be significant advantages in achieving the main objectives of the Trust if it was to focus solely on the EnergyFirst grants and the creation of the Christchurch Energy Grant Scheme.
8. As a result there have been significant changes in the final SOI. These changes are outlined below:
The Christchurch Energy Grant Scheme will be available for building projects with a combined floor area greater than 1,000m2 located within the four avenues. Funds will be available to cover the purchase and installation of renewable energy initiatives, a district energy scheme, or energy efficiency measures that go well beyond the building code minimum in new and/or renovated buildings. The Council will provide assistance in the administration of the grant scheme. EnergyFirst grants will continue to be funded. The grants will continue to be offered within existing EECA and Council Target Sustainability programmes. The Council will provide administration and CAfE will add project funding where the EECA national programme does not currently support a grant. Rather than employing its own consultants and administration CAfE will provide funding to the Council to undertake the relevant activities.
9. The Trust has appointed a further three trustees replacing those appointed by the departing appointer organisations.
FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS
10. Not applicable.
Do the Recommendations of this Report Align with 2013-16 TYP budgets?
11. Yes.
Have you considered the legal implications of the issue under consideration?
12. Not applicable.
Do the recommendations of this report support a level of service or project in the 2013-16 TYP?
13. Not applicable.
Do the recommendations align with the Council’s strategies?
14. Yes.
CONSULTATION FULFILMENT
15. Not applicable.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
That the Council receive the final Statement of Intent of the Christchurch Agency for Energy Trust.
1 Cont’d 467 COUNCIL 3. 10. 2013 CORPORATE AND FINANCIAL COMMITTEE 6. 9. 2013 - 3 -
COMMITTEE CONSIDERATION
The Committee considered that the item should lie on the table pending further information around the Trust’s change in direction including any financial impact on the Council.
COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION
That the Council let this item lie on the table pending further information.
2. 2013 ANNUAL REPORTS FOR COUNCIL CONTROLLED ORGANISATIONS (CCOS): CHRISTCHURCH AGENCY FOR ENERGY TRUST, THE WORLD BUSKERS’ FESTIVAL TRUST AND ROD DONALD BANKS PENINSULA TRUST
General Manager responsible: General Manager Corporate Services, DDI 941-8528 Officer responsible: Corporate Finance Manager Author: Patricia Christie – External Reporting and Governance Manager
PURPOSE OF REPORT
1. The purpose of this report is to present to the Council the annual reports for Council Controlled Organisations (CCOs) for the year ended 30 June 2013.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
2. The 2013 annual reports from the following organisations are attached for information:
Christchurch Agency for Energy Trust (Attachment 1) The World Buskers’ Festival Trust (Attachment 2) Rod Donald Banks Peninsula Trust (Attachment 3).
3. The CCOs are required under Section 67 of the Local Government Act 2002 to submit an annual report to the Council within three months after the end of the financial year.
4. An annual report must contain the information that is necessary to enable an informed assessment of the operations of the CCOs to be made, including audited financial statements and an auditor’s report on those financial statements, and the performance targets and other measures by which performance was judged.
5. All the above annual reports were approved by their boards and provided to the Council prior to 30 September 2013.
Entity Summaries
Christchurch Agency for Energy Trust (CAfE)
6. CAfE was formed by the Council to:
raise awareness in Christchurch and promote energy efficiency initiatives and the use of renewable energy by providing information and advice to a wide range of parties, reduce the local and wider environmental problems caused by the use of fossil fuels in Christchurch,
introduce initiatives to address the negative health and social impacts of fuel poverty and energy affordability issues in Christchurch, and as an ancillary purpose to the above purposes, to gather meaningful and current energy data on energy usage in Christchurch.
468 COUNCIL 3. 10. 2013 CORPORATE AND FINANCIAL COMMITTEE 6. 9. 2013 - 4 -
2 Cont’d
7. CAfE had total comprehensive income for the year to 30 June 2013 of $459,768 compared to $23,694 in 2012.
8. This increase in total comprehensive income is principally due to a $329,790 decrease in expenses; the 2012 year included a one off consultancy costs of $373,295 in relation to the District Energy feasibility study.
9. The net assets in the statement of financial position have increased $459,768 year on year. The main contributor to the increase was a $623,616 increase in cash and cash equivalents. This increase was offset by a $103,853 decrease in trade and other receivables and an increase of $63,292 in trade and other payables. The trade receivables decrease is mainly due to the 2012 balance including a $166,750 invoice to the Energy Efficiency and Conservation Authority (EECA) for 2012/13 contributions while the main contributor to the trade and other payables was the inclusion of $58,500 of EnergyFirst accruals and grants in the 2013 total.
10. CAfE performed favourably against its SOI financial targets with an actual surplus of $459,768 compared to a target deficit of $481,300. Two main items contributed to this variance; these were: lower than planned committed expenditure due to delays in the delivery of the EnergyFirst Program; and no discretionary expenditure (the utilisation of prior years retained earnings) was required compared to a target of $575,900 as the amount planned to be spent did not need to be utilised.
11. CAfE performed well against its SOI key performance targets. Two targets were achieved, while a further three were considered by the Trustees to be no longer relevant.
12. CAfE received an unqualified audit opinion on its financial statements from Audit New Zealand.
The World Buskers’ Festival Trust (WBFT)
13. WBFT was established by Council to:
devise, manage and hold an annual buskers festival in Christchurch with a view to providing a national and international profile and identity for New Zealand street theatre provide opportunities for local buskers to reach a wider audience; and provide a street theatre festival that is accessible to the public including the provision of free events and a commitment to maintain low ticket prices for performances where charges are made.
14. WBFT had total comprehensive income for the year to 30 June 2013 of $19,848 compared to $85,483 in 2012. Total revenue increased $38,250 for the year across all revenue classes, compared to a $103,885 increase in expenses again across all expense classes, with the exception of audit fees which have remained flat.
15. The financial position of WBFT has improved with net assets increasing from $86,662 to $106,510. This change is predominantly due to a reduction in Trade payables of $8,524 and an increase in Property, Plant and Equipment assets of $13,750. The asset addition during the year was a white picket fence, provided as part of a sponsorship agreement.
16. The actual overall surplus was in line with the SOI target surplus. However actual revenue was $189,592 above target. This variance was due to a conservative approach taken on setting revenue targets in the SOI as well as favourable weather conditions assisting higher than expected ticket sales. Expenses were $195,744 higher than forecast with the main contributor being higher than expected costs associated with the use of temporary infrastructure in Hagley Park. 2 Cont’d 469 COUNCIL 3. 10. 2013 CORPORATE AND FINANCIAL COMMITTEE 6. 9. 2013 - 5 -
17. WBFT performed well against its SOI key performance targets. Three targets were achieved, while the last target 90 per cent of visitors are satisfied was not measured in 2013. The visitor satisfaction target was last measured in 2012 and the target was met.
18. WBFT received a qualified audit opinion on its financial statements from Audit New Zealand as it did in all prior years. The qualification arises as Audit New Zealand cannot confirm that all door donation revenue was properly recorded. This relates to $121,440 of door donations revenue which were included in the total of door donations/food and beverage sales of $389,981. These donations were collected when “the buckets” were presented at venues.
Rod Donald Banks Peninsula Trust (RDBPT)
19. RDBPT was formed by the Council with the objective of promoting sustainable management and conservation of Banks Peninsula’s natural environment and associated recreation.
20. RDBPT made a loss for the year to 30 June 2011 of $15,053 compared to a $134,184 profit in 2012. The main contributor to the movement between the years was that RDBPT provided grants totalling $121,750 towards local community projects during the year. 2013 is the first year that RDBPT has distributed grants.
21. There has been no significant change in the financial position of the Trust.
22. The operating surplus of $106,697 for the year was consistent with the SOI target amount of $105,737 for the year. The closing balance of available funds for projects was $36,211 more than planned, due to less grants being made than was expected. RDBPT has indicated that its actual grant spending will be dependent on identifying opportunities that are consistent with the Trust’s objectives.
23. RDBPT performed well against its SOI non-financial performance targets. The seven indicators set by the Trust in its SOI have either been achieved or good progress has been made towards them.
24. RDBPT received an unqualified audit opinion on its financial statements from Audit New Zealand.
FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS
25. None.
LEGAL CONSIDERATIONS
26. CCOs are required under Section 67 of the Local Government Act 2002 to submit an annual report to Council within three months after the end of the financial year. All financial statements were signed and provided to Council by 30 September 2013 (three months after 30 June 2013).
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
The Council that receive the annual reports for the following Council Controlled Organisations:
Christchurch Agency for Energy Trust The World Buskers’ Festival Trust Rod Donald Banks Peninsula Trust.
470 COUNCIL 3. 10. 2013 CORPORATE AND FINANCIAL COMMITTEE 6. 9. 2013 - 6 -
2 Cont’d
COMMITTEE CONSIDERATION
The Corporate and Financial noted that in regard to the Christchurch Agency for Energy, the Council’s project contributions cost was generally from the sale of Carbon Credits, but asked that staff provide information on how much other funding was provided by the Council.
COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION
That the staff recommendation be adopted.
3. EARTHQUAKE CLAIMS UPDATE AS AT 31 JULY 2013
General Manager responsible: Diane Brandish – Acting General Manager, Corporate Services DDI: 941 8528 Officer responsible: Diane Brandish – Corporate Finance Manager Author: Bruce Moher – Planning and Reporting Manager
PURPOSE OF REPORT
1. This report updates the Committee on insurance matters relating to the earthquakes as at 31 July 2013.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
2. Attached are appendices with brief notes of explanation showing summaries of:
Recoveries summary status as at 31 July 2013 (Appendix 1) - gives information on costs incurred and recoveries accrued and received. Main Claim Head progress summary as at 31 July 2013 (Appendix 2) - gives a brief summary of the current insurance status for each claim head and the actions planned for the next two months. Insurance update and progress on anchor projects as at 31 July 2013 (Appendix 3) - gives the project and insurance status and payment on claims details for each of the major facilities. Earthquake claim progress summary as at 31 July 2013 (Appendix 4) - provides financial information for each of the main claim heads, including major facilities.
CLAIMS STATUS
3. Crown – An interim payment from Canterbury Earthquake Recovery Authority (CERA) was received on 17 July of $180 million (excluding GST). An invoice for $21.8 million for CERA’s estimated share of July rebuild and response costs has been issued and is expected to go to Cabinet for approval this month.
4. Payment from LAPP for the below ground infrastructure balance of $18.7 million was received on 29 July 2013.
5. Insurance claims – details of the status of each main claim head are outlined in Appendix 2. Councillors have been briefed on the reinsurance issues that our insurer is working through. Appendix 4 outlines financial information for each main claim head.
BUILDING / INFRASTRUCTURE IMPROVEMENT ALLOWANCE
6. Details of movements in the Allowance since last reported are as follows:
471 COUNCIL 3. 10. 2013 CORPORATE AND FINANCIAL COMMITTEE 6. 9. 2013 - 7 -
3 Cont’d
Balance available for allocation per June Earthquake Report 75,758,111
Less Council allocations: Meeting Date - Bishopdale Library 13/06/2013 1,183,612 Balance available to be allocated as at 31 July 2013 74,574,499
LEGAL CONSIDERATIONS
Have you considered the legal implications of the issue under consideration?
7. Yes – there are none that have not already been discussed.
Alignment with Three Year Plan and Activity Management Plans
8. Both service delivery and financial results are in direct alignment with the 2013-16 Three-year Plan and Activity Management Plans.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
That the Council receive the report.
COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION
That the staff recommendation be adopted.
4. CDCH CONSTITUTION AND COUNCIL’S DIRECTORS APPOINTMENT AND REMUNERATION POLICY
General Manager responsible: Acting GM, Corporate Services 941 8528 Officer responsible: Acting GM, Corporate Services 941 8528 Author: Ian Thomson, 941 6343
PURPOSE OF REPORT
1. To seek approval of a new constitution for Canterbury Development Corporation Holdings Ltd and consequential changes to the Council’s policy for the appointment and remuneration of directors.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
2. At its meeting on 6 December 2012 the Council approved the terms of a Memorandum of Understanding between the Council, Christchurch City Holdings Ltd (CCH) and Canterbury Development Corporation Holdings Ltd (CDCH).
3. In that document the Council agreed to effect changes to its policy for the appointment and remuneration of directors and to the constitution for CDCH to reflect the processes for appointing Councillor directors and independent directors.
4. The changes proposed are referred to in this report.
FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS
5. There are no financial implications arising from the Council's approval of a new constitution for CDCH or to the proposed changes to the policy. 472 COUNCIL 3. 10. 2013 CORPORATE AND FINANCIAL COMMITTEE 6. 9. 2013 - 8 -
4 Cont’d
LEGAL CONSIDERATIONS
6. The Council owns all of the shares in CDCH.
7. Section 32 of the Companies Act 1993 provides for the adoption, alteration and revocation of a constitution. A special resolution is required which means that a majority of 75% must approve the new constitution.
8 The existing constitution is a standard form document registered when the company was incorporated as a shelf company some years ago. It is no longer fit for purpose.
9. Changes to the policy can be made by ordinary resolution.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
That the Council resolves that it:
(a) Revokes the existing constitution for Canterbury Development Corporation Holdings Ltd;
(b) Adopts a new constitution for the Company incorporating the provisions of the current constitution for Canterbury Development Corporation and the changes recommended by staff;
(c) Notes that resolutions (a) and (b) require a majority of 75% of votes cast;
(d) Amends the Council’s policy for the appointment and remuneration of directors to reflect these changes.
COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION
The Committee recommend to the Council:
(a) That the item lie on the table for the incoming Council.
(b) That it note the Committee’s concern over the potential cost of the external appointment process for what could be seen in the past as a ‘political’ appointment.
(Note: Councillor Carter requested that his vote against item (b) be recorded.)
BACKGROUND (THE ISSUES)
10. Attached to this report is a copy of the current constitution for Canterbury Development Corporation (Appendix 1). CDCH owns all of the shares in that company.
11. Also attached is a schedule of changes that are proposed to be made to that document (Appendix 2). The new constitution for CDCH will be the same as CDC's, with the changes included.
12. If Councillors resolve (by a majority of at least 75%) to adopt a new constitution for CDCH it will comprise the same terms as are currently in the constitution for Canterbury Development Corporation, and the proposed changes.
13. The changes reflect the understanding reached by the Council, CDCH and CCH that the majority of the directors on the board of CDCH are to be independent.
473 COUNCIL 3. 10. 2013 CORPORATE AND FINANCIAL COMMITTEE 6. 9. 2013 - 9 -
4 Cont’d
14. Appendix 3 sets out the clauses proposed for inclusion in the appointment and remuneration of directors policy. These also reflect the Memorandum of Understanding which states that:
“CCHL and the Company will propose to the Council a specific provision in the appointments policy that will define the process for appointing directors to the company. This would be consistent with other aspects of the policy but whilst providing for Councillors to be appointed this provision would require a majority of independent directors (including the chairperson) to be maintained”.
5. IANZ ACCREDITATION – ESTIMATED FINANCIAL IMPACT ON COUNCIL
General Manager responsible: General Manager Corporate Services Ph 941 8528 Officer responsible: Corporate Finance Manager Author: Funds & Financial Policy Manager
PURPOSE OF REPORT
1. This report outlines the direct financial cost to the Council arising from the recent loss of International Accreditation New Zealand (IANZ) accreditation for the issuance of building consents.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
2. Four sources of direct costs have been identified, as shown in the table, and explained in the following paragraphs:
Estimated costs associated with IANZ Accreditation loss, by source and year
Crown Insurance Accreditation Interest Costs Total Manager Premium 2013/14 year 700,000 100,000 withheld 20,000 820,000 2014/15 year 120,000 ‐ withheld 120,000 240,000 beyond (present value) ‐ withheld 1,060,000 1,060,000 Total 820,000 100,000 withheld 1,200,000 2,120,000 * Note that the cost of replacement insurance has been withheld for reasons of commercial sensitivity (refer paragraph 5)
Crown Manager (direct costs) 3. The Crown Manager is engaged until December 2014. The Council is required to pay for his remuneration plus some administrative and reasonable sundry costs. The total cost to Council from this source is estimated at around $820,000.
Regaining IANZ Accreditation (direct costs) 4. IANZ conducts a routine bi-annual audit of the Council’s consenting processes. An additional audit will be required during the 2013/14 year in order to regain accreditation, although the details of this have not been finalised with IANZ. The total cost to Council from this source is estimated at around $100,000.
Insurance 5. Loss of IANZ accreditation resulted in the scope of the Council’s normal professional indemnity insurance cover being reduced to exclude building consent activities. Replacement cover has been secured from an alternative underwriter. The current cost of this replacement cover is commercially sensitive; the long-term cost to the Council will depend on the length of time that a separate policy is required, and movements in future-year premiums. 474 COUNCIL 3. 10. 2013 CORPORATE AND FINANCIAL COMMITTEE 6. 9. 2013 - 10 -
5 Cont’d
Increased Cost of Borrowing 6. A lower credit rating has a direct impact on the Council’s borrowing costs. Specifically, the credit margins applied on new borrowing by banks and other investors will increase by an estimated 0.05%.
7. The total cost to the Council of these increased borrowing margins will be affected by four factors: How long the Council’s credit rating can be realistically said to be adversely affected by the loss of IANZ accreditation. How much money is borrowed over this period (both “new debt” and re-financing of existing maturities); and The term to maturity of these borrowings (i.e. if money is borrowed for five years, then the 0.05% additional cost is “locked in” for the entire five years of the borrowing, irrespective of whether / when the accreditation issue is resolved). The discount factor used to convert these future year losses into present value terms.
8. The total additional borrowing cost to the Council is estimated at around $1.2 million, based on the following assumptions: The impact of the Council’s credit rating downgrade will affect borrowing for the whole of the 2013/14 and 2014/15 financial years (beyond which it is unreasonable to continue to associate the Council’s credit rating with the current accreditation issue). Debt raised in this period will all mature in May 2021, consistent with our current borrowing strategy. A reasonable discount rate to apply for present value purposes is 6%, being approximately the long-term average of the New Zealand Government’s 10-year benchmark rate. Debt raised in 2013/14 will be $125 million (for a present value of around $350,000) Debt raised in 2014/15 will be $365 million (for a present value of around $850,000)
FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS
9. The Council’s cost base has been increased compared with 2013-16 Three Year Plan (TYP) budgets, but this increase is not large enough to have a material impact on the viability of these budgets.
10. Costs incurred in the current financial year are unbudgeted and so will increase the forecast operating deficit. There are limited opportunities to find operational savings to offset these costs and the default position is that they be funded from borrowing as part of the operating deficit in accordance with the financial strategy.
11. The default position for 2014/15 and thereafter is that the additional interest costs are part of general corporate costs and so will be funded through rates; other cost items are specifically associated with the consents’ function and may be funded through increased Building Consent revenue. The next Council will have the option to amend these allocations in the 2014/15 Annual Plan.
12. The Council can determine to fund these costs differently than the default positions above. Options include:
Increasing rates in 2014/15 to recover costs incurred in 2013/14 (rather than borrowing); Recovering all 2014/15 costs including interest from consent fees in 2014/15 (rather than some from rates); Recovering some of the 2014/15 costs associated with consent fees from rates by amending the funding policy. 475 COUNCIL 3. 10. 2013 CORPORATE AND FINANCIAL COMMITTEE 6. 9. 2013 - 11 -
5 Cont’d
13. Changes effective post 1 July 2014 can be addressed by Council during the 2014/15 Annual Plan process.
Do the Recommendations of this Report Align with 2013-16 TYP budgets?
14. Not applicable.
LEGAL CONSIDERATIONS
15. None.
ALIGNMENT WITH TYP AND ACTIVITY MANAGEMENT PLANS
16. Not applicable.
Do the recommendations of this report support a level of service or project in the 2013-16 TYP?
17. No.
ALIGNMENT WITH STRATEGIES
18. Not applicable.
CONSULTATION FULFILMENT
19. Not applicable.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
It is recommended that the Corporate and Financial Committee receive this report.
COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION
The Committee recommends to the Council:
(a) That staff cost the action plan of the Crown Manager, in due course, and inform the Committee of potential costs and absorbing into existing budgets.
(b) That the 2013/14 building consent shortfall be offset to the extent possible against any operational surplus with the balance to be met from borrowing.
PART B - REPORTS FOR INFORMATION
6. DEPUTATIONS BY APPOINTMENT
6.1 Taz Mukorombindo, Canterbury Business Association, and Richard Lange, McConnell Property, addressed the Committee regarding the International Business Hub.
The Committee thanked Messrs Mukorombindo and Lange for their deputation and suggested that the Association consider approaching the Canterbury Development Corporation regarding possible options to progress their proposal.
476 COUNCIL 3. 10. 2013 CORPORATE AND FINANCIAL COMMITTEE 6. 9. 2013 - 12 -
7. REVIEW OF THE CHRISTCHURCH SAFE CITY OFFICER PROGRAMME
This item was withdrawn from the agenda and referred to the Community, Recreation and Culture Committee for its recommendation.
8. CORPORATE AND FINANCIAL REPORT FOR PERIOD ENDED 30 JUNE 2013
The Committee received the Corporate and Financial report for the period ended 30 June 2013.
PART C – DELEGATED DECISIONS
9. DECLARATION OF INTEREST
Council Gough declared an interest in item 4 of these minutes and withdrew from the table for the discussion and voting thereon.
Councillor Carter declared an interest in item 14 of these minutes and withdrew from the table for the discussion and voting thereon.
10. RESOLUTION TO BE PASSED - SUPPLEMENTARY REPORTS
It was resolved on the motion of Councillor Broughton, seconded by Councillor Johanson that the reports be received and considered at this meeting on 6 September 2013.
11. RESOLUTION TO EXCLUDE THE PUBLIC
The Committee resolved that the resolution set out on page 162 of the agenda and pages 37 of the supplementary agenda, be adopted.
The Committee agreed to allow Tony Patterson from Markit Law to be present for the discussion on agenda item 8 Legal Advice on Insurance.
12. ADJOURNMENT OF MEETNG
The Committee resolved to adjourn the meeting at 1.55pm and reconvened at 9am on Thursday, 26 September 2013.
CONSIDERED THIS 3RD DAY OF OCTOBER 2013
MAYOR 477
CHRISTCHURCH CITY COUNCIL Clause 29
3. 10. 2013
REPORT OF A MEETING OF THE GREATER CHRISTCHURCH URBAN DEVELOPMENT STRATEGY IMPLEMENTATION COMMITTEE (UDSIC)
Held in the Committee Room 1, Civic Building, Christchurch City Council, 53 Hereford Street, Christchurch on Friday 13 September 2013 commencing at 11.05 am.
PRESENT: Urban Development Strategy (UDS) Bill Wasley (Independent Chair) Christchurch City Council(CCC) Councillors Claudia Reid (until 11.30am) and Sue Wells Environment Canterbury(Ecan) Commissioners Peter Skelton and Rex Williams Selwyn District Council (SDC) Mayor Kelvin Coe and Councillor Malcolm Lyall Waimakariri District Council (WDC) Mayor David Ayers (until 11.40am) and Councillor Jim Gerrard New Zealand Transport Authority (NZTA) Jim Harland (Observer)
APOLOGIES: Apologies were received and accepted from Mayor Bob Parker (CCC), Commissioner Tom Lambie (Ecan), Councillors Dan Gordon (WDC), Lindsay Philps(SDC), Sir Mark Solomon and Elizabeth Cunningham(TRoNT) and Roger Sutton (CERA).
1. UDS INTEGRATION AND ADVICE TO INCOMING COUNCILS (REPORT ATTACHED)
478 ATTACHMENT 1 TO CLAUSE 1 479 ATTACHMENT 1 TO CLAUSE 1 480 ATTACHMENT 1 TO CLAUSE 1 481 ATTACHMENT 1 TO CLAUSE 1 482 ATTACHMENT 1 TO CLAUSE 1 483 ATTACHMENT 1 TO CLAUSE 1 484 ATTACHMENT 1 TO CLAUSE 1 485 ATTACHMENT 1 TO CLAUSE 1 486 ATTACHMENT 1 TO CLAUSE 1 487 ATTACHMENT 1 TO CLAUSE 1 488 GREATER CHRISTCHURCH UDSIC 13. 9. 2013
It was decided that the UDSIC
(a) Recommend to the incoming Councils in Greater Christchurch, and the non‐ Council partners as appropriate, the following matters relating to UDS governance, integration and implementation:
(i) in re‐establishing the UDSIC joint committee incoming Councils pass a resolution, in line with clause 30 (7) of schedule 7 of the LGA 2002, to confirm that UDSIC is not discharged at the point of the next election period
(ii) when nominating representatives to the Urban Development Strategy Implementation Committee that the same representatives be appointed to the Recovery Strategy Advisory Committee
(iii) consideration be given to inviting the UDS Independent Chair or UDS Implementation Manager to attend any Council briefings or workshops to maintain awareness of UDS matters amongst elected members, particularly as part of any new elected member induction.
(b) Recommend for endorsement from all UDS Partners, the revised Terms of Reference for the UDSIC as outlined in Attachment 1.
(c) Recommend endorsement from all UDS Partners, to formally reporting the minutes of the UDSIC at the Council or Board meetings of their respective organisations.
(d) Recommend that a full review of the UDS not occur during 2013/14 but request that UDS Partners plan for and appropriately resource such a review during this next triennial period (2013-2016), the timeframe and relevant project plan defining the review scope to be first agreed by UDSIC.
(e) Note the work underway to re-establish appropriate UDS Forums and encourage all UDS Partners where appropriate, to utilise such forums directly, and not solely for UDS-initiated matters.
(f) Encourage all UDS Partners to support UDS communications through the provision of timely and relevant material, the use of the UDS logo on relevant UDS Partner publications and the development of clear UDS messaging for stakeholders and the public.
(g) Note that this report will be circulated to all partners to provide background to the advice and recommendations from UDSIC.
Subject the following amendments being made to the Proposed Revised Terms of Reference (2013):
Membership An Independent Chair (non-elected member) appointed by the Committee.
Specific Champion integration and implementation through partner strategies, programmes, plan and policy instruments (including the Regional Policy Statement, Regional and District Plans, Long Term Plans (LTPs), Annual Plans, Transport Programmes, and triennial agreements) and through partnerships with other sectors such as health, education and business. 489 GREATER CHRISTCHURCH UDSIC 13. 9. 2013
PART B - REPORTS FOR INFORMATION
2. DECLARATION OF INTEREST
No declarations were made
3. CONFIRM PREVIOUS MINUTES
The Minutes of the previous meeting of 14 December 2012 were confirmed.
4. MATTERS ARISING
Nil
490 GREATER CHRISTCHURCH UDSIC 13. 9. 2013
PART B - REPORTS FOR INFORMATION
5. HOUSING MARKET ASSESSMENT AND INTEGRATED MODEL (REPORT ATTACHED)
Keith Tallentire introduced the report. Paul Honeybone (MBIE) and Brendan Anstiss (CERA) were also present and highlighted the potential accommodation shortfall resulting from the unprecedented scale of the residential rebuild activity. This was being addressed so that it did not impede the rebuild.
There were no previous models from which to call on, and CERA were now giving thought to the transitional phase with responsibility for the model transferring to MBIE. There was currently however less worker demand as the insurance companies had not got through the volume of work originally anticipated.
A simple “Users Guide” is to be produced to explain the workings of the Integrated Model.
It was resolved that the UDSIC
(a) Endorse the 2013 Housing Market Assessment Research Report for circulation to key stakeholders and public release.
(b) Note the current work to update and refine the Integrated Model.
6. UDS IMPLEMENTATION REPORT
Before putting the recommendations of the report the Chair acknowledged the significant contribution made by Mayor Bob Parker, Councillor Sue Wells and Councillor Lindsay Philps, to the Committee’s work. He spoke of each in turn and the individual qualities and abilities they brought to the table and wished them well in the future Other Committee member also spoke in support of the contribution the retiring committee members had made.
As a mark of appreciation a commemorative plague was presented to each.
The Committee resolved to:
(a) Note the Urban Development Strategy implementation report from the UDS Independent Chair and UDS Implementation Manager.
(b) That Mayor Bob Parker, Cr Sue Wells and Cr Lindsay Philps be thanked for their respective contributions to UDS development and implementation including acknowledgement of their commitment to the collaborative and partnership approaches undertaken.
(c) That the Independent Chair be delegated authority until the first meeting of the UDSIC in the new triennium, to act on any matters which support UDS implementation and cannot wait until that first meeting, with any liaison to occur as appropriate, with UDS partner Chief Executives.
Best wishes were extended to those members standing for re-election.
The meeting concluded at 12.10 pm. 491 ATTACHMENT 1 TO CLAUSE 5
Report To: Urban Development Strategy Implementation Committee Subject: Housing Market Assessment and Integrated Model Report Author(s): UDS Implementation Manager Meeting Date: 13 September 2013
1. PURPOSE OF REPORT
This report provides an overview of two initiatives which can be utilised as part of ongoing Urban Development Strategy (UDS) and Land Use Recovery Plan (LURP) implementation. These are a Housing Market Assessment research report (HMA) and an Integrated Model (IM), both have been developed in collaboration with the Canterbury Earthquake Recovery Authority (CERA) and other government departments.
2. BACKGROUND
2.1 Understanding the housing market, including current pressures and future needs, is an important component of UDS and LURP implementation and for associated recovery programme activity. As well as ensuring the sufficient supply of land for housing, UDS Partners, CERA and Government will need to have a clear idea of the different housing market segments (demographics, tenure, types, etc) and the likely consequences of any particular proposed policy response.
2.2 Given the complexity of the housing market establishing this picture is difficult enough in typical metropolitan area. The impacts of the earthquakes on the housing market both exacerbate the need for a good evidence base but also the complexity and uncertainties which exist over the short to medium term.
3. HOUSING MARKET ASSESSMENT
3.1 As part of the development of the draft LURP, Environment Canterbury (on behalf of the UDS Partners), CERA and the Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment (MBIE) commissioned a Housing Market Assessment. Similar exercises have been undertaken elsewhere, most recently in Dunedin, but these have predominantly focused on social housing needs.
3.2 Through detailed data analysis this Greater Christchurch HMA provides useful long term trend data and post‐earthquake changes on such issues as: . Market demand . Housing supply . Supply/demand balance . Housing stock and market trends . Housing affordability 1
492 ATTACHMENT 1 TO CLAUSE 5
3.3 The HMA was completed as a final report in August 2013 and highlights include: . likely short term demand pressures due to households that have to move while their dwelling is repaired/rebuilt and the potential additional workforce requiring accommodation . around 7000 households receiving accommodation assistance from insurers and a further 1000 from the Government’s Temporary Accommodation Allowance . consents are now approaching the levels experienced during the last peak in 2007 . Selwyn and Waimakariri are experiencing greater percentage of development than historical trends . there is significant capacity for new dwellings in greenfield areas . limited number of new low cost dwellings being built, declining home ownership rates and increasing rents . potential short term bubble in housing and rental prices
3.4 It is recommended that this Committee endorse the HMA research report and that it be circulated to key stakeholders and made publicly available through the UDS website. Release of the report would be undertaken through coordinated communications amongst the funding partners.
4. INTEGRATED MODEL
4.1 UDS development and implementation has been supported by a Household Growth Model (HGM) since its inception. Data is derived from Statistics NZ population projections and given spatial context through integration with identified Greenfield areas and intensification targets as set out in the UDS, RPS and more recently the draft LURP.
4.2 The earthquakes necessitated additional modelling work, led by CERA, to understand the likely additional influx of a temporary workforce and the impacts of the residential repair and rebuild programme on the housing market.
4.3 Due to the inter‐relationships of these issues the three separate models were combined to produce the Integrated Model late last year. A summary schematic outlining the IM is included as Attachment 1 to this report.
4.4 Work is currently underway to update the data underlying the Model and make some refinements based on feedback from contributing agencies and monitoring of actual activity rather than initial modelled assumptions.
5. USING THE HMA AND INTEGRATED MODEL
5.1 The HMA represents a valuable information source when understanding pre‐ and post‐earthquake trends in relation to the housing market. The Integrated Model is a useful tool to understand the likely interactions and feedbacks which exist within the housing market.
5.2 Both the HMA and IM can assist the development and testing of proposed policy responses which might be being considered to enable optimal outcomes for a range of accommodation needs including: . Temporary workforce accommodation . Residents requiring temporary accommodation during repair and rebuild activity 2
493 ATTACHMENT 1 TO CLAUSE 5 . Residents displaced from the residential red zone requiring new housing . New households arising from the existing population . New households arising from migration (internal and international)
5.3 Clearly neither initiative represents a crystal ball on future needs or the exact consequence of any policy response and so they need to be utilised circumspectly. It will also be important to recalibrate the IM and its supporting models periodically as monitoring of events and trends helps to provide greater certainty in what is currently such a dynamic environment.
6. NEXT STEPS AND WORK ALREADY UNDERWAY
6.1 As discussed, jointly communicating these initiatives with wider stakeholders will be important to assist understanding and support decision‐making.
6.2 The HMA and IM are already assisting with LURP implementation and associated work including the CCC District Plan review and cross‐agency work on housing affordability.
6.3 The IM now has an established officer group to ensure coordination and collaboration regarding ongoing updates, monitoring and model improvements.
6.4 As the results of the 2013 Census are released, and proposed policy responses are developed to address identified needs within the housing market, further updates can be provided to this Committee.
7. RECOMMENDATIONS
That the UDSIC: a. Endorse the 2013 Housing Market Assessment research report for circulation to key stakeholders and public release b. Note the current work to update and refine the Integrated Model.
3
494 495 COUNCIL 3. 10. 2013
30. VBASE LIMITED - APPOINTMENT OF NEW DIRECTOR
General Manager responsible: General Manager Corporate Services, DDI 941-8528 Officer responsible: Corporate Finance Manager Authors: Patricia Christie – External Reporting and Governance Manager
PURPOSE OF REPORT
1. This report recommends to the Council the appointment of a new director to the board of Vbase Limited (“the Company”) following the resignation of Tony Marryatt as a Director.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
2. The Vbase board of directors have advised Council that they have received the resignation of Tony Marryatt as a director of the board with effect from 23 September 2013. Prior to the resignation the Vbase board of directors comprised four members; the Mayor, Deputy Mayor, Councillor Gough and the Council Chief Executive.
3. The Company’s constitution requires the major holder to determine the minimum number of directors. Prior to the resignation, Council had determined that the board should be composed of four members. As such, it is necessary to appoint an additional director.
4. The Vbase board has requested that the Council consider the appointment of the Council’s Acting Chief Executive Jane Parfitt as the replacement director. This request is premised on the understanding that when the Vbase board was reorganised in 2011 that the board would comprise the Mayor, Deputy Mayor, Council Chief Executive and the existing Councillor representative on the board.
5. It is envisaged that the Council would review the composition of the Company’s board following the local body elections in October 2013.
FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS
6. None.
LEGAL CONSIDERATIONS
7. The Company’s constitution requires that it have the number of directors determined by the Council as major holder from time to time. Currently the Council has determined that the Company should have four directors.
8. The Council’s policy on the appointment of directors requires that a prescribed process be adopted. The policy gives Christchurch City Holdings Limited (“CCHL”) responsibility for monitoring and recommending the appointment of new directors in respect of council controlled trading organisations, such as Vbase Limited. Ordinarily, once the CCHL Governance Committee decides on a preferred candidate it would report to the board of CCHL for that recommendation to be adopted and the CCHL board would then make a recommendation to the Council for it to consider.
9. The proposed appointment of a director of the Company does not comply with the Policy as there is insufficient time to follow the usual process steps required by the Policy.
10. The Council may depart from the Policy provided it complies with section 80 of the Local Government Act 2002. That section provides that the Council may depart from a policy where it identifies the inconsistency with the policy, notes the reasons for the inconsistency; and records any intention to amend the policy or plan to accommodate the decision.
496 COUNCIL 3. 10. 2013
30 Cont’d
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
That the Council resolve as follows:
(a) Recognising that the Council’s ‘Policy on the Appointment and Remuneration of Directors’ (“Policy”) prescribes a process for the selection and appointment of Directors, the Council records:
(1) That the Council’s decision to appoint a new director of the Company is inconsistent with the Policy; and
(2) That due to the need to appoint an alternate director expeditiously, the inconsistency arises as the selection and appointment process prescribed by the Policy will not be complied with; and
(3) That it is not the intention of the Council to amend the Policy to accommodate the decision; and
(b) To appoint Acting Chief Executive Jane Parfitt as director of the Company with immediate effect.
497 COUNCIL 3. 10. 2013
31. RESPONSES TO PREVIOUS PUBLIC FORUM
Officer responsible: Acting Chief Executive
PURPOSE OF REPORT
1. This report provides information, or an update on progress to provide that information, in response to issues raised at previous public forums.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
2. At its meeting on 1 December 2011, the Council requested that each agenda for Council Earthquake meetings include a report in response to issues raised in the public forum of previous meetings. In June 2012, Council Earthquake meetings were replaced by Council Earthquake Forums (non-decision making meetings).
3. Attachment 1 provides information on the issues raised by participants at the Earthquake Forum on 19 September 2013.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
That the Council note the information contained in attachment one in response to issues that were raised during the public forum of the 19 September 2013 Earthquake Forum.
498 ATTACHMENT 1 TO CLAUSE 31 COUNCIL 3. 10. 2013 499
Council Earthquake Forum: Public Forum Action List
Date of Meeting Public Forum Participant Response
19 September 2013 Public Art Advisory Group Highlighted the public art programmes that have been No action required. commissioned and installed in Christchurch post-earthquake and also the planned art programmes in the near future.
19 September 2013 Stuart Leck Addressed the Council regarding his request for rates relief for Staff will provide a report to Council on the issues his property at 102 Armagh Street. Mr Leck would like rates set raised by Mr Leck in his submission. at the value of the land only. The Mayor commented that the Council should give consideration to this matter.
500 501 COUNCIL 3. 10. 2013
32. CHRISTCHURCH EARTHQUAKE MAYORAL RELIEF FUND: APPLICATIONS FOR GRANTS
General Manager responsible: General Manager, Community Services, DDI 941-8607 Officer responsible: Strategic Initiatives Manager, Lincoln Papali’i Author: Emma Pavey, Funding and Projects Advisor
PURPOSE OF REPORT
1. The purpose of this report is to seek the Council’s approval to grant:
(a) $8,665 to Port Hills Athletics Club Inc.
(b) $9,600 to Cycling New Zealand Canterbury Inc.
(c) $23,000 to Redcliffs Tennis Club Inc.
(d) $20,000 to Educational Child Care Inc.
(e) $26,000 to Okains Bay Maori and Colonial Museum Trust from the Detailed Engineering Evaluation (DEE) Fund.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
2. The purpose of the Christchurch Earthquake Mayoral Relief Fund as adopted by the Council on 12 May 2011 is set out in paragraph 6 below. As trustee for the Fund, the Council is bound to apply the monies only for the purposes specified in the Council resolution of 12 May 2011.
3. The applicant organisations have requested a total of $167,265 towards the costs incurred by them as a result of earthquake damage. Summary details of the individual requests are given in the report.
4. Staff recommend that the Council make grants totalling $87,265 to applicant organisation projects.
FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS
5. The financial requests for each project are outlined in the background section of this report. As at 1 August 2013 there was $1,948,104.00 in uncommitted funds held by the Christchurch Earthquake Mayoral Relief Fund. If the staff recommendations are adopted in full, there will be an available balance of $1,886,839.00 in the Christchurch Earthquake Mayoral Relief Fund, with the DEE Fund having a remaining balance of $174,000.00.
LEGAL CONSIDERATIONS
Have you considered the legal implications of the issue under consideration?
6. At the Council meeting of 12 May 2011 it was resolved:
…(b) That the Christchurch Earthquake Mayoral Relief Fund was established, and will continue to be maintained, by the Council as a “public fund” (as described in section LD 3(2)(d) of the Income Tax Act 2007) exclusively for the purpose of providing money for any one or more charitable, benevolent, philanthropic or cultural purposes related to and in particular to provide relief to the people of Christchurch from the adverse effects of the 4 September 2010 and 22 February 2011 earthquakes, and associated aftershocks, by providing money for any activity or work required as a result of those events that:
(i) contributes to the rebuilding of the social and physical infrastructure of Christchurch, and (ii) assists in: remedying hardship suffered by individuals, groups, community organisations and businesses, and/or protecting, repairing damage to or enhancing the physical fabric of the city. 502 COUNCIL 3. 10. 2013
32 Cont’d 7. The Mayoral Earthquake Relief Fund essentially operates as a trust with the Council acting as the trustee. As trustee, the Council is bound to apply the monies only for the purposes specified in the Council resolution above.
8. In terms of the activities that can be funded by the Mayoral Earthquake Relief Fund, the first requirement is that any grant be used to contribute to the rebuilding of the social and physical infrastructure of Christchurch. The Oxford Dictionary defines the word "infrastructure" generally as "the foundation or basic structure of an undertaking" and specifically as "the installations and services (power stations, sewers, roads, housing etc) regarded as the economic foundation of a country". The word “infrastructure” therefore implies the undertaking of physical works.
9. However, paragraph (b) (i) of the resolution refers to "…any activity or work required as a result of those events that (i) contribute to the rebuilding of the social and physical infrastructure of Christchurch…" It is therefore not necessary that the Mayoral Earthquake Relief Fund's monies be applied solely to rebuilding actual physical infrastructure, but it is necessary that the monies be applied to any work or activity that contributes to such rebuilding. Therefore, whilst the focus of the Mayoral Earthquake Relief Fund is the rebuilding of the social and physical infrastructure ("bricks and mortar"), it can also be used for any activity which contributes to that outcome.
10. In addition, any grant from the Mayoral Earthquake Relief Fund must also assist in either remedying hardship or protecting, repairing or enhancing the physical fabric of the city.
ALIGNMENT WITH LTCCP AND ACTIVITY MANAGEMENT PLANS
Do the recommendations of this report support a level of service or project in the Three Year Plan?
11. Not applicable.
ALIGNMENT WITH STRATEGIES
Do the recommendations align with the Council’s strategies?
12. Not applicable.
CONSULTATION FULFILMENT
13. Discussions with the individual applicants have been carried out.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
14. It is recommended that the Council approve the following grant allocations from the Christchurch Earthquake Mayoral Relief Fund:
(a) $8,665 to the Port Hills Athletics Club Inc to assist with purchasing a portable gazebo.
(b) $9,600 to Cycling New Zealand Canterbury Inc to assist with purchasing three storage containers.
(c) $23,000 to Redcliffs Tennis Club Inc to assist with reinstating the three tennis courts.
(d) $20,000 to Educational Child Care Inc to assist with the rebuild of their Centre.
(e) $26,000 to Okains Bay Maori and Colonial Museum Trust towards the cost of completing a detailed engineering evaluation. The source of funding for this grant is recommended from the Detailed Engineering Evaluation (DEE) Fund. 503 COUNCIL 3. 10. 2013
32 Cont’d
BACKGROUND (THE ISSUES)
Port Hills Athletics - $8,665 Requested
15. Port Hills Athletics Club is an Incorporated Society that was based at Hansen Park, Opawa, at the time of the February 2011 earthquake. Hansen Park suffered earthquake damage to the park which is in need of re-levelling. The Club is seeking assistance towards purchasing a portable gazebo to give their members shelter at competitions and other club events. A quotation has been supplied for a portable 4 metre x 8 metre gazebo complete with accessories for $8,665.
16. The Club was established in 2002 and has a current membership base of approximately 300 members aged from four to 80 years of age. Memberships are charged at $208 per year for an adult and $76 per year for a child of 14 and under. All Club responsibilities are carried out by the 50 plus volunteers registered to the Club.
17. The Club athletics utilised both Hansen Park and QEII Park depending on the sport. They are now temporarily based at the Rawhiti Domain until a new track is built. The club rooms located at Hansen Park sank 60 millimetres due to the earthquake and are currently being repaired under an insurance claim.
18. The Club runs all year round with track and field events in the summer and cross country and road events in the winter. Meetings take place each Saturday with up to 80 children competing at any one time. Due to the shortage of athletic facilities in Christchurch the Club members travel to Timaru and Invercargill for competitions at the expense of their members.
19. The financial statements for Port Hills Athletics Club for the year ended 31 March 2013 shows a total income of $25,829 and total operational expenditure of $22,363, giving a surplus of $3,466.00. There are total assets of $101,977, including bank balances of $23,911.
20. It is recommended that a grant of $8,665 is granted to Port Hills Athletics Club Inc to assist with the purchase of a portable gazebo.
Cycling New Zealand Canterbury Inc – Requested $9,600
21. The Canterbury Track Cycling Club is a sub committee to Cycling New Zealand Canterbury Inc who have been based at Denton Park since 1974. Post earthquake assessments saw the grandstand red stickered removing all storage, seating and ablution facilities for the Club. The Club have not been able to find suitable storage since this time and still have equipment stored under the grandstand. They are looking to purchase three containers to be used for storage and the Club has been given permission from the Council to position these on the west side of the track.
22. Each year the Club runs track cycling from 1st October until mid March. The membership base for the Club consists of 110 senior riders and 70 junior riders per season. The riders are charged a fee of $25 if they have their own bikes and an additional $5 per night of racing. The Club charges development riders $100 to hire a bicycle for the full season, which the Club maintains for them along with providing comprehensive coaching. All funds raised from bicycle hire goes back into maintaining/upgrading the stock of track bikes. Club meetings are held twice a week on Wednesday evenings and Sunday afternoons.
23. The Club runs a mid season championships for all riders, then later in the season runs the Canterbury Track Championships where riders are chosen to represent Canterbury at the New Zealand Track Championships. The Club reports that this season was one of the more successful seasons with two of the senior men riders being chosen for the Bike New Zealand Road to Rio Track programme and one of the under 19 riders being selected to represent New Zealand at the Junior World Track Championships. 504 COUNCIL 3. 10. 2013
32 Cont’d
24. The Club holds an annual Canterbury Track Carnival in the first week of the New Year. This has grown over the four years it has been running with New Zealand track riders looking to combine both top racing with interaction between competitors, family and spectators. The Carnival caters for all age groups from 10 years up to Master's riders. In 2013 the Carnival saw five current Olympians compete along with 140 riders from all over New Zealand. The event is held over two days and attracts approximately 1,000 to 1,200 spectators.
25. The financial statements for Cycling New Zealand Incorporated for the year ended 31 December 2012 shows a total income of $41,637 and total operational expenditure of $37,556, giving a surplus of $4,081.00. Their total bank balances are $34,427.
26. It is recommended that a grant of $9,600 is granted to Cycling New Zealand Canterbury Inc to assist with the purchase of three containers.
Redcliffs Tennis Club Inc – Requested $23,000
27. The Redcliffs Tennis Club, an affiliate of Tennis Canterbury, was established in 1887 and until the February 2011 earthquake had been operating continuously for 124 years. The Club is based at 75 Main Road, Redcliffs on land which was gifted by a local family in 1925. It is a condition of the gift agreement that if the land is sold the proceeds are required to be donated to another local sports facility. Facilities on the land consist of a clubhouse and three tennis courts with surrounding fencing. Damage caused by the earthquakes includes the court surfaces being rippled, cracked and covered with a number of holes which rendered them unusable. Damage was also caused to the surrounding fences which needs realigning.
28. Insurance cover provided is for the buildings and fences but not for repair of the courts. A payout of $50,000 was negotiated along with a donation of $20,000 from the Rotary Earthquake Charitable Trust. The Club decided to proceed with repairs in stages. Part one was to reform and reseal the courts with asphalt which was completed in April 2013. This enabled the courts to be used but is not an ideal surface for play.
29. The funding sought in this application is to complete part two of the repair process which is to reinstate the green/blue hard court surface over the asphalt and re-mark the court lines. A quote of $32,833 has been provided for this, with just under $10,000 being covered by other monies.
30. Prior to the earthquake the membership base totalled 32 adults and 121 children ranging in age from six to over 65 years of age. The Club hopes once repairs are complete membership will return to at least this level. They have secured a number of pre season registrations including at least 20 parents who have committed to support and manage the junior tennis programme for the 2013/14 season.
31. The Club has always been self funded from fees and court charges and has never operated in debt. The Committee has set a scale of new fee's ranging from $145 for a junior player up to $430 for a family which it believes strike a balance between maintaining accessibility for a recovering community while allowing the Club to continue to operate without incurring debt.
32. The financial statements for Redcliffs Tennis Club for the year ended 30 June 2012 shows a total income of $5,916 and total operational expenditure of $5,512, giving a surplus of $404.00. They have total assets of $436,927, including bank balances totalling $21,844.
33. It is recommended that a grant of $23,000 is granted to Redcliffs Tennis Club Inc to assist with re-instating the tennis courts. 505 COUNCIL 3. 10. 2013
32 Cont’d
Education Child Care Centre Inc – Requested $100,000
34. Education Child Care Centre is an Incorporated Society based at 96 Gayhurst Road, Dallington. The Centre was established in 1978 and owns the land and the building at this site. As a result of the earthquakes the building has cracked into two parts with one part of the building sinking. The Centre was advised that the building could be repaired. However, after investigating the costs involved the Centre established that this is not financially feasible so the decision to demolish the building and rebuild on the existing site was made. Temporary repairs have been carried out on the building allowing the facility to remain open whilst the shortfall in funds required to complete the rebuild is raised.
35. The land at 96 Gayhurst Road is in the Green Zone has been classified TC3. A geotechnical survey has been carried out ahead of the rebuild. The Centre has had a Detailed Engineering Evaluation (DEE) report on the building also, which states that if the group wishes to stay in the building for longer than 12 months strengthening works will be necessary.
36. The Centre has received an insurance payment of $400,000 for the building which is in a term deposit account. Quotations in the region of $500,000 for the rebuild have been obtained from two building companies indicating a shortfall for the rebuild of approximately $120,000. The quotations provided do not include the demolition, landscaping or fencing. The rebuild will take between six to nine months to complete and the Centre has secured the use of classrooms at Hammersley Park School for the duration.
37. The Centre is able to take up to 36 children between the hours of 8am to 5pm from birth to five years of age. Their roll is full with a waiting list operating. A fee of $5.50 is charged per hour with children over three receiving 20 hours free per week. The Centre has 12 staff members and two volunteers, each working 15 hours per week. The building is occasionally used for community use on an "ad hoc" basis at no charge.
38. An application is pending from the Centre to Canterbury Community Trust for $100,000. They will also be looking to apply for funding from other organisations.
39. The financial statement as of 28 February 2013 shows an income of $490,967 and total expenses of $461,877, giving a surplus of $29,090.00. They have cash on hand of $590,136 which includes the insurance payment.
40. It is recommended that a grant of $20,000 is granted to Education Child Care Centre Incorporated to assist with the rebuild of their Centre.
Okains Bay Maori and Colonial Museum Trust – Requested from Detailed Engineering Evaluation Fund $26,000
41. Okains Bay Maori and Colonial Museum Trust is an Incorporated Society. The Museum is based at the former Okains Bay Dairy Factory site at 1146 Okains Bay Road, Banks Peninsula. The Museum is seeking assistance towards the cost of Detailed Engineering Evaluations (DEE) required on the Museum's buildings and grandstand. The DEE's were carried out by TM Consultants on 30 August 2013 and reports are expected within the next six weeks. If work is required on any of the buildings, the Museum will complete one building at a time, to enable the Museum to remain operational.
42. Murray Thacker is the great grandson of the earliest pioneers to settle in Okains Bay. Mr Thacker built a personal collection of his ancestors and family possessions. When the collection became too large to exhibit in his private home, he established the Okains Bay Maori and Colonial Museum which opened on Waitangi Day in 1977. He gifted the Museum, including the entire collection, Dairy Factory buildings and land to the public. A Charitable Trust Board was established to manage this. In 2009, Mr Thacker gifted the historic Okains Bay store to the Museum. The store is let and run by the tenants who live in the adjoining houses. The store and houses sustained minimal damage in the February 2011 earthquake which has been assessed and minor repairs completed. 506 COUNCIL 3. 10. 2013
32 Cont’d
43. The Museum's collection is displayed throughout a number of buildings. These include Harris Cottage, Maori Canoes, Pataka which is made from totara milled at Okains Bay, Whare Taonga, Whakaata (the meeting house), Churchill Cottage, Slab Cottage and Stables, Trustcotts Saddlery, a fully functional Blacksmith's, the Colonial Hall, a Print Shop and various other sheds and huts. In 2008, the Museum restored the old Okains School to its original condition assisting the Museum to develop additional programmes for visiting groups and schools. In addition, the Museum relocated the grandstand from the Recreation Ground in Akaroa to the Museum site and fully restored the stand.
44. The Museum's vast collection includes natural history items, an extensive collection of waka and related items, weapons of war, Maori musical instruments, fish hooks, cloaks, bird traps, scales, a Governess cart, vehicles, European boats, bullock wagons and early engines among many other items.
45. The Museum is a major visitor attraction and educational resource for Canterbury and is open 364 days per year, from 10am to 5pm. An entrance fee of $10 for adults and $2 for children is charged with approximately 17,500 people visiting annually. Over 3,000 of the visitors visit on Waitangi Day where the entire Okains Bay heritage precinct is used for the commemoration. The Museum has over 100 volunteers throughout the year and employs two full time staff.
46. The financial statement as of 31 March 2013 shows an income of $131,988 and total expenses of $136,177, giving an operating deficit of $4,189.00. Cash on hand is $36,834.
47. It is recommended that a grant of $26,000 is granted to Okains Bay Maori and Colonial Museum Trust to complete the Detailed Engineering Evaluations, with the source of funding for the grant from the Detailed Engineering Evaluation (DEE) Fund that was established following the 28 February 2013 Council meeting.
507 COUNCIL 3. 10 .2013
33. PLAN CHANGE 73: REZONING LAND AT WOOLDRIDGE ROAD AND STANLEYS ROAD – FINAL APPROVAL
General Manager responsible: General Manager Strategy and Planning, DDI 941-8281 Officer responsible: City Planning Unit Manager Author: David Punselie, Statutory Administration Officer
PURPOSE OF REPORT
1. This report seeks Council approval to make operative the changes to the City Plan introduced by its decision on Plan Change 73.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
2. Private Plan Change 73 was initiated by Tait Limited and The Tait Foundation. It rezones approximately 10.3 hectares of land at Wooldridge Road and Stanleys Road in Harewood from Rural 5 to Business 4 and 4T. These blocks adjoin an existing area of Business 4 land and are contiguous to the existing Tait Communications factory and offices on Wairakei Road. The rezoning will facilitate the consolidation of all the Tait Limited’s activities and allow for future expansion.
3. An outline development plan for the proposal provides for a low density built campus environment with open space, walkway and cycleway links, on-site stormwater management and an amenity waterway, the retention of established trees and landscape buffers, and off- street parking.
4. The land is part of STA 1 in Chapter 12A of the Regional Policy Statement (RPS) and is within the Northwest Review Area.
5. Commissioner David Collins conducted a hearing in June 2013. His recommendation, that the Council adopt the plan change with some modification, was accepted on 25 July 2013. The plan change as amended by the Council’s decision is attached to this report. No party having given notice of appeal the Council can now take the necessary steps to make operative the changes introduced by Plan Change 73.
FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS
6. There are no direct financial implications.
Do the Recommendations of this Report Align with the TYP budgets?
7. The recommendation will not impose on the LTCCP budgets.
LEGAL CONSIDERATIONS
8. The recommendation in this report is for the Council to take the procedural step to make operative the changes introduced by its decision on Plan Change 73. The Resource Management Act 1991 requires that, following the closing of the appeal period and the resolution of any appeals, the Council must formally approve the changes to the plan under clause 17 of Schedule 1 before the plan change becomes operative on a date that is nominated in a public notice. This plan change has reached the stage where it can be made operative.
Have you considered the legal implications of the issue under consideration?
9. Yes. See above.
ALIGNMENT WITH LTCCP AND ACTIVITY MANAGEMENT PLANS
10. Aligns with District Plan Activity Management Plan. 508 COUNCIL 3. 10 .2013
33 Cont’d
Do the recommendations of this report support a level of service or project in the 2009-19 LTCCP?
11. Yes. Supports the project of processing plan changes in compliance with statutory processes and time frames.
ALIGNMENT WITH STRATEGIES
12. Aligns with the Greater Christchurch Urban Development Strategy and Chapter 12A of the Canterbury Regional Policy Statement.
Do the recommendations align with the Council’s strategies?
13. Yes
CONSULTATION FULFILMENT
14. Approval of changes to the District Plan under clause 17 of Schedule 1 to the Resource Management Act 1991 is a procedural step that does not require consultation.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
It is recommended that the Council:
(a) Approve, pursuant to clause 17(2) of Schedule 1 to the Resource Management Act 1991, the changes to the District Plan introduced by its decision on Plan Change 73 Rezoning Land at Wooldridge Road and Stanleys Road.
(b) Authorise the General Manager, Strategy and Planning to determine the date on which the changes introduced by Plan Change 73 become operative.
509 COUNCIL 3. 10. 2013
34. METROPOLITAN DISCRETIONARY RESPONSE FUND 2013-14 APPLICATION
Officer responsible: Carolyn Gallagher, Community Support Unit Manager Author: Nicola Thompson, Metropolitan Grants Advisor Assessment By: Paula Rigby (46045) Jenni Marceau (47685) Kiri Jarden (45179)
PURPOSE OF REPORT
1. The purpose of this report is for the Council to consider applications for funding to the 2013/14 Metropolitan Discretionary Response Fund from:
(a) Strike Percussion Trust for $50,000 for Batterie 100 Christchurch.
(b) Te Roopu Kaiako Maori ki Waitaha Trust for $27,500 for the Waitaha Secondary Schools Regional Kapa Haka Competitions
(c) LifeLine Christchurch Charitable Trust for $40,000 for LifeLine Christchurch 50th Anniversary Acknowledgement and Service Awareness
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
2. In 2013/14, the total pool available for allocation for the Metropolitan Discretionary Response Fund is $166,942, which includes $21,885 unallocated from the 2013/14 Metropolitan Strengthening Communities Fund. At the time of writing, there is $99,417 remaining in the Metropolitan Discretionary Response Fund for 2013/14.
3. The purpose of the Fund is to assist community groups where the project and funding request falls outside other Council funding criteria and/or closing dates. This fund is also for emergency funding for unforeseen situations. Applications requesting over $15,000 require consideration by the Metropolitan Funding Committee. Staff have delegated authority to consider applications for less than $15,000.
4. There are three applications to be considered:
Strike Percussion Trust Amount requested $50,000 Priority 1 Staff recommendation: $35,000
Te Roopu Kaiako Maori ki Waitaha Trust Amount requested $27,500 Priority 1 Staff recommendation: $20,000
LifeLine Christchurch Charitable Trust Amount requested $40,000 Priority 2 Staff recommendation: $12,000
FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS
5. If funding is approved, the available balance of the Metropolitan Fund will decrease accordingly.
Do the Recommendations of this Report Align with 2013-16 Three Year Plan?
6. Yes, see page 227 of the 2013-16 Three Year Plan.
LEGAL CONSIDERATIONS
Have you considered the legal implications of the issue under consideration?
7. Not applicable. 510 COUNCIL 3. 10. 2013
34 Cont’d
ALIGNMENT WITH THE 2013-16 THREE YEAR PLAN AND ACTIVITY MANAGEMENT PLANS
Do the recommendations of this report support a level of service or project in the 2013-16?
8. Yes, see 2013-16 Three Year Plan page 235 regarding community grants schemes.
ALIGNMENT WITH STRATEGIES
Do the recommendations align with the Council’s strategies?
9. Yes. The funding allocation process is covered in the Council’s Strengthening Communities Strategy.
CONSULTATION FULFILMENT
10. Not applicable.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommend:
(a) That the Council makes a grant of $35,000 to Strike Percussion Trust for Batterie 100 towards wages, materials, rent and travel.
(b) That the Council makes a grant of $20,000 to Te Roopu Kaiako Maori ki Waitaha Trust towards the Waitaha Secondary Schools Regional Kapa Haka Competitions
(c) That the Council makes a grant of $12,000 to LifeLine Christchurch Charitable Trust towards LifeLine Christchurch 50th Anniversary Acknowledgement and Service Awareness for the Reunion Gala venue hire, technology hire, administration and volunteer recognition.
511 COUNCIL 3. 10. 2013
35. METROPOLITAN DISCRETIONARY RESPONSE FUND 2013-14 APPLICATION – HOME AND FAMILY SOCIETY CHRISTCHURCH INC
Officer responsible: Carolyn Gallagher, Community Support Unit Manager Author: Lincoln Papali'i, Strategic Initiatives Manager Assessment By: Stacey Holbrough
PURPOSE OF REPORT
1. The purpose of this report is for the Council to consider an application for funding to the 2013/14 Metropolitan Discretionary Response Fund from The Home and Family Society Christchurch Inc for $32,000 for 24 Hour Supported and Emergency Accommodation Services.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
2. In 2013/14, the total pool available for allocation for the Metropolitan Discretionary Response Fund is $166,942, which includes $21,885 unallocated from the 2013/14 Metropolitan Strengthening Communities Fund. At the time of writing, there is $145,692 remaining in the Metropolitan Discretionary Response Fund for 2013/14.
3. The purpose of the Fund is to assist community groups where the project and funding request falls outside other Council funding criteria and/or closing dates. This fund is also for emergency funding for unforeseen situations. Applications requesting over $15,000 require consideration by the Metropolitan Funding Committee. Staff have delegated authority to consider applications for less than $15,000.
4. There is one application to be considered:
The Home and Family Society Christchurch Inc Amount requested $32,000 Priority 2 Staff recommendation: $20,000
FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS
5. If funding is approved, the available balance of the Metropolitan Fund will decrease accordingly.
Do the Recommendations of this Report Align with 2013-16 Three Year Plan?
6. Yes, see page 227 of the 2013-16 Three Year Plan.
LEGAL CONSIDERATIONS
Have you considered the legal implications of the issue under consideration?
7. Not applicable.
ALIGNMENT WITH THE 2013-16 THREE YEAR PLAN AND ACTIVITY MANAGEMENT PLANS
Do the recommendations of this report support a level of service or project in the 2013-16?
8. Yes, see 2013-16 Three Year Plan page 235 regarding community grants schemes.
ALIGNMENT WITH STRATEGIES
Do the recommendations align with the Council’s strategies?
9. Yes. The funding allocation process is covered in the Council’s Strengthening Communities Strategy. 512 COUNCIL 3. 10. 2013
35 Cont’d
CONSULTATION FULFILMENT
10. Not applicable.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
That the Council makes a grant of $20,000 to The Home and Family Society Christchurch Inc for 24 Hour Supported and Emergency Accommodation Services towards salary and operating costs.
ATTACHMENT 1 TO CLAUSE 35 COUNCIL 3. 10. 2013 513 2013-14 DRF METROPOLITAN DECISION MATRIX
Priority Rating One Meets all eligibility criteria and contributes significantly to Funding Outcomes and Priorities. Highly recommended for funding. Two Meets all eligibility criteria and contributes to Funding Outcomes and Priorities. Recommended for funding. Three Meets all eligibility criteria and contributes to Funding Outcomes and Priorities but to a lesser extent than Priority 2 applications. Not recommended for funding. Four Meets all eligibility criteria and has minimum contribution to Funding Outcomes and Priorities / Insufficient information provided by applicant (in application and after request from Advisor) / Other funding sources more appropriate. Not recommended for funding.
00046071 Organisation Name Project Name and Description Project Details Project Funding Total Cost Amount Requested Staff Recommendation Priority
The Home and 24 Hour Supported and Emergency Staff: 7 CCC funding history (this project only) $440,823 $32,000 $20,000 2 Family Society Accommodation Services Christchurch Volunteers: 35 2012/13 - $20,000 (24 hour Supported and That the Council makes a Incorporated The Home and Family Society provide 24 hour Emergency Accommodation) SCF 7% percentage requested grant of $20,000 to The supported and emergency accommodation; Volunteer hours: 600 2011/12 - $20,000 (24 hour Supported and Home and Family Society parenting education and support and counselling Number of participants: 35 Emergency Accommodation) SCF Contribution sought Christchurch Inc for 24 services. 2010/11 - $15,000 (24 hour Supported and towards: Hour Supported and User fees: Emergency Accommodation) SCF Emergency These services provide support to vulnerable Salaries - $12,000 Yes - this is worked out on an individual 2009/10 - $20,000 (24 hour Supported and Accommodation Services families and enable parents to develop the Emergency Accommodation) SCF Administration - $12,000 towards salary and capacity to make positive changes in their own basis with the families. Training - $2,000 operating costs lives and those of their children. Telephone/Internet - $1,000 The organisation leases a large Council owned Other sources of funding (this project Rent - $5,000 family home and owns two flats used for delivery only) of the accommodation services. Ministry of Social Development - $90,000 Lotteries - $20,000 (Pending) Lion Foundation - $20,000 (Pending) User Fees - $38,285
Organisation Details Alignment with Council Strategies and Board Objectives Staff Assessment Service Base: Office and counselling services based at 316 Hereford St. Strengthening Communities Strategy The Home and Family Society Christchurch Inc (the Society) is an independent social Social Housing Strategy service agency established in 1908. Originally the Society for the Protection of Women 24 Hour Support and Emergency Accommodation Service (house and two flats) located Children Policy and Children, it is one of the oldest independent social service agencies in Christchurch. in Barrington Street. Alignment with Council Funding Outcomes The supported accommodation services were established over 30 years ago and include Council Facility: Yes, Barrington St premises leased. No subsidy applies Reduce or overcome barriers a combination of practical advice, modelling of behaviours, parent education and Legal Status: Incorporated Society Provide community based programmes counselling which assist clients to make positive changes in their lives. Established: 1/01/1908 Enhance community & neighbourhood safety The accommodation consists of a large home, rented from the Council, that can Support, develop and promote capacity accommodate up to five women and their children at any one time and two flats, owned Staff – paid: 15 by the Society, where whole families may reside, including males. The house is staffed How much will the project do? (Measures) Staff – unpaid: 125 24 hours a day, seven days a week by a social work team. The length of time clients Supported and emergency accommodation will be available 24 hours a day, seven days a stay in the accommodation depends on individual progress. Stays can vary from six Target groups: Vulnerable Families weeks to up to six months in duration. week Networks: Twigger Fund Group, COSS, FINZ. Right Service Right Support will be provided to 25 to 35 families within the period of the grant The Society caters for women and children facing severe personal difficulties, and also Time for couples, children and families. They offer support for mothers of all ages including The Society will host 10 barbeques or social events and a Christmas barbeque for past and mothers in their third trimester, mums with newborns, and children up to the age of 13 Audited accounts: 31/03/2012 present users of the service. years old. A large percentage of clients suffer from the effects of domestic violence. The safety of children is paramount to the Society, hence the need for 24 hour staffing. Organisation Description/Objectives: Previous clients will be provided with ongoing support. The Home and Family Society provides strengths based social services which inspire Counselling services are provided in combination with the supported accommodation How will participants be better off? and support people to make a positive difference in their lives, their families and the and once they have left clients receive follow up support and home based social work community. Current and previous clients will feel supported visits. CCC Funding History Parents will be empowered to parent in a safe and effective manner The Home and Family Society work collaboratively with referral social service agencies and community and government agencies. They receive frequent requests from Housing 2012/13 - $20,000 (24 hour Supported and Emergency Accommodation) SCF The services will assist to reduce the incidence of domestic violence and family breakdown NZ and Child Youth and Family for assistance with supported housing. Currently they 2011/12 - $20,000 (24 hour Supported and Emergency Accommodation) SCF receive an average of 15 to 20 of these calls per week. 2010/11 - $15,000 (24 hour Supported and Emergency Accommodation) SCF Programmes are set for each client and will reflect individual outcomes. These may include: 2009/10 - $20,000 (24 hour Supported and Emergency Accommodation) SCF a healthier and more resilient lifestyle, parents being able to make appropriate decisions for The Society has previously been a successful applicant of the Strengthening the well-being of the family, increasing parent knowledge of and family use of existing Communities Fund. In the 2013/14 funding year the Society had believed they submitted community services, and appropriate decisions being made for the care and protection of an application to that fund but due to a computer error on their part, the application was children. not registered.
Page 1 of 1 514 515 COUNCIL 3. 10. 2013
36. MT PLEASANT MEMORIAL COMMUNITY CENTRE FUNDING
General Manager responsible: General Manager, Community Services Group, DDI 941-8607 Officer responsible: Community Support Unit Manager Carolyn Gallagher Assessment undertaken by: Kevin Bennett – Senior Funding and Projects Adviser
PURPOSE OF REPORT
1. The purpose of this report is to inform the Council on possible Council funding options for the rebuilding of the Mt Pleasant Memorial Community Centre.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
2. At its meeting on Tuesday 3 September the Community, Recreation and Culture Committee resolved that staff prepare an urgent report to the Council on possible funding options and sources towards the rebuild of the Mount Pleasant Memorial Centre.
BACKGROUND
3. The Mt Pleasant Memorial Community Centre was built in 1950 on the western corner of the McCormack's Bay Reserve and is owned and operated by the Mt Pleasant Community Centre and Resident’s Association Incorporated.
4. The Mt Pleasant Memorial Community Centre building was badly damaged in the 22 February 2011 earthquake and was subsequently demolished.
5. As an interim measure the Mt Pleasant Memorial Community Centre and Resident’s Association Incorporated purchased a re-locatable facility for temporary use. This facility was commissioned in 2012 with the sum of $20,000 being granted to assist with the installation costs from the Hagley/Ferrymead Community Board Discretionary Response Fund. This request arose as a result of additional works and costs that had not been fully quantified for the temporary facility.
6. To assist with the funding of the temporary relocatable facility, the Mt Pleasant Memorial Community Centre and Resident’s Association Incorporated applied to the Christchurch Earthquake Mayoral Relief Fund for assistance of $32,000. This application was subsequently withdrawn by the Association as it obtained funding for this from the local Rotary Club.
CURRENT SITUATION
7. The Mt Pleasant Memorial Community Centre and Resident’s Association intends to build a replacement Community Centre at the McCormack's Bay Reserve site. The size of the new building is planned at 750 metres squared which is the same size as the demolished building. Present indications are that the community has obtained the following funding towards this project:
Insurance $1,453,479 Canterbury Earthquake Appeal Trust $500,000 Lotteries Community Facilities Grant $750,000 Total $2,703,479 (GST Exclusive)
8. The Mt Pleasant Memorial Community Centre and Residents Association has estimated the cost of rebuilding as follows:
(a) To be funded through funds detailed in paragraph 7 above:
Building $2,200,000 Fit Out $375,000 Geotech and Contamination Reports $14,000 Site Survey $600.00 Contingency $110,000 Total $2,699,600 (GST Exclusive) 516 COUNCIL 3. 10. 2013
36 Cont’d (b) Funding Required:
Resource Consent Fees Unknown Building Consent Fees Unknown Architects Unknown Engineering Fees Unknown Planning Fees Unknown Project Management Fees Unknown
9. The Association has undertaken its architect selection process again as the original concept was considerably over budget and was costed on the basis of a larger 1,350sqm facility. It now intends to provide the selected architect with a build budget of $2,200,000 which excludes the other costs and fees detailed above.
10. The Mount Pleasant Memorial Community Centre and Residents Association made a deputation to the Council’s Community Recreation and Culture Committee on Tuesday 3 September 2013 seeking an allocation of funding or underwriting from the Community Facilities budget up to $500,000 in order that it can have the facility open in 2015.
11. At its meeting of Wednesday 4 September 2013 the Hagley/Ferrymead Community Board received a deputation and presentation from the Mount Pleasant Memorial Community Centre and Residents Association seeking Community Board support for capital funding from the Council to complete the shortfall they currently have to rebuild the Mount Peasant Community Centre. The Board decided to record its support for the Council considering a grant of $500,000 to the Mount Pleasant Memorial Community Centre towards the rebuilding of the Mount Pleasant Community Centre. The Board noted that this support does not indicate Board approval under its delegations at any future time.
POPULATION
12. The population estimate at June 2012 for the Mount Pleasant area was 3,660.
FUNDRAISING
13. The Mount Pleasant Memorial Community Centre and Residents Association has commented that it has extensively fundraised and has achieved $1,250,000 plus insurance payment of $1,453,479.
14. The $1,250,000 raised is made up of: Canterbury Earthquake Appeal Trust (CEAT) grant of $500,000. Lotteries Community Facilities grant of $750,000.
15. Total funds available are $2,703,479 and it is noteworthy that fundraising for this project appears to have been limited to applying for grants.
CCC GRANTS SCHEME
16. The Council operates, through the Community Support Unit, a number of Grants Schemes and the relevant 2013/14 allocations are illustrated in the table below:
Amount Fund Available Allocated Balance Comments 2013/14 Discretionary Response Fund $51,197 $19,955 $31,242 Not available for (Hagley/Ferrymead Community Board) (as at 13/09/2013) capital works. Small Grants Fund $72,529 $72,529 $0 Usage at Community (Hagley/Ferrymead Community Board) Board’s discretion. Strengthening Communities Fund $238,918 $238,918 $0 Not available for (Hagley/Ferrymead Community Board) capital works. Capital Endowment Fund – Phase 2 $2,466,528 $2,466,528 $0 Intended for capital works.
517 COUNCIL 3. 10. 2013
36 Cont’d
CHRISTCHURCH EARTHQUAKE MAYORAL RELIEF FUND
17. The Council also operates the Christchurch Earthquake Mayoral Relief Fund.
18. The fund was established to provide relief to the people of Christchurch from the adverse effects of the 4 September 2010 and 22 February 2011 earthquakes and associated aftershocks, by providing money for any activity or work required as a result of those events that:
(a) Contributes to the rebuilding of the social and physical infrastructure of Christchurch, and (b) Assists in: Remedying hardship suffered by individuals, groups, community organisations and businesses, and/or Protecting, repairing or enhancing the physical fabric of the city.
19. Eligible organisations who meet the criteria make an application to the Christchurch Earthquake Mayoral Relief Fund. Eligibility assessments and additional information requests are undertaken by staff, with recommendations discussed with the Mayor with a report being put to the Council for consideration. There are five applications being submitted to the October 2013 Council meeting for consideration. If all the staff recommendations are accepted by the Council, the fund will have an available balance of approximately $1,886,839.
20. The Mount Pleasant Memorial Community Centre and Residents Association has not formally applied to the Christchurch Earthquake Mayoral Relief Fund for funding assistance of up to $500,000 for the building of a replacement Community Centre although it has made deputations in this regard to the Council’s Community, Recreation and Culture Committee and the Hagley/Ferrymead Community Board.
21. If the Mount Pleasant Memorial Community and Resident’s Association intend to make an application to the Christchurch Earthquake Mayoral Relief Fund for a contribution, it will need to be in a position to provide specific information on all costs being sought. It is also noted that monies donated for earthquake support has been pledged through the Canterbury Earthquake Appeal Trust.
FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS
22. Funding currently remains within the Christchurch Earthquake Mayoral Relief Fund for contribution towards eligible applicant projects.
Do the Recommendations of this Report Align with the 2013-16 Three Year Plan?
23. Not applicable.
LEGAL CONSIDERATIONS
24. There are no legal considerations.
ALIGNMENT WITH THE 2013-16 THREE YEAR PLAN AND ACTIVITY MANAGEMENT PLANS
25. Not applicable.
Do the recommendations of this report support a level of service or project in the 2013-16 Three Year Plan?
26. Not applicable.
ALIGNMENT WITH STRATEGIES
27. Not applicable. 518 COUNCIL 3. 10. 2013
36 Cont’d
CONSULTATION FULFILMENT
28. Not applicable.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
It is recommended that the Council agree that the Mount Pleasant Memorial Community Centre and Residents Association be invited to formally apply to the Christchurch Earthquake Mayoral Relief Fund for funding to assist with the rebuild of the Mount Pleasant Community Centre and for this application to include a full break down of all costs associated with the project as well as details of all confirmed funding, sources and confirmed amounts. 519 COUNCIL 3. 10. 2013
37. SURRENDER OF LEASE – CHRISTCHURCH HIGH SCHOOL OLD BOYS’ – OLD COLLEGIANS CRICKET CLUB INCORPORATED AT HAGLEY PARK
General Manager responsible: General Manager City Environment, DDI 941-8608 Officer responsible: Team Leader Asset Network Planning - Greenspace Author: Kathy Jarden, Team Leader Leasing Consultancy
PURPOSE OF REPORT
1. To seek the recommendation of the Council to approve the application by Christchurch High School Old Boys’ – Old Collegians Cricket Club Incorporated to surrender their lease over part of South Hagley Park which will enable the lease to Canterbury Cricket Association Incorporated to be granted.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
2. The Council granted a lease to Christchurch High School Old Boys Cricket Club Incorporated commencing 1 January 2002 having a final expiry of 30 December 2021.
3. In 2004 Christchurch High School Old Boys Incorporated merged with Old Collegians Cricket Club Incorporated. The Club is now referred to as Old Boys Collegians Cricket Club (the “Club”).
4. The current building improvements are built out onto the proposed footprint for the Hagley Oval development.
5. The lease to the Club specifies that the Lessor may require the Lessee to remove the whole or some of its improvements immediately following the termination of the lease.
6. Canterbury Cricket Association Incorporated (CCA) has agreed to purchase the building and improvements from the Club and will then demolish the buildings from the current leased area (email confirmation has been provided to Council officers; a confirmation letter is being prepared by both parties for Council records).
7. Council officers are recommending that the application to surrender the lease be approved subject to the obligations for removal of the building and improvements being met by CCA and the Club.
FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS
8. There will be no cost incurred by Council for the demolition and clearance of the site.
Do the Recommendations of this Report Align with 2013-16 TYP budgets?
9. Not applicable.
LEGAL CONSIDERATIONS
10. Section 19.2 of the lease document states:
Notwithstanding any other provision in this lease:
(c) The Lessor may require the Lessee to remove the whole or some of its improvements immediately following the termination of this lease.
11. The decision to approve the surrender a lease sits with the Council.
Have you considered the legal implications of the issue under consideration?
12. Yes, a Deed of Surrender will be prepared by the Council’s Legal Services Team with conditions stipulated for the removal of the improvements. 520 COUNCIL 3. 10. 2013
37 Cont’d
ALIGNMENT WITH LTCCP AND ACTIVITY MANAGEMENT PLANS
13. Yes – the surrender of the current lease to the Club will facilitate the granting of a new lease to CCA to develop sports facilities in the city (Activity 6.1: Sports Parks).
Do the recommendations of this report support a level of service or project in the 2013-16 TYP?
14. Yes – the surrender of the lease will facilitate the development of a test and first class cricket ground on Hagley Oval.
ALIGNMENT WITH STRATEGIES
15. Yes – the surrender of the lease will allow for the development of an ICC-compliant international cricket venue which is a priority action in the Draft Metropolitan Sports Facilities Plan 2012.
Do the recommendations align with the Council’s strategies?
16. Yes, as above.
CONSULTATION FULFILMENT
17. The resource consent application for CCA to build a new facility was notified and the resource consent has been granted. The Council is not required to give public notice of the proposal to remove the current building improvements from the Park.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
It is recommended that Council resolve as follows:
(a) That the application made by Christchurch High School Old Boys’ – Old Collegians Cricket Club Incorporated to surrender their lease for the Pavilion and improvements located at South Hagley Park, being part South Hagley Park comprised in certificates of titles 24B/260, 24B/460 and 24B/461 and 30A/95, be accepted.
(b) That the Corporate Support Unit Manager be granted delegated authority to negotiate, finalise and conclude all other terms and conditions of the lease surrender including the removal of improvements and making good of the leased area. 521 COUNCIL 3. 10. 2013
38. VALEDICTORY SPEECHES
39. NOTICES OF MOTION
Councillor Buck has submitted the following Notice of Motions pursuant to Standing Order 3.10:
39.1 Notice of Motion - Memorial Ave In the review of the City Plan staff look at great protection for the amenity of Memorial Ave as the gateway to Christchurch and put in place more restrictions on the establishment of business and placement and size of signage.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
That staff prepare a report to the incoming Council.
39.2 Notice of Motion - Right turn into Park Terrace The right turn movement from Harper Ave into Park Tce at the Carlton Mill corner should be reinstated as soon as Park Terrace is open to two way traffic, not in four years time.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
That staff prepare a report to the incoming Council.
Councillor Johanson has submitted the following Notice of Motions pursuant to Standing Order 3.10:
39.3 Notice of Motion - Policy on CEO Employment Advice That Council resolves that it is not appropriate to use any companies/individual that is engaged by the CEO for other Council business to provide advice on CEO matters either to the CEO Subcommittee or to the Council as a whole.
That the Council resolves it (including the CEO Sub Committee) will get independent advice on CEO matters and establishes a policy that it will not use companies/individuals who are engaged and/or remunerated by Council or the CEO to provide other services and advice to Council.
Seconded by Councillor Livingstone.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
That staff prepare a report to the incoming Council. 522 523 COUNCIL 3. 10. 2013
40. RESOLUTION TO EXCLUDE THE PUBLIC
Attached. 524 525 COUNCIL 3. 10. 2013
THURSDAY 3 OCTOBER 2013
COUNCIL
RESOLUTION TO EXCLUDE THE PUBLIC
Section 48, Local Government Official Information and Meetings Act 1987.
I move that the public be excluded from the following parts of the proceedings of this meeting, namely item(s) 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50 and 51.
The general subject of each matter to be considered while the public is excluded, the reason for passing this resolution in relation to each matter and the specific grounds under Section 48(1) of the Local Government Official Information and Meetings Act 1987 for the passing of this resolution are as follows:
ITEM GENERAL SUBJECT OF EACH REASON FOR PASSING THIS GROUND(S) UNDER SECTION NO. MATTER TO BE CONSIDERED RESOLUTION IN RELATION 48(1) FOR THE PASSING OF TO EACH MATTER THIS RESOLUTION 41. CONFIRMATION OF MEETING ) GOOD REASON TO SECTION 48(1)(a) MINUTES OF 29 AUGUST 2013 ) WITHHOLD EXISTS) ) UNDER SECTION 7 41. CONFIRMATION OF ) ) EXTRAORDINARY MEETING ) MINUTES OF 6 SEPTEMBER 2013 ) ) 41. CONFIRMATION OF MEETING ) ) MINUTES OF 12 SEPTEMBER ) 2013 ) ) 42. REPORT OF A MEETING OF THE ) ) SPREYDON/HEATHCOTE ) COMMUNITY BOARD: ) 3 SEPTEMBER 2013 )
43. REPORT OF A MEETING OF THE ) ENVIRONMENT AND ) INFRASTRUCTURE COMMITTEE: ) 5 SEPTEMBER 2013 ) )
44. REPORT OF A MEETING OF THE ) ) PLANNING COMMITTEE: ) 4 SEPTEMBER 2013 ) ) 45. REPORT OF A MEETING OF THE ) ) AUDIT AND RISK MANAGEMENT ) SUBCOMMITTEE: 28 AUGUST ) 2013 )
46. REPORT OF A MEETING OF THE ) ) AUDIT AND RISK MANAGEMENT ) SUBCOMMITTEE: 24 SEPTEMBER ) 2013 )
47. REPORT OF A MEETING OF THE ) ) COMMUNITY, RECREATION AND ) CULTURE COMMITTEE: ) 3 SEPTEMBER 2013 )
48. REPORT OF A MEETING OF THE ) ) CORPORATE AND FINANCIAL ) COMMITTEE: 6 SEPTEMBER 2013 ) ) 49. APPROVAL TO AWARD NEW ) ) CONTRACT FOR STREET ) LIGHTING MAINTENANCE & ) RENEWALS ) 526 COUNCIL 3. 10. 2013
50. HALSWELL LIBRARY, POOL & ) ) COMMUNITY FACILITY: AWARD ) OF CONSTRUCTION CONTRACT ) 51. CONTRACTUAL ARRANGEMENTS )
This resolution is made in reliance on Section 48(1)(a) of the Local Government Official Information and Meetings Act 1987 and the particular interest or interests protected by Section 6 or Section 7 of that Act which would be prejudiced by the holding of the whole or relevant part of the proceedings of the meeting in public are as follows:
ITEM NO. REASON SECTION PLAIN ENGLISH REASON WHEN REPORT CAN UNDER ACT BE RELEASED 41. Maintain legal S.7(2)( g) This item is being withheld as its professional disclosure is necessary to maintain privilege and legal professional privilege and enable the Council to conduct without Conduction of S.7 (2) (i) prejudice negotiations. Negotiations Maintenance S.6(a) This item is being withheld as its of law disclosure would be likely to prejudice Council's ability to investigate and detect offences. Maintenance S.6(a) This item is being withheld as its of law disclosure would be likely to prejudice Council's ability to investigate and detect offences. Privacy of 7(2)(a) Information on financial position of Natural residents Persons Prejudice of 7(2)(b)ii Commercially sensitive information Commercial Position To enable 7(2)(i) Commercially confidential information Council to carry out negotiations without prejudice Maintain legal 7(2)(g) Confidential Mediation of Claim and Not applicable professional 7(2)(i) Claim settlement, and legal advice privilege and about insurance issues carry on, without prejudice or disadvantage, negotiations To maintain 7(2)(g) The report contains legal advice and Not applicable legal strategy concerning mediation of a High professional Court claim and associated insurance privilege implications
To enable 7(2)(i) The report contains legal advice and Not applicable Council to strategy concerning mediation of a High carry out Court claim and associated insurance negotiations implications without prejudice
527 COUNCIL 3. 10. 2013
ITEM NO. REASON SECTION PLAIN ENGLISH REASON WHEN REPORT CAN UNDER ACT BE RELEASED Enable any 7(2)i The property is subject to confidential If the property is local authority negotiations with regard to the purchase – after the holding the purchase. Disclosure of the agreed sale of any surplus information to price, if the Council do not purchase, plant. carry on, would prejudice the land owners without position. prejudice or disadvantage, negotiations (including commercial and industrial negotiations Prejudice 7(2)(i) The tender information is confidential The tender information commercial until after the successful tender is is confidential until position awarded. after the successful tender is awarded. Conduct of 7(2)(b)(ii) negotiations Maintain legal 7(2)() So that the Committee can receive legal Never professional advice. privilege Commercial 7(2)(h) Withholding the information is Never activities necessary to enable Council to carry out, without prejudice or disadvantage, commercial activities Official 9(2)(b)(ii) Commercially sensitive information Never Information during RFP process Act (1982) Protection of 7(2)(a) Until the appointments are approved it The information privacy of is reasonable for the name of those included in the report natural proposed to be kept confidential as it can be made public persons could damage their reputation and immediately following personal privacy if the Council chooses advice to the individual to not approve the appointment for that the appointment some reason. Any debate around has been approved. suitability of a specific individual should not be held in public as it may affect their reputation. Official 7(2)(h) Enables future interest costs to be 1 December 2013 Information hedged without risk of prior adverse Act (1982) market movements. Official 9(2)(b)(ii) Commercially sensitive information Never Information during RFP process Act (1982) Protect the 7(2)(b)(ii) The proposed rates of compensation The compensation information are commercially sensitive. table should remain likely to public excluded. prejudice the commercial position Commercial 7(2)(h) & (i) To enable the Council to without Non-insurance details Activities. prejudice or disadvantage undertake once sale transactions commercial activities and negotiations. settled. 41. Protection of 7(2)(a) Protection of the privacy of natural Never. the privacy of persons. natural persons. 528 COUNCIL 3. 10. 2013
ITEM NO. REASON SECTION PLAIN ENGLISH REASON WHEN REPORT CAN UNDER ACT BE RELEASED 41. Protect 7(2)(b)(ii) Negotiations relating to insurance and After concluding information the possible sale of the site to cover negotiations with the where the repayment of the loan may be trust on the future of making prejudiced if information is made public. the site and the insurer available of of the building. the information would be likely unreasonably to prejudice the commercial position of the person who supplied or who is the subject of the information. 41. Would 7(2)(b)(iii) Contains information which is of a On completion of prejudice commercially sensitive nature at this procurement of all procurement time Owner Occupier units. Maintain legal 7(2)(g) The keep legal advice on Court When litigation is professional proceedings confidential. complete privilege Maintain legal 7(2)(g) Legal advice to Council in relation to After all proceedings professional appeal related to pressure privilege sewer systems have been heard
42. Protect 7(2)(b)(ii) Negotiations relating to insurance and After concluding information the possible sale of the site to cover negotiations with the where the repayment of the loan may be trust on the future of making prejudiced if information is made public. the site and the insurer available of of the building. the information would be likely unreasonably to prejudice the commercial position of the person who supplied or who is the subject of the information.
47. Conduct of 7(2)(i) Third party involvement. After Council decision. negotiations Once settlement Insurance negotiations. agreed.
Prejudice 7(2)(b)(iii) Insurance negotiations yet to be Outcome of report can commercial finalised. be released after position insurance position finalised with EQC and Insurer. Would 7(2)(b)(ii) Contains information which is of a On completion of prejudice commercially sensitive nature at this procurement of all procurement time. Owner-Occupier units. Conduct of 7(2)(i) The Council is entering negotiations negotiations with EQC. 44. Maintain 7(2)(g) Maintain Professional Legal Privilege Upon Council making professional its decision privilege 43. Maintain legal 7(2)(g) The keep legal advice on Court When litigation is professional proceedings confidential. complete privilege 529 COUNCIL 3. 10. 2013
ITEM NO. REASON SECTION PLAIN ENGLISH REASON WHEN REPORT CAN UNDER ACT BE RELEASED Privacy of 7(2)(a) Report contains personal information Natural relating to individual ratepayers. Persons Privacy of 7(2)(a) Report contains personal information Natural relating to individual ratepayers. Persons Maintain legal 7(2)(g) Legal advice to Council in relation to After all proceedings professional appeal related to pressure privilege sewer systems have been heard 48. Maintain legal 7(2)(g) So that the Committee can receive legal Never privilege advice
Conduct of 7(2)(i) Still negotiating with insurers Never negotiations
Legal 7(2)(g) Still negotiating with insurers Never privilege
Free and 9(2)(f)(i) Still negotiating with insurers Never frank expression
Official 7(2)(h) Enables future interest costs to be 1 December 2013 Information hedged without risk of prior adverse Act (1982) market movements
Official 9(2)(b)(ii) Commercially sensitive information Never Information during RFP process Act (1982)
Official 9(2)(b)(ii) Commercially sensitive information Never Information during RFP process Act (1982)
Commercial 7(2)(h) Withholding the information is Following the activities necessary to enable Council to carry successful out, without prejudice or disadvantage, appointment of a commercial activities. supplier to the Botanic Gardens Centre
Commercial 7(2)(h) Withholding the information is Never activities necessary to enable Council to carry out, without prejudice or disadvantage, commercial activities. Protection of 7(2)(a) and So as not to unreasonably prejudice the Not at all. Privacy of 7(2)(b)(ii) commercial position of the person who Natural is the subject of the information Persons contained within the report.
Prejudice Commercial Position 45. Official 7(2)(b)(ii) Would be likely to unreasonably Never Information prejudice the commercial position of the Act (1982) supplier 7(2)(h) Enable Council to carry out commercial Never activities without prejudice or disadvantage 7(2)(i) Enable Council to carry on negotiations Never without prejudice or disadvantage 7(2)(j) Prevent disclosure for improper gain or Never advantage
Commercial 7(2)(h) Enable Council to carry out commercial Never activities activities without prejudice or disadvantage Improper gain 7(2)(j) Prevent disclosure for improper gain or Never or advantage advantage
530 COUNCIL 3. 10. 2013
ITEM NO. REASON SECTION PLAIN ENGLISH REASON WHEN REPORT CAN UNDER ACT BE RELEASED 46. Prevention 7(2)(j) People reading the internal audit report 24 September 2014 damage maybe able to take advantage of of improper information that is contained in the advantage report. Prevent 7(f)(i) To allow debate of the draft annual When draft is provided damage to report before it is submitted to Council to Council the public for adoption interest 50. Commercial 7(2)(h) Commercially sensitive Activities
49. 7(2)(b)(ii) On the basis that the contract is not yet and 7(2)(h) signed, publically disclosing the information could unreasonably prejudice the commercial position of the person who supplied or who is the subject of the information. Furthermore, withholding the information is necessary to enable Council to carry out, without prejudice or disadvantage, commercial activities. 51. To protect the 7(2)(a) To protect the privacy of individuals privacy of natural persons
Chairperson’s Recommendation: That the foregoing motion be adopted.
Note
Section 48(4) of the Local Government Official Information and Meetings Act 1987 provides as follows:
“(4) Every resolution to exclude the public shall be put at a time when the meeting is open to the public, and the text of that resolution (or copies thereof):
(a) Shall be available to any member of the public who is present; and (b) Shall form part of the minutes of the local authority.”