COMMUNITY, RECREATION AND CULTURE COMMITTEE AGENDA
6 AUGUST 2013
AT 9AM
IN COMMITTEE ROOM 1, CIVIC OFFICES, 53 HEREFORD STREET
Committee: Councillor Yani Johanson (Chairperson), Councillors Peter Beck, Helen Broughton, Tim Carter, Barry Corbett, Jimmy Chen, Jamie Gough, and Glenn Livingstone (Deputy Chairperson).
General Manager General Manager – General Manager Strategy and Planning Public Affairs Community Services Committee Adviser Mike Theelen Lydia Aydon Michael Aitken Lucy Halsall Tel: 941-8281 Tel: 941- 8982 Tel: 941-8607 Tel: 941-6227
PART A - MATTERS REQUIRING A COUNCIL DECISION PART B - REPORTS FOR INFORMATION PART C - DELEGATED DECISIONS
INDEX
ITEM NO. DESCRIPTION PAGE NO.
PART C 1. APOLOGIES 1
PART C 2. DECLARATION OF INTEREST 1
PART B 3. DEPUTATIONS BY APPOINTMENT 1
PART A 4. FACILITIES REBUILD PLAN MONTHLY STATUS UPDATE 3
PART A 5. SUMNER COMMUNITY CENTRE AND LIBRARY REBUILD 117
PART A 6. DEMOLITION OF GOVERNORS BAY COMMUNITY HALL, TOILETS AND 121 ANCILLARY BUILDINGS
PART A 7. PROPOSED DEMOLITION OF THE PETANQUE CLUB AND TOILETS LOCATED IN 125 SCOTT PARK 129 PART A 8. PROPOSED DEMOLITION OF THE REMAINDER OF THE ST MARTIN VOLUNTARY LIBRARY
PART A 9. HERITAGE REINSTATEMENT PROGRAMME – SIGN OF THE TAKAHE 131
PART B 10. ARTS UPDATE REPORT 139
PART C 11. HERITAGE GRANT APPROVAL – 10, 12, 13 AND 24 NEW REGENT STREET, 143 CHRISTCHURCH
ITEM DESCRIPTION PAGE NO. NO.
PART C 12. HERITAGE GRANT APPROVAL – 27-29 NEW REGENT STREET, CHRISTCHURCH 151
PART C 13. HERITAGE GRANT APPROVAL – 28 NEW REGENT STREET, CHRISTCHURCH 159
PART C 14. HERITAGE GRANT APPROVAL – 290 RIVERLAW TERRACE, ST MARTINS, 167 CHRISTCHURCH
PART A 15. HERITAGE INCENTIVE GRANTS SIX MONTHLY REPORT 175
PART A 16. ELLERSLIE INTERNATIONAL FLOWER SHOW 203
PART A 17. CHAIRPERSON’S REPORT – ARTS CENTRE TRUST BOARD PROPOSED CHANGES 213
PART A 20. HERITAGE UPDATE INCLUDING MAJESTIC THEATRE AND MCLEANS MANSION 259
PART C 18. RESOLUTION TO EXCLUDE THE PUBLIC 261
1
COMMUNITY, RECREATION AND CULTURE COMMITTEE 6. 8. 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. DEPUTATIONS BY APPOINTMENT
3.1 Mr Dennis Rich (Chairman), Mr Quentin Smith (Deputy Chairman), Mr Stan Hackwell (Treasurer) and Mrs Ivy Pack (Secretary) from the Management Committee of the Shirley Community Centre Society Inc regarding rebuild of a Community Centre on the site of the former Shirley Community Centre in Shirley Road.
3.2 Kate Bould from the Governors Bay Community Association regarding item 6 of the agenda - Demolition of Governors Bay Community Hall, Toilets and Ancillary Buildings.
2 3
COMMUNITY, RECREATION AND CULTURE COMMITTEE 6. 8. 2013
4. FACILITIES REBUILD PLAN MONTHLY STATUS UPDATE
General Manager responsible: General Manager Community Services, DDI 941 8534 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 June to mid July 2013.
3. The programme is being re-focused for the remainder of this calendar year to ensure that the team is 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 and Work Package 2 (WP2) can be found in Attachment 2.
COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT
5. The first round of ‘Community Facilities Rebuild Forums’ has come to an end and was well received by the community representatives who attended. Questions and feedback from these forums can be found on the Council website.
6. Monthly advertorials continue to be published in the Mainland Community newspapers and the Akaroa Mail highlighting good news and providing the latest updates.
7. The Linwood Community Arts Centre was opened at a bi-cultural event by the Mayor and was attended by elected members and the community.
8. The re-opening of Fendalton Community Centre was marked by a walk-through that was attended by elected members, community representatives and the media.
9. An event for the partial re-opening and blessing of the Akaroa Museum was well attended by the local community.
CLOSURES AND OPENINGS
10. The Fendalton Community Centre reopened to the public on 15 July. Akaroa Museum (Concourse and exhibition space) reopened on Friday 12 July, and both the adjacent Court House and Customs House will be able to be opened when the Museum Staff decide on their use. The repairs to both Linwood Community Arts and Avebury House have now been completed. Linwood Community Arts opened with an official bi-cultural ceremony on Friday 19 July. Harewood Community centre reopened on Monday 15 July. Bishopdale Plunket Rooms were closed on Friday 19 July. Alternative premises have been found to enable the service to continue to operate.
HOUSING PROGRAMME
11. A full and comprehensive report on Social Housing can be found in Attachment 3.
HERITAGE PROGRAMME
12. A full and comprehensive report on the Heritage programme can be found in Attachment 4. 4
COMMUNITY, RECREATION AND CULTURE COMMITTEE 6. 8. 2013
4 Cont’d
COMMERCIAL PROGRAMME
Work Package 1 (TOP 30)
13. Work to repair earthquake damage to Fendalton Community Centre was completed in early July and the building passed a Building Warrant of Fitness (BWOF). The Fendalton Community Centre was re-opened to the general public on Monday 15 July 2013.
14. Work to repair earthquake damage to the Linwood Community Arts Centre has also been completed alongside scheduled maintenance. The Arts Centre was officially re-opened to the general public on Friday 19 July 2013. The opening ceremony was a combined Te Whare Roimata / Christchurch City Council event which celebrated the Treaty of Waitangi partnership between the two organisations.
15. 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 are undergoing health and safety inspections and are due to be re-opened to the general public in the week commencing 15 July 2013:
Okains Bay Community Hall Little Akaloa Community Hall Duvauchelle Community Hall (earthquake repairs due to start 29 July 2013). Pigeon Bay Community Hall Risingholme Craft Workshops Harewood Community Centre / Crèche.
NB: Minor earthquake repairs will be undertaken at a future date in conjunction with scheduled maintenance.
16. Construction work continues to progress on the transitional community facility at South Brighton, despite the recent spells of wet weather. Rain has caused delays to the programme and the inability of concrete to cure has been an issue. The estimated opening is now October 2013.
17. Planning 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 and offers of service are being sought from the market place for design and engineering services.
18. A report will be presented to the Committee on 6 August 2013 seeking approval to initiate the rebuild of a new Community Centre and Library in Sumner.
19. 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 insured value is $125,216 (plus 10 per cent). Demolition quotes are being sought and a report will be brought before the committee on 6 August. Community Services will confirm the strategic position with regards to re-instatement of the asset.
20. 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 need to 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). In the meantime, staff are preparing a report to seek approval from the Council to engage in such a lease.
21. Quotations are being sought for the demolition of selected Greenspace-owned assets that are either surplus to operational requirements or have sustained major earthquake damage. Typically they are older structures such as sheds, barns, storage facilities and unreinforced masonry structures. A report recommending demolition will be brought before the Committee before the end of the term.
5
COMMUNITY, RECREATION AND CULTURE COMMITTEE 6. 8. 2013
4 Cont’d
22. A report recommending the demolition of a Council-owned petanque club, courts and a toilet block at Scott Park, Mt Pleasant will be presented to the Committee on 6 August 2013.
23. 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. Insurers have requested additional information from before the time the Council owned the building. Staff are investigating the option of combining the facility with the neighbouring Library.
24. 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, and 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.
25. Voluntary Libraries: Opawa Children’s library external painting will commence in the spring. The Council’s insurers have agreed that the remainder of St Martins Voluntary Library is uneconomic to repair and options for replacement are being investigated.
22. Waltham Pool: staff have completed a report outlining the best value repair/replacement option. If approved by the Council the pool will be open in summer 2014/15. This target means the report will be on the 3 September Committee Agenda.
23. Norman Kirk Pool: repair costs identified for Norman Kirk pool have exceeded the total sum insured. The Council’s insurer’s 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. Initial feedback indicates a strong community desire to re-instate the pool on its existing site.
24. Lyttelton Recreation Centre and Trinity Hall: repair costs identified for Lyttelton Recreation Centre and Trinity hall have exceeded the Indemnity value. The Council’s insurer’s loss adjusters are “unable to give a definitive timescale” of when they will review this report. Initial community feedback indicates a strong desire to begin repairs as soon as possible – a report to the Committee is imminent.
25. Botanic Gardens Paddling Pool: staff are currently in discussions with insurers and will identify options for re-levelling this pool to ensure operating costs can be reduced to normal levels as soon as possible.
26. Scarborough Paddling Pool: removal of the pool will be completed by mid August 2013. Insurance proceeds will not be sufficient to re-instate the pool. The area will be grassed while decisions on the future use are considered. A meeting was held with the Community Board on 3 July 2013. Staff will follow the Community Board’s recommendation on how to engage with the community. Staff will subsequently prepare a report to the Committee on the future of this asset.
Work Package 2
27. Jellie Park main plant room strengthening: tendering process has begun.
28. Pioneer Leisure Centre: temporary works have been completed to allow the hall to be used. The damage assessment is ongoing.
29. 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.
30. Sockburn Squash Centre: damage assessment is complete and insurance negotiations have opened.
6
COMMUNITY, RECREATION AND CULTURE COMMITTEE 6. 8. 2013
4 Cont’d
31. 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 are meeting staff on site to agree repairs.
32. Denton Oval: strengthening of the amenities building (rugby club change rooms) to 67 per cent New Building Standard (NBS) will be completed by September 2013. This work is funded by Sport and Recreation directly and will allow part of the facility to re open. Repair of other damage can be completed once the facility is operational.
33. Governors Bay Pool: closed for season, damage assessment is underway.
34. Halswell Aquatic Centre: damage assessments will be completed prior to the start of the capital project to build a new community facility on site.
35. Cuthberts Green: damage assessment will complete in late August 2013.
36. 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.
37. 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.
38. 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.
39. Spreydon Library: damage assessment is complete.
40. Milton Street Depot: this site is a grouping of 11 assets. Two of the Detailed Engineering Evaluation (DEE) reports are still being completed due to the need for intrusive investigations. Damage varies from minor to extensive. The damage assessments will be complete by the end of October 2013.
41. Upper Riccarton Library: this asset has moderate damage including damage to the under-floor heating. A damage assessment will be complete in late August 2013.
42. R&R Sport/Penny Lane/Rohits/Mayur: negotiations are underway for Christchurch Central Development Unit (CCDU) to purchase these buildings later this year. Damage assessments and insurance negotiations are progressing.
43. Dog Pound: this building has moderate damage. A damage assessment is currently in progress.
44. Lyttelton Library: damage assessment is underway.
Work Package 3
45. Pages Road City Care Yard: damage assessment is under way.
46. Jellie Park (all assets excluding the plant room which is in WP2): the Damage Assessment (DA) scope is being developed and the DA will be underway shortly. Intrusive investigation will be required to confirm the extent of damage; this may impact on the operation of parts of the facility. Facilities Rebuild Plan team (FRP) will be working with the management at the facility to ensure the Damage Assessment and repair methodology allows the facility to operate as normally as possible.
7
COMMUNITY, RECREATION AND CULTURE COMMITTEE 6. 8. 2013
4 Cont’d
47. Tram Barn: staff are working to ensure the badly damaged block work wall which has caused the Canterbury Earthquake Recovery Authority (CERA) to restrict access to the building and the neighbouring car park is removed by 1 August. This will allow unrestricted access to the Tram Barn and Heritage Hotel carpark. 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 be able to re-open in September.
FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS
48. Housing units with damage at over $100,000 cap per event will qualify for a legitimate insurance claim with Local Authority Protection Programme (LAPP).
49. 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.
50. 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?
51. Yes, the Facilities Rebuild Programme was approved as part of the Three Year Plan.
LEGAL CONSIDERATIONS
52. Not applicable.
Have you considered the legal implications of the issue under consideration?
53. As above.
ALIGNMENT WITH TYP AND ACTIVITY MANAGEMENT PLANS
54. The Facilities Rebuild Programme 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?
55. This supports the Facilities Rebuild Programme.
ALIGNMENT WITH STRATEGIES
56. 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?
57. As above.
CONSULTATION FULFILMENT
58. Not applicable.
8
COMMUNITY, RECREATION AND CULTURE COMMITTEE 6. 8. 2013
4 Cont’d
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
That the Community, Recreation and Culture Committee recommend that the Council receive the information in this report.
ATTACHMENT 1 TO CLAUSE 4 9 COMMUNITY, RECREATION AND CULTURE COMMITTEE 6. 8. 2013
CRaC Committee 06 August Attachment ONE– Top 30 Project Update
Glossary of terms: Assessment of position (AOP): Councils response to the Loss Adjuster Damage assessment (DA): Work to identify all of a building’s damage and its associated cost Level survey: A check to see if the building has settled off level as a result of a quake. Loss Adjusting Team (LAT): Work on behalf of the Insurers to adjust our claims. Offer of service (OOS): When Council requests a cost to undertake a piece of work. Statement of Position (SOP): The Loss Adjusters response to Council
COMMUNITY FACILITIES
Sydenham Pre School (Crèche)
Building Status: CLOSED DEE Result: 8% NBS – Level 5 September 2012
Total Sum Insured: $324,205 Indemnity: $138,945
Progress to date and current status:
The insurers completed their DA in March and issued their report from Spiire on the 27th May 2013 with an updated SOP. The insurers are now undertaking a high level cost estimate of the repairs and a report was due back late June but has yet to be received. The CCC engineer has peer reviewed the Spiire report and provided feedback which was generally in agreement with their findings. The insurers requested Council consider obtaining a contractors quote for the repair works and this has been arranged through URS with contractor input. An OOS has just been agreed with URS and delivery of this DA and pricing report is due at the end of July. Council DA to date reflects $65,000 of EQ damage which the insurers have agreed in principal but subject to their own assessment findings. A strengthening report, including site levels, has been received. Site level results were confirmed within Department of Building and Housing (DBH) guidelines so no re- levelling is required. Costs to strengthen to 34% and 67% of the New Building Standard (NBS) have been completed and are estimated to be the same at $83,500.
Next Steps: Complete the DA and pricing report from URS – due the end of July. Track the insurers for their cost report. The asset owner will review further action following resolution of the insurance position. This could include repair of old facility, rebuild of new facility, divesting the asset or utilisation of available re-locatable units (short to medium term option). The ability to return to service is expected late 2013/early 2014 assuming an insurance agreement can be reached in July 2013
ATTACHMENT 1 TO CLAUSE 4 10 COMMUNITY, RECREATION AND CULTURE COMMITTEE 6. 8. 2013
CRaC Committee 06 August Attachment ONE– Top 30 Project Update
Fendalton Community Centre
Building Status: RE OPENED DEE Result: 50% L5 23 May 2013
Total Sum Insured $2,332,045 Indemnity $708,527
Progress to date and current status: The community centre was re-opened on Monday 15th July 2013. The insurers issued the raw information in relation to their inspections of the building on 20th May 2013 but without an updated position which, has been requested by Council Level surveys done in March confirmed areas outside of DBH guidelines which require re-levelling. The engineers have provided possible re-levelling methodologies which should not impact the critical services works being completed ahead of the insurance position. Re-levelling, if required, and other non-critical earthquake damage repair works would be scheduled later in the year once agreed with the insurers and asset owner. DA works completed by City Care are estimated at $207,477 and have been submitted to the insurer for approval
Next Steps:
Resolve insurance position in July/August 2013 On agreement with the insurer programme all required repairs with the asset owner
ATTACHMENT 1 TO CLAUSE 4 11 COMMUNITY, RECREATION AND CULTURE COMMITTEE 6. 8. 2013
CRaC Committee 06 August Attachment ONE– Top 30 Project Update
Riccarton Community Centre (Also See – Riccarton Voluntary Library)
Building Status: PART OPEN DEE Result: 2% (Original Building) 5% (1960 Building) 100% (1968 Building) Total Sum Insured $1,828,421 Indemnity $706,398 Insurance Reference: IR1203
Progress to date and current status:
The insurers issued their raw DA information on 20th May 2013 from their inspection in February 2013 but without an updated SOP. The SOP has been requested several times by Council A DA by Opus commenced mid May 2013 and reached stage 1 – ‘scope agreement’ The OOS for stage 2 is under review by Council PM. This is to avoid unnecessary spend should the insurers SOP be deemed reasonable The foyer, toilets and boardroom including rear kitchen area opened in June Strengthening options to 34% & 67% received on 28th January 2013 and pricing completed on 8th February 2013. Costs range from 34% $474K-$547K and 67% $543K-$614K. The preferred option for 67% is priced at $614K.
Next Steps:
Track the issue of the insurer’s SOP following their DA from February Pending insurance approvals by the end of July and, if required, funding requests to CRaC by end of August, repair/strengthening works could be completed by the end of the first quarter 2014
ATTACHMENT 1 TO CLAUSE 4 12 COMMUNITY, RECREATION AND CULTURE COMMITTEE 6. 8. 2013
CRaC Committee 06 August Attachment ONE– Top 30 Project Update
South Brighton Community Centre
Building Status: CLOSED & DEMOLISHED Transitional facility on site and to open in August 2013 DEE Result: N/A
Total Sum Insured: $1,111,042 Indemnity $410,505 Insurance Reference: IR0354
Progress to date and current status:
Foundation works complete Building has been shifted onto the completed piles Fit out price agreed with Citycare and approved by Council. Citycare to begin work on site in later July with completion in October 2013 Total loss agreed with Council’s insurers although no indemnity money has actually been paid by the insurer to date
Next Steps:
Once the Citycare price is formally approved – track their progress through to completion Due to weather delays during the ground works and a longer review taken of the Citycare price a new target opening has now been agreed with asset owner as October 2013
ATTACHMENT 1 TO CLAUSE 4 13 COMMUNITY, RECREATION AND CULTURE COMMITTEE 6. 8. 2013
CRaC Committee 06 August Attachment ONE– Top 30 Project Update
Risingholme Community Centre Craft Rooms (non heritage)
Building Status: RE OPENED
DEE: L4 Received – 17.5% NBS Total Sum Insured: $319,167 Indemnity: $81,405
Progress to date and current status:
The building has suffered minor EQ damage to perimeter footings, ceiling lining, window joinery and floor lining. It has been deemed EQ prone due to low NBS - 17.5%. Agreement with the insurer over the EQ damage and repair methodologies has still to be reached.
Next Steps:
On 4 June 2013 Community, Recreation and Culture Committee asked staff to identify a list of closed Council buildings that could be presented to Council for a decision to exempt them from the current policy and potentially re-open them if they have been assessed as having a seismic capacity of less than 34 per cent of the New Building Standard (NBS) but are not dangerous to occupy
Risingholme Craft workshops was one of the buildings on the list approved by Council on the 25th July. The building will be re-opened following electrical and maintenance checks and appropriate signage will be displayed on the building to inform users that the building was below 34 per cent of New Building Standards but engineering advice was that they were suitable for occupation
ATTACHMENT 1 TO CLAUSE 4 14 COMMUNITY, RECREATION AND CULTURE COMMITTEE 6. 8. 2013
CRaC Committee 06 August Attachment ONE– Top 30 Project Update
Hei Hei Community Centre
Building Status: CLOSED DEE Result: NBS 1% Level 5 17/12/12)
Total Sum Insured $1,305,879 Indemnity $316,318
Progress to date and current status:
The facility was submitted as a potential “joint assessment” opportunity to the insurer in May however the insurer responded on 21st May 2013 advising the facility was already assessed and has minimal damage estimated at $1,115 and they would not support any further investigation The concept strengthening report to 34% and 67% NBS was issued to the insurers in May as the Council’s AOP. It has been suggested that the works to take the building to a minimum of 34% NBS are related to repairing EQ damage and therefore claimable under the policy. The insurer are yet to respond following this submission The concept strengthening report has been presented to the asset owner who is about to confirm (at SAMF meeting 12/7/13) they are unlikely to repair it ahead of an agreed insurance position due to a number of other potential facilities planned for the area by private parties Concept strengthening to 34% and 67% was completed by Beca on 15th April 2013. Repair methodology would, by design, return the building to 100% NBS at the estimated cost of $475,000 - $550,000 City Care DA completed on 6th April 2011 value $6,571 is supported in principal by the insurers as a revised amount from that mentioned in the first bullet point
Next Steps:
Seek response from the insurers since the strengthening report was issued to them in May to assist resolving the insurance position. The insurer response on the 21st May 2013 did not appear to take into account the strengthening report issued earlier that month If the insurance position was agreed in July and then Council approvals (if required) by September, strengthening/repair works could begin and be completed by the end of the first quarter of 2014
ATTACHMENT 1 TO CLAUSE 4 15 COMMUNITY, RECREATION AND CULTURE COMMITTEE 6. 8. 2013
CRaC Committee 06 August Attachment ONE– Top 30 Project Update
HUBS
Sumner Library & Community Centre & Museum
Building Status: Sumner Library: DEMOLISHED Sumner Community Centre: DEMOLISHED
DEE Result: N/A Sumner Library Total Sum Insured $518,021 Indemnity $183,982
Sumner Community Centre Total Sum Insured $887,022 Indemnity $236,771
TOTAL SUM: $1,405,043
Progress to date and current status:
A planned Council report to formally request “approval to progress the Sumner rebuild with conceptual design, estimating, scheduling and community consultation” is due at CRaC on August 6.
Next Steps:
The insurance SOP for the Community Centre being finalised but has been agreed in principle. Council has confirmed its intent and awaits a response from the insurers on indemnity payment and final payment amounts for both assets. Subject to Council approval above assign a PM for the proposed rebuild development.
ATTACHMENT 1 TO CLAUSE 4 16 COMMUNITY, RECREATION AND CULTURE COMMITTEE 6. 8. 2013
CRaC Committee 06 August Attachment ONE– Top 30 Project Update
Bishopdale Library and Community Centre
Building Status: CLOSED DEE Result: 4% NBS - Level 5 October 2012
Total Sum Insured $3,079,101 Indemnity $1,267,623 Insurance Reference: IR0361 Estimated cost to demolish and reinstate $4,518,800
Progress to date and current status:
Council approved in June 2013 to spend $1,248,612 (less advised insurance proceeds of $65,000) totalling $1,183,612 to strengthen the building to 100% NBS. Advised date for completion is June 2014 Council also approved the Chief Executive to award a contract for the repair of the Bishopdale Community Centre and Library up to a value of $1,248,612 +/- 10 per cent. Council also advised the Community Board to consider using some or all of the $300,000 allocated from the Capital Endowment fund on “improvements” to this building. Council staff are reviewing the extent of improvements required and will report back on scope and cost estimates in July/August Opus completed a detailed design for safe access at a cost of $70,000. This has been placed on hold and will likely become part of the actual strengthening work approved by Council as above. Any further DA work would be done at this stage. The insurers issued the raw information in relation to their inspections of the building in 2012 on the 20th May 2013 but without an updated position which, has been requested by Council To correct a previous update the insurer only supports, in principal, a repair scope and cost to $35,601 but acknowledged in writing that recent assessments by their team would likely end up with a revised cost closer to the $65,000 estimate which Council staff have previously advised to Council
Next Steps:
1. Confirm OOS. Track progress once approved. 2. Continue to track the insurer for their updated cost estimate of their DA for this building
ATTACHMENT 1 TO CLAUSE 4 17 COMMUNITY, RECREATION AND CULTURE COMMITTEE 6. 8. 2013
CRaC Committee 02 JULY 2013 Attachment ONE– Top 30 Project Update
Linwood Library
Building Status: CLOSED DEE Result: 25% NBS – April 2012
Total Sum Insured $1,870,768 Indemnity $1,212,795
Progress to date and current status:
A temporary Library and Service Centre was opened in April as a new tenancy in the Eastgate Mall Council’s AOP has been submitted to the insurer with some queries answered in April 2013. The insurer has issued a confirmed SOP agreeing to a repair cost of $146,111 (EQ damage only). Several options for rebuild/repair/demolish/cash settle the insurance went to the asset owner to confirm. These options are still being reviewed Further DAs for this asset are not deemed to be beneficial A master plan is required for the Linwood area which has been referred to the Council Strategy & Planning Team. No update is available at this time but progress in this area is likely to be tied up with a decision on whether to repair/rebuild or demolish this building
Next Steps:
A report to CRaC and Council on the long term future of this Library will be submitted following completion of the Linwood master plan.
ATTACHMENT 1 TO CLAUSE 4 18 COMMUNITY, RECREATION AND CULTURE COMMITTEE 6. 8. 2013
CRaC Committee 02 JULY 2013 Attachment ONE– Top 30 Project Update
Linwood Service Centre and Library Support
Building Status: CLOSED DEE Result: 18% NBS - Level 5 September 2012
Total Sum Insured $2,777,358 Indemnity $1,460,478
Progress to date and current status:
The asset manager has confirmed they wish to proceed with the repairs/strengthening of all three buildings to 34% NBS at $164,200 as a temporary measure to assist resolving accommodation issues for Council staff. Designers were instructed to start design works in late June Design work has started with a consent submission targeted for August. Works are required to be completed before the end of November 2013 to meet the accommodation requirement Council staff have considered it is not financially beneficial to undertake further DA for this asset. In principal staff agree with the insurers scope of repairs however to date the strengthening works are unlikely to be covered by insurance No betterment is planned for these buildings Planned maintenance works are still TBC and if applicable will be incorporated into the strengthening work
Next Steps:
Continue to resolve the insurance position to confirm if any portion of the strengthening may be covered by insurance and so that the agreed repairs can be done at the same time as the strengthening
ATTACHMENT 1 TO CLAUSE 4 19 COMMUNITY, RECREATION AND CULTURE COMMITTEE 6. 8. 2013
CRaC Committee 02 JULY 2013 Attachment ONE– Top 30 Project Update
LIBRARIES
South Library/Service Centre/Learning Centre (incl Distribution Centre)
Building Status: RE OPENED
DEE: Temporary repairs complete, brought building to 34% NBS.
Progress to date and current status: South Library opened late December 2012 after repairs increased it to at least 34% of the New Building Standard. Temporary Building Consent allows occupancy of building until 17 December 2015. Geotechnical final report received 26th February 2013. Basic foundation options for permanent solutions included in report. Settlement has affected foundation. DA OOS agreed on 5th April 2013 for Stage 1 investigation only - enabling a firm fee offer to be agreed DA OOS for Stage 2 agreed 15th May 2013 Level Survey completed by CCC survey crew 12th April 2013 Foundation Damage Assessment complete 5 July 2013
Investigations into the long term solution for this building are ongoing and will be for some time. Stage 1 of DA complete Stage 2 - Task A: foundation repair methodology complete. States cost to repair damage to floor and foundations estimated at $6.6 million Stage 2 - Task C: Structural repair methodology underway
Next Steps:
Broached conversation with Insurers that indemnity value will be exceeded. Complete structural DAs to resolve the insurance position Prepare report to Council to seek approval of long term solution Include in report request for shortfall from insurance funding to complete all repair work. Based on initial estimates this is expected to be in the $1.5 to $2 million range.
ATTACHMENT 1 TO CLAUSE 4 20 COMMUNITY, RECREATION AND CULTURE COMMITTEE 6. 8. 2013
CRaC Committee 02 JULY 2013 Attachment ONE– Top 30 Project Update
Riccarton Voluntary Library (Within Riccarton Community Centre)
Building Status: RE OPENED
DEE: L5 – 100% (within the 1968 building)
Overview of Asset: The Riccarton Voluntary Library is a community service which is run by volunteers. This service is provided outside the Council’s Libraries and Information network.
Business Hours (17 hours/week): Monday-Friday 12 noon-3pm; Saturday 10am-12 noon
Progress to date: See Riccarton Community Centre overview for more information
Next Steps: See Riccarton Community Centre overview for more information.
Mairehau Voluntary Library
Building Status: OPEN
DEE: L5 - 85%
Overview of Asset: The Mairehau Voluntary Library is a community service run by volunteers that is provided outside the CCC Libraries and Information network. The building is 220m2. Council owns and maintains the building and land that houses the voluntary library and provides the building for a nominal rent to the library. The voluntary library is the sole user.
Business Hours (11.5 hours/week): Monday, Tuesday, Wednesday, Thursday & Friday, 2-4pm; Saturday, 10am-11.30am
Progress to date and current status: DA received. Minor additional work required to complete repairs.
Next Steps: Gain agreement on insurance position, and gain approval to undertake repairs (anticipate repair costs will be within staff delegation) Mairehau Voluntary Library repair works targeted for completion by late 2013 ATTACHMENT 1 TO CLAUSE 4 21 COMMUNITY, RECREATION AND CULTURE COMMITTEE 6. 8. 2013
CRaC Committee 02 JULY 2013 Attachment ONE– Top 30 Project Update
St Martins Voluntary Library
Building Status: CLOSED
DEE: Part demolished, Extensive EQ Damage, L4 Qualitative 0-30% NBS Overview Asset: The St. Martins Voluntary Library is a community service provided outside of the CCC Libraries and Information network which is run by volunteers. The building is 265 m2. Council owns and maintains the building and land that houses the voluntary library and provides the building for a nominal rent to the library. The voluntary library is the sole user. The voluntary library service is currently located on the St Martin’s New World site.
Business Hours (19.5 hours/week): Wednesday, Friday & Saturday, 10am-12 noon; Monday-Friday, 2-4.30pm; Friday, 7-8pm
Progress to date and current status: Partially demolished, approximately 70% of building, due to CERA Section 38. Remaining building has suffered significant damage and differential settlements (up to 100 mm) LAT sent SOP on 7 June agreeing total constructive loss Attended Community Board workshop on 2 July to review status
Total Sum Insured = $ 554,760 Replacement Cost Estimate = $967,000 Repair Remaining building and Reinstate demolished portion Cost = $936,000
Next Steps: Options for how this asset will be reinstated are being reviewed. Demolish building if Council approve.
Opawa Voluntary Library
Building Status: CLOSED
DEE: L4 Qualitative 0-30% NBS Overview of Asset: The Opawa Voluntary Library is a volunteer service provided outside the Council’s Libraries and Information Network. Council owns and maintains the building and land that houses the voluntary library and provided the building for a nominal rent to the library. The voluntary library is the sole user of the 240 m2 building, Business Hours (21.5 hours/week): Monday-Friday, 2-4pm; Monday, Wednesday & Friday 6.30-8pm; Saturday 10am-12noon, 2-4pm Progress to date and current status: Structural assessment complete The service is being temporarily provided at the Opawa Children’s Library. DA being commissioned to determine repair methodologies and accompanying costs. Next Steps: Complete necessary DAs to resolve the insurance position and prepare an options report for Council to repair, rebuild or demolish. ATTACHMENT 1 TO CLAUSE 4 22 COMMUNITY, RECREATION AND CULTURE COMMITTEE 6. 8. 2013
CRaC Committee 02 JULY 2013 Attachment ONE– Top 30 Project Update
Opawa Children’s Voluntary Library
Building Status: OPEN
DEE: L5 34% NBS
Overview of Asset: The Opawa Children’s Voluntary Library is a community service run by volunteers. Council owns and maintains the 50 m2 building and land that houses the voluntary library and provides the building for a nominal rent to the library. The voluntary library is the sole user.
Business Hours (21.5 hours/week): Monday-Friday, 2-4pm; Monday, Wednesday and Friday, 6.30-8pm; Saturday 10-12noon, 2-4pm
Prior to earthquakes three voluntary libraries operated within 2 km of each other (Opawa and St. Martin). There is a need to assess future facilities.
Current status: Agreed insurance position with LAT with SOP Received two General Managers approval of repairs at cost of $4,621 Internal repair work completed External repair work (painting) delayed until spring to ensure quality end product. Next Steps: Complete repairs in spring 2013 and hand building back to asset owner. Expected to be complete late 2013. Supply invoices and other documentation to LAT to receive payment of claim.
ATTACHMENT 1 TO CLAUSE 4 23 COMMUNITY, RECREATION AND CULTURE COMMITTEE 6. 8. 2013
CRaC Committee 02 JULY 2013 Attachment ONE– Top 30 Project Update
Hoon Hay Voluntary Library
Building Status: OPEN
DEE: L5 Quantitative 42% NBS
Overview of Asset: The Hoon Hay Voluntary Library is a community service run by volunteers. The building is 53 m2. Council owns and maintains the building and land that houses the voluntary library and provides the building for a nominal rent to the library. The voluntary library as the only user of the building.
Business Hours (4.5 hours/week): Wednesday and Friday, 3-4.30pm; Saturday, 10-11.30am
Progress to date and current status:
Minor earthquake damage and building is on TC3 land. DEE complete. Current library service to remain onsite. Level survey has been requested to be completed by internal staff. Once level survey complete will determine if additional DA items need to be completed. As this library only has minor damage the level survey is being scheduled in after closed or significantly damaged facilities.
Next Steps: Review level survey on receipt. Complete necessary DAs to resolve the insurance position and gain approval to undertake repairs (anticipate repair costs will be within staff delegation). Repair works targeted for completion by late 2013.
ATTACHMENT 1 TO CLAUSE 4 24 COMMUNITY, RECREATION AND CULTURE COMMITTEE 6. 8. 2013
CRaC Committee 02 JULY 2013 Attachment ONE– Top 30 Project Update
Heathcote Voluntary Library
Building Status: CLOSED
DEE: N/A - Extensive EQ damage.
Overview of Asset: The Heathcote Voluntary Library is a community service provided outside of the CCC Libraries and Information network which is run by volunteers. The building is 88 m2. Council owns and maintains the building and land that houses the voluntary library and provides the building nominal rent to the library. It is a single use facility with the Voluntary library as the sole user.
Historic Hours (11.5 hours/week): Monday, 10.30-12 noon & 6.45-8pm; Tuesday, 2-4pm; Wednesday, 6.45-8pm; Thursday, 2- 4pm; Friday, 6.45-8pm; Saturday, 9.45-12 noon
Progress to date and current status: CERA issued a demolition notice section 38 for this facility. Total loss agreed with LAT. Council requested staff request CERA to halt demolition on Heathcote Voluntary Library, and respond with “make safe” plan on 5th March 2013. Staff presented cost of repair and rebuild options to Council 24th April 2013. Estimated cost to repair $283,213 Insured value $148,910 Council agreed in principle to the joint facility of the Heathcote Voluntary Library and Heathcote Community Centre on 24th April 2013 Staff gained CERA approval of Make Safe plan on 29th April 2013. Approval was conditioned on paying invoice for dissolving demolition contract. Payment of CERA invoice completed week commencing 20th May 2013 Make Safe work tentatively scheduled for week commencing 30 August 2013 Progress now linked to Heathcote Community Centre insurance position. Progress stalled due to unresponsiveness of LAT on Heathcote Community Centre. LAT DA onsite completed 24th March 2013. LAT returning onsite with SKM per email sent 10 July 2013.
Next Steps:
Make safe work scheduled for 30 August 2013. Receive agreement from insurer on relocation of facility to Heathcote Community Centre Receive agreement on Heathcote Community Centre insurance position Prepare options report for Council
ATTACHMENT 1 TO CLAUSE 4 25 COMMUNITY, RECREATION AND CULTURE COMMITTEE 6. 8. 2013
CRaC Committee 02 JULY 2013 Attachment ONE– Top 30 Project Update
Redcliffs Voluntary Library
Building Status: DEMOLISHED
DEE: N/A - Demolished
Overview of asset: The Redcliffs Voluntary Library is a community service which is run by volunteers. The demolished building was 186 m2. It is temporarily located at the local tennis club. Council owns the land that the voluntary library building was located on and had provided the building for a nominal rent to the library.
Business Hours (22 hours/week): Monday-Friday 10am-4pm; Saturday, 10.30am-12.30pm
Progress to date and current status: Facility demolished due to CERA section 38. Total loss agreed with LAT Rebuild/strategic options assessment required. N.B Voluntary library has taken 5 year lease on the existing site. Council agreed in principle to ringfence insurance funds for Redcliff’s Public Library on 24th April 2013. Total sum insured: $440,432 Replacement cost: $1,200,000 SOP received from LAT on 12 June 2013 (dated 11 June 2013) stating temporary building does not compromise insurance position Council responded to the Redcliffs Public Library Incorporated with letter dated 11 June 2013 agreeing in principal with the Redcliffs Public Library Incorporated plan for a temporary building onsite.
Next Steps:
Redcliffs Voluntary Library Inc to move forward with temporary building onsite at their cost. A report to council on the long term future of this asset will be presented following the completion of the Main Rd Master Plan.
ATTACHMENT 1 TO CLAUSE 4 26 COMMUNITY, RECREATION AND CULTURE COMMITTEE 6. 8. 2013
CRaC Committee 02 JULY 2013 Attachment ONE– Top 30 Project Update
Woolston Voluntary Library
Building Status: DEMOLISHED
DEE: N/A - Demolished
Progress to date and current status:
The Woolston Voluntary Library is a community service run by volunteers. The demolished building was approximately 220 m2. Council owns the land that the voluntary library building was located on and had provided the building for a nominal rent to the library. The service is provided outside the Council’s Libraries and Information Network.
Business Hours (12 hours/week): Mon, Wed & Frid 1-3pm; Tues, Thurs & Sat, 10.30am-12.30pm. NB Temporary location at Scout Den
Demolished due to CERA Section 38 notice. Total loss agreed with LAT
Rebuild costs/strategic options under review. These need to align with the Ferry Road Master Plan.
Next Steps: Council report will be prepared for mid 2013, post Voluntary Library Strategy adoption and completion of the Ferry Road Master Plan.
ATTACHMENT 1 TO CLAUSE 4 27 COMMUNITY, RECREATION AND CULTURE COMMITTEE 6. 8. 2013
CRaC Committee 02 JULY 2013 Attachment ONE– Top 30 Project Update
CORPORATE ACCOMMODATION
Lyttleton Service Centre
Building Status: CLOSED – service reinstated in temporary facility (located at 15 London Street).
DEE: 10% NBS (56% NBS pre-Earthquake)
Progress to date and current status:
Building has suffered major damage. Received Strengthening Report with cost estimates, comments are being incorporated.
Repair and Strengthening cost estimate for 34%, 67%, 100% and replacement were updated to 2013 values. Reports and cost information sent to LAT end of February 2013 and original response date of 15th March 2013.
Total Sum Insured = $694,875 Replacement Cost Estimate = $1,839,600 Repair Cost = $615,120 (34%) (does not included $70,000 of completed propping/repair works)
Progress has stalled due to the insurance process. LAT is performing an independent repair estimate, which is yet to be received. Council received peer review of DEE report from LAT on 20 May 2013 this included a level survey and was dated 16 May 2012, this report confirmed the Council SKM report listing damage. Building prior to earthquake was 56% NBS. To bring building to 34% NBS will cost $615,000 as such repairs will exceed sum insured.
Staff are investigating a number of options to present to CRAC, including the possibility of combining some or all of the services offered in this building with the neighbouring Library.
Next Steps: Following LAT agreement bring report to Council.
ATTACHMENT 1 TO CLAUSE 4 28 COMMUNITY, RECREATION AND CULTURE COMMITTEE 6. 8. 2013
CRaC Committee 02 JULY 2013 Attachment ONE– Top 30 Project Update
RECREATION & SPORT
Waltham Pool
Building Status: CLOSED
DEE: L4 Asset NBS Waltham Pool Main Complex 6% Waltham Pool Staff Room 3% Waltham Pool Plant Room 3% Waltham Pool 50% Waltham Pavillion 15% Waltham Toilets Waltham BBQ Shelter 41% Waltham Pool Water Slide 39%
Progress to date and current status:
Damage assessment has been tabled to CCC staff in draft, comments to be updated by 16th July 2013 Alternative “rationalised” architectural scheme has been completed for the main building only, this has been costed based on the recreation and sport team’s assessment of the requirements (size of buildings based on historic attendance data) Cost effective strengthening scheme ordered in parallel with DA, information on budget 67% NBS strengthening scheme will be submitted 16th July 2013
Total Sum Insured = $1,363,856* Replacement Cost Estimate = $5,776,000 Repair Cost = due June 10th 2013 Rationalised site concept estimate = $1,500,000** Strengthening scheme cost = due June 28th 2013
*Insurance split between 8 separately insured assets ** Scheme cost is the council cost for a new main building, staff rooms and reception, as well as council required uplift from insurance costs which will be insufficient to cover repair of the plant room and BBQ area. This scheme assumes the retention and repair of the pool, hydroslide, hardstand areas, perimeter walls, and the toddlers pool within insurance coverage.
Next Steps:
Finalise DA report and lodge claim with insurer. Complete options study for the highest value, lowest cost option to reopen the complex by summer 2014/15 and present report to CRaC.
ATTACHMENT 1 TO CLAUSE 4 29 COMMUNITY, RECREATION AND CULTURE COMMITTEE 6. 8. 2013
CRaC Committee 02 JULY 2013 Attachment ONE– Top 30 Project Update
Norman Kirk Memorial Pool – Lyttelton
Building status: CLOSED
DEE: L4 Received Asset NBS Lyttelton swimming pool ‐ Lyttelton swimming pool Plant Room 39% Lyttelton Ladies Change Room 18% Lyttelton Mens change room 18% Lyttelton Nursery 35% Lyttelton Lean To Shelter 10%
Progress to date:
DA complete
Current status: . Community Board briefing completed, three meetings of the working party have been completed, two of which were attended by council staff so that technical background could be provided Community Board has a top ten design inputs to the repair/rebuild of the pool Community Board working party decided that they want the pool rebuilt in the same place, with little change to the format of the design Insurance claim has been lodged based on full economic loss basis, insurer has engaged their own engineer to assess the site, no timeframe has been given for reply and resolution
Total Sum Insured = $954,424* Repair Cost = $2.0m Replacement cost = $2.4m Other options = working party recommends replacement/repair of the facility on the same site, with minor changes to the design such as BBQ area on the grass, and more shade in general.
*Insurance split between six separately insured assets
Next Steps:
Awaiting LAT response – LAT has engaged engineers, no timeframes provided.
ATTACHMENT 1 TO CLAUSE 4 30 COMMUNITY, RECREATION AND CULTURE COMMITTEE 6. 8. 2013
CRaC Committee 02 JULY 2013 Attachment ONE– Top 30 Project Update
Lyttelton Recreation Centre and Trinity Hall (interconnected facilities)
Building status: CLOSED
DEE: L4 Received - Trinity Hall 11% NBS Lyttleton Recreation Centre 15% NBS Progress to date:
DA complete, building is repairable within insured value
Current status:
Community Board briefing completed, working party outputs will be collated by end of July 2013. Overarching feedback from working party meetings was that they community want the service back as soon as possible, particularly Trinity Hall. There is currently insufficient community meeting space, the situation will be worsened by the loss of the school hall next year. Insurance claim has been lodged based on reparable facility basis, LAT has engaged their own engineer to do a separate damage assessment, no timeframes have been provided.
Total Sum Insured = $3,734,294 Repair Cost = $2.315m Cost to strengthen to 67% NBS = $250k Other options = TBC following working party
Next Steps:
Awaiting LAT response – CCC have provided evidence of the EQ damage the buildings have suffered – LAT are currently “unable give a definitive timescale” on their response, they have engaged their own engineer to assess the damage and cost to repair.
ATTACHMENT 1 TO CLAUSE 4 31 COMMUNITY, RECREATION AND CULTURE COMMITTEE 6. 8. 2013
CRaC Committee 02 JULY 2013 Attachment ONE– Top 30 Project Update
Whale Paddling Pool New Brighton
Building status: RE-OPENED
DEE: N/A for Paddling Pools.
Current status: Repair work was completed on Whale Pool at the end of October 2012. A community event was held with great success on 17th November 2012 which marked the formal reopening of the pool. This facility has been enjoyed by many throughout the 12/13 summer season.
Next Steps: Currently in negotiation with insurer to claim back cost of repairing EQ damage.
Botanic Gardens Paddling Pool
Building status: RE-OPENED
DEE: N/A for Paddling Pools. Changing/Toilets - 34% Total Sum Insured: $89,155 Indemnity: $17,098
Current status:
Repair work to the pool surround was completed at the end of October 2012. Both large and small pools opened for the 2011/2012, and 2012/2013 summer seasons There is on going work to investigate the level of the main pool. Insurance claim therefore not final.
Next steps:
Following a meeting on site with the LAT , further work is required to investigate the repair methodology for the solar weirs. Staff are working with the insurers to come up with a pragmatic solution.
ATTACHMENT 1 TO CLAUSE 4 32 COMMUNITY, RECREATION AND CULTURE COMMITTEE 6. 8. 2013
CRaC Committee 02 JULY 2013 Attachment ONE– Top 30 Project Update
Scarborough Paddling Pool
Building status: DEMOLISHED
DEE: N/A for Paddling Pools. Total Sum Insured: $60,342 Pool Pumphouse: $6,874 Changing Room: $12,643 Shelter: $12,643 Pool Tank: None
Progress to date:
Owner Initiated Demolition commenced 15th July 2013 and will be completed by Mid August. The area will be grass while decisions on the future use are considered.
Staff from Recreation and Sport and the Facilities Rebuild team attended the Hagley- Ferrymead Community Board on July 3rd to seek a recommendation on how to engage with the community.
A number of rebuild options have been identified and high level cost estimates are as follows: Like for like replacement. estimated at $765,000 Rebuild the pool, plant room and shelter - No changing sheds. estimated at $640,000 “Splash Pad” interactive water facility without a pool tank. Estimated to cost less than $640,000 Reinstatement of parkland area
Next Steps:
Staff will follow the Community Boards recommendation and after community consultation prepare a report to CRaC on the future of this asset.
ATTACHMENT 1 TO CLAUSE 4 33 COMMUNITY, RECREATION AND CULTURE COMMITTEE 6. 8. 2013
CRaC Committee 06 JULY 2013 Attachment ONE– Top 30 Project Update
GREENSPACE
Scarborough Jet Boat Building
Total Sum Insured: $106,206
Building Status: CLOSED
DEE: L5 Quantitative 10% NBS (final)
Progress to date:
Currently only $11,736 worth of insurance funding has been approved by the insurers. Staff continue to negotiate this.
Council’s engineers have produced a building strengthening report to 34, 67 and 100% NBS. The estimated cost to strengthening to 34% NBS is $88,000, 67% NBS is $185,000 and to 100% NBS is $448,000
Staff have received an estimate to rebuild the existing building “like for like”. The estimated cost to complete this is $243,730. Staff have also received an estimate to rebuild a single storey garage with “like for like” materials. The estimated cost to complete this is $159,677.66.
Staff are currently in discussion with the club occupying the building regarding the feasibility of the rebuild or repair of the building, whether or not they can contribute funding towards the project, and whether or not they require the building to be fully reinstated.
Current status:
The Greenspace unit has gained official approval for the jet boat and its towing vehicle to be temporarily housed in the Sumner Police Station Garage. It will be situated there until the Jet Boat Building can be repaired. This adds seven minutes to the response time.
Next Steps:
The Greenspace unit are working with the Sumner Lifeboat Institution and discussing all available options. This may include repair, sale or funding partnerships. A proposal will come before the CRaC Committee and Council once developed.
ATTACHMENT 1 TO CLAUSE 4 34 COMMUNITY, RECREATION AND CULTURE COMMITTEE 6. 8. 2013
CRaC Committee 06 JULY 2013 Attachment ONE– Top 30 Project Update
Scarborough Life Boat Building
Total Sum Insured: $682,865
Building Status: OPEN
DEE: L4 Qualitative 50% NBS (Final) Progress to date:
The NBS value is over 34% NBS, therefore no strengthening will be performed on the building at this stage.
Current status: A level survey has been requested and the drains and sewer pipes checked for breaks. A DA was received 10th April 2013 documenting earthquake related structural and cosmetic damage and a method and cost for repair. This report was sent to the LAT for approval 11th April 2013. The LAT approved the items listed in the DA 10th June 2013; however a contractor’s quote has now been requested from City Care. Staff await this. Next Steps: City Care will be asked to review their scope to include items which had been identified in the damage assessment but missed in their initial scope. This will be resubmitted to the LAT for approval.
ATTACHMENT 1 TO CLAUSE 4 35 COMMUNITY, RECREATION AND CULTURE COMMITTEE 6. 8. 2013
CRaC Committee 06 JULY 2013 Attachment ONE– Top 30 Project Update
Sumner Surf Club Toilets
Building Status: DEMOLISHED
DEE: N/A – N.B. Severely compromised (demolition approved)
Progress to date:
The building is insured for a total sum of $574,763
Insurers have approved demolition of the building and also confirmed insurance available for the replacement of the building. The final replacement cost will be negotiated once the new building’s costings are received.
The demolition of the toilet block was approved by the CRAC Committee 5th February 2013 and Council on 28th February 2013
A detailed design and landscaping plan has been prepared by the Sumner Surf Life Saving Club (SSLSC) and has been presented in 3 pre application meetings to Council staff. Work is still being completed to refine these documents.
The lodging of recourse consent has been delayed, but is expected to be lodged by Friday 19th July.
On receipt of the approved resource consent, the final drawings can be completed for costing and building consent. With this information the replacement cost can be finalised with the LAT and the design and project economics can be presented to Council for approval.
The land which the new building sits upon is owned by the Crown, therefore the SSLSC and Council need to apply for separate leases directly with the Crown. Council staff have negotiated the land apportionment with the SSLSC and both Council staff and the SSLSC have submitted their lease applications to Land Information New Zealand (LINZ). In the mean time Council staff will seek approval from CRaC and Council to engage in such a lease.
The CCC Heritage team has removed the clock, bell and flag pole from the building and are safely storing them until the items can be to be reinstated into the new building.
Current status:
Demolition of the building and site has been completed.
Next Steps:
Finalise replacement cost with insurers. Secure Lease with Crown Continue to liaise with The Sumner Surf Club and Sumner Master plan project team.
ATTACHMENT 1 TO CLAUSE 4 36 COMMUNITY, RECREATION AND CULTURE COMMITTEE 6. 8. 2013
CRaC Committee 06 JULY 2013 Attachment ONE– Top 30 Project Update
Lyttelton Visitors Centre and Toilet
Building Status: RE-OPENED
DEE: L5 DEE Finalised – 78% NBS
Current status:
Building is now open and operating. CERA issues with retaining wall around the back of the building are unresolved and access behind the building is restricted.
Next Steps:
Retaining wall assessment to be undertaken along with remedial works.
ATTACHMENT 1 TO CLAUSE 4 37 COMMUNITY, RECREATION AND CULTURE COMMITTEE 6. 8. 2013
CRaC Committee 06 JULY 2013 Attachment ONE– Top 30 Project Update
Botanic Gardens Glasshouses
Building Status: CLOSED
DEE: Cunningham - L5 Nov 12 NBS 23% - Closed Foweraker - L5 Sept 12 NBS 22% - Closed Fernery – L5 Sept 12 NBS 50% - OPEN Garrick and Gilpin - L5 Sept 12 NBS <33% - Closed Townend - L5 Sept 12 NBS <33% - Closed
Progress to date and current status:
Cunningham House – DA scope completed by insurer has been agreed with Council and specialist advice has been sort on beginning the repairs and a suitable repair methodology will be considered by the heritage team. After a few weeks delay to undertake some more intrusive investigation in key structural areas of the building Structural Concepts are now underway with the strengthening design options. The design is now due in late July. Target EQ damage repair and strengthening works complete by Xmas, subject to the scope of strengthening works still to be designed.
Foweraker – Some minor intrusive works have recently been completed and the findings may enable Opus to recalculate the DEE from 22% to >33%. This is likely to be confirmed in early August after Opus and Structural Concepts have met. While no EQ damage was noted Structural Concepts are still to comment on behalf of the insurer that minor cracking in the steel frame is/is not EQ damage. Strengthening concepts, costs and timing for the work will be confirmed following confirmation of the revised DEE.
Fernery – Re-opened April 2013. OOS received from Opus for strengthening to 67% and this was approved by Council 7 May. Design work is complete and works are being costed in July for Council approval. An aspect of foundation cracking is being further investigated by Structural Concepts and a report is due in early August.
Garrick and Gilpin – The insurer has agreed to complete an EQ repair scope document as done for Cunningham House. This is underway and expected from Insight in the next 2 weeks. The Structural Concept designs for strengthening to 34% and 67% NBS are due in the next week Target date for repair works completion TBC following completion of the strengthening designs.
Townend - The insurer has agreed to complete an EQ repair scope document as done for Cunningham House. Structural Concept will review the DEE NBS % comments from Opus and advise a more accurate NBS%. The Structural Concept designs for strengthening to 34% and 67% NBS are due in the next week. Target date for repair works completion TBC following completion of the strengthening designs.
ATTACHMENT 1 TO CLAUSE 4 38 COMMUNITY, RECREATION AND CULTURE COMMITTEE 6. 8. 2013
CRaC Committee 06 JULY 2013 Attachment ONE– Top 30 Project Update
Next Steps:
Completion of the strengthening designs is now July Seek OOS for cost estimates of the proposed strengthening designs A Council report will be prepared as soon as all key reports are complete and priced, including betterment and maintenance estimates. The target date is August. Resolve insurance position for Garrick/Gilpin, Townend House and Fernery. (Cunningham House agreed and Foweraker deemed no EQ damage)
ATTACHMENT 1 TO CLAUSE 4 39 COMMUNITY, RECREATION AND CULTURE COMMITTEE 6. 8. 2013
CRaC Committee 06 JULY 2013 Attachment ONE– Top 30 Project Update
HERITAGE (REFER ATTACHMENT 5)
40 ATTACHMENT 2 TO CLAUSE 4 COMMUNITY, RECREATION AND CULTURE COMMITTEE 6. 8. 2013 41
ATTACHMENT 2: Top 30 Facilities Status Update
Community Facilities 25% 50% 75% 100% Planned Target DEE Assessment % complete 6 Sept 2012 Sydenham Closed Creche Damage Assessment and options% complete 17 June 2013 17 July 2013 Insurance negotiation and SOP % complete Sept 2013 Approval report to CRaC/Council Nov2013
6 Dec 2012 23 May 2013 Fendalton Open DEE Assessment % complete Community Damage Assessment and options% complete 13 May 2013 Centre Insurance negotiation and SOP % complete 21 June 2013 21 June 2013 Approval report to CRaC/Council Services repairs for $30,000 should have gone to council GM approval
27 Nov 2011 Riccarton Partially DEE Assessment % complete Damage Assessment and options% complete 8 July 2013 8 Aug 2013 Community Open Centre Insurance negotiation and SOP % complete 19 Aug 2013 Approval report to CRaC/Council Oct 2013
South Brighton Demolished Transitional facility onsite and expected to open in October 2013 Community Centre
17 Feb 2012 Risingholme Open DEE Assessment % complete Craft Work- Damage Assessment and options% complete 6 June 2013 shop Insurance negotiation and SOP % complete 30 May 2013 Approval report to CRaC/Council 2 July 2013 27 June 2013 ATTACHMENT 2 TO CLAUSE 4 COMMUNITY, RECREATION AND CULTURE COMMITTEE 6. 8. 2013 42
Hubs 25% 50% 75% 100% Planned Target DEE Assessment % complete 1 Oct 2012 Bishopdale Closed Community Damage Assessment and options% complete 30 Aug 2012 Centre Insurance negotiation and SOP % complete 18 Oct 2013 Approval report to CRaC/Council Dec 2013
Sumner Demolished Future options for a community hub being explored. A report will go to the August Council/CRAC Community meeting. Insurance SOP being finalised. Centre
12 April 2012 Linwood Closed DEE Assessment % complete Library Damage Assessment and options% complete 24 July 2012 Insurance negotiation and SOP % complete 16 Aug 2013 Approval report to CRaC/Council Oct 2013
12 Sept 2012 Linwood Closed DEE Assessment % complete Service Damage Assessment and options% complete 27 May 2013 Centre Insurance negotiation and SOP % complete 8 July 2013 8 Aug 2013 Approval report to CRaC/Council Sept 2013
1 Oct 2012 Linwood Open DEE Assessment % complete Library Damage Assessment and options% complete 13 May 2013 Support Insurance negotiation and SOP % complete 8 July 2013 8 Aug 2013 Approval report to CRaC/Council Sept 2013
27 Sept 2012 Linwood Open DEE Assessment % complete Resource Damage Assessment and options% complete 13 May 2013 Centre Insurance negotiation and SOP % complete 8 July 2013 8 Aug 2013 Approval report to CRaC/Council Sept 2013
17 Dec 2012 Hei Hei Closed DEE Assessment % complete Community Damage Assessment and options% complete 15 April 2013 Centre Insurance negotiation and SOP % complete 17 June 2013 17 July 2013 Approval report to CRaC/Council Aug 2013 ATTACHMENT 2 TO CLAUSE 4 COMMUNITY, RECREATION AND CULTURE COMMITTEE 6. 8. 2013 43 Libraries 25% 50% 75% 100% Planned Actual DEE Assessment % complete 20 July 2012 South Library Open Damage Assessment and options% complete 30 May 2013 Aug 2013 Insurance negotiation and SOP % complete Aug 2013 Approval report to CRaC/Council Sept 2013
DEE Assessment % complete 22 Feb 2013 Opawa Open Childrens’ Damage Assessment and options% complete 13 March 2013 Volunteer Insurance negotiation and SOP % complete 2 May 2013 Library Approval report to CRaC/Council GM approval 1 July 2011 St Martins Closed DEE Assessment % complete Volunteer Damage Assessment and options% complete 5 April 2013 1 May 2013 Library Insurance negotiation and SOP % complete 1 June 2013 June 2013 Approval report to CRaC/Council June 2013 Sept 2013
Woolston Demolished Future options being explored as part of the Voluntary Library Review. Volunteer 8 Aug 2013 Library
Redcliffs Demolished Future options being explored. Volunteer 8 Aug 2013 Library
DEE Assessment % complete 12 Dec 2012 Mairehau Open Volunteer Damage Assessment and options% complete 21 May 2013 17 June 2013 8 Aug 2013 Library Insurance negotiation and SOP % complete 14 June 2013 Sept 2013 Approval report to CRaC/Council GM approval
17 July 2013 ATTACHMENT 2 TO CLAUSE 4 COMMUNITY, RECREATION AND CULTURE COMMITTEE 6. 8. 2013 44 Libraries 25% 50% 75% 100% Planned Actual DEE Assessment % complete 7 Dec 2012 Hoon Hay Open Volunteer Damage Assessment and options% complete 16 Sept 2013 Library Insurance negotiation and SOP % complete 30 Sept 2013 GM approval
1 June 2012 Opawa Closed DEE Assessment % complete Adults Damage Assessment and options% complete Aug 2013 Library Insurance negotiation and SOP % complete Aug 2013 Approval report to CRaC/Council Sept 2013
DEE Assessment % complete 7 Nov 2011 Heathcote Closed Volunteer Damage Assessment and options% complete Library Insurance negotiation and SOP % complete 10 Oct 2012 Approval report to CRaC/Council Sept 2013
DEE Assessment % complete 27 Nov 2011 Riccarton Open Volunteer Damage Assessment and options% complete See Community Centre Library Insurance negotiation and SOP % complete See Community Centre Approval report to CRaC/Council See Community Centre
Corporate Accommodation 25% 50% 75% 100% DEE Assessment % complete 2 Nov 2012 Lyttelton Closed Service Damage Assessment and options% complete 20 Feb 2013 Centre Insurance negotiation and SOP % complete 30 May 2013 Aug 2013 Approval report to CRaC/Council July 2013 Sept 2013 ATTACHMENT 2 TO CLAUSE 4 COMMUNITY, RECREATION AND CULTURE COMMITTEE 6. 8. 2013 45 Greenspace 25% 50% 75% 100% Planned Actual DEE Assessment % complete 1 Nov 2012 Botanic Closed Gardens Damage Assessment and options% complete 20 May 2013 20 July 2013 Cunningham Insurance negotiation and SOP % complete 5 July 2013 17 May 2013 House Approval report to CRaC/Council Oct 2013 Botanic Open Options for strengthening to 67% of New Building Standard are complete. Cost being estimated for approval. 31 May 2013 31 June 2013 Gardens The Fernery
DEE Assessment % complete 1 Sept 2012 Botanic Closed Gardens Damage Assessment and options% complete 10 June 2013 20 July 2013 Gillespie Insurance negotiation and SOP % complete 29 July 2013 Glasshouse Approval report to CRaC/Council Oct 2013 DEE Assessment % complete 1 Sept 2012 Botanic Closed Gardens Damage Assessment and options% complete 10 June 2013 26 June 2013 Foweraker Insurance negotiation and SOP % complete 29 July 2013 1 June 2013 Glasshouse Approval report to CRaC/Council Oct 2013 DEE Assessment % complete 14 Jan 2013 Scarborough Closed Jetboat Damage Assessment and options% complete 18 April 2013 Building Insurance negotiation and SOP % complete 18 April 2013 Approval report to CRaC/Council May 2013
DEE Assessment % complete 11 June 2012 Scarborough Open Lifeboat Damage Assessment and options% complete 19 April 2013 Building Insurance negotiation and SOP % complete May 2013 Approval report to CRaC/Council July 2013
Sumner Surf Demolishing Future options for new facility being explored, decision to be made as part of approval of Sumner Village Centre Master Plan. Club Toilets Insurance SOP being finalised.
Lyttelton Open Information Centre ATTACHMENT 2 TO CLAUSE 4 COMMUNITY, RECREATION AND CULTURE COMMITTEE 6. 8. 2013 46 Sport and recreation 25% 50% 75% 100% Planned Actual Whale Pool Open New Brighton
Scarborough To be Area to be grassed over while future options for the site to be considered. Insurance SOP being finalised. Paddling Pool demolished
DEE Assessment % complete No DEE required Botanic Open Gardens Damage Assessment and options% complete 13 June 2013 Paddling Pool Insurance negotiation and SOP % complete 13 June 2013 Approval report to CRaC/Council 6 Aug 2013
DEE Assessment % complete Oct 2012 Norman Kirk Closed Memorial Pool Damage Assessment % complete 24 April 2013 Insurance negotiation and SOP % complete Aug 2013 Approval report to CRaC/Council Sept 2013
DEE Assessment % complete Oct 2012 Lyttelton Closed Recreation Damage Assessment % complete 19 April 2013 Centre Insurance negotiation and SOP % complete Sept 2013 Approval report to CRaC/Council Oct 2013
DEE Assessment % complete March 2012 Waltham Pool Closed Damage Assessment and options% complete June 2013 Insurance negotiation and SOP % complete Aug 2013 Approval report to CRaC/Council Sept 2013 ATTACHMENT 2 TO CLAUSE 4 47 Heritage COMMUNITY, RECREATION AND CULTURE25% COMMITTEE 6. 8. 50%2013 75% 100% Planned Actual DEE Assessment % complete Oct 2012 Gaiety Hall Closed Damage Assessment and options% complete June 2013 Insurance negotiation and SOP % complete June 2013 Approval report to CRaC/Council Sept 2013
DEE Assessment % complete Nov 2012 Akaroa Service Closed Centre Damage Assessment and options% complete June 2013 Insurance negotiation and SOP % complete June 2013 Approval report to CRaC/Council Sept 2013
DEE Assessment % complete Sept 2012 Sign of the Kiwi Closed Damage Assessment and options% complete June 2013 Insurance negotiation and SOP % complete June 2013 Approval report to CRaC/Council Sept 2013
DEE Assessment % complete Aug 2013 Canterbury Closed Provincial Damage Assessment and options% complete Feb 2014 Chambers Insurance negotiation and SOP % complete June 2013 Approval report to CRaC/Council May 2014
DEE Assessment % complete Oct 2012 Sign of the Closed Takahe Damage Assessment and options% complete June 2013 Insurance negotiation and SOP % complete June 2013 Approval report to CRaC/Council Sept 2013
DEE Assessment % complete N/A Our City Otautahi Closed Damage Assessment and options% complete April 2013 Insurance negotiation and SOP % complete May 2013 Approval report to CRaC/Council June 2013
DEE Assessment % complete Oct 2012 Old Stone House Closed Damage Assessment and options% complete June 2013 Insurance negotiation and SOP % complete June 2013 Approval report to CRaC/Council Sept 2013
DEE Assessment % complete Nov 2012 Akaroa Museum Partially Damage Assessment and options% complete June 2013 Open Insurance negotiation and SOP % complete June 2013 Approval report to CRaC/Council Sept 2013 ATTACHMENT 2 TO CLAUSE 4 COMMUNITY, RECREATION AND CULTURE COMMITTEE 6. 8. 2013 48
Work Package 2 Facilities Status Update Chart
Community Facilities 25% 50% 75% 100% Planned Actual DEE Assessment % complete Level 5 - 3 Dec 2012 St Albans Open Creche Damage Assessment and options% complete 3 June 2013 3 July 2013 Insurance negotiation and SOP % complete 17 June 2013 27 July 2013 Approval report to CRaC/Council Sept 2013
Level 5 - 10 Sept 2012 Duvauchelle Open DEE Assessment % complete Community Hall Damage Assessment and options% complete 17 May 2013 (Banks Insurance negotiation and SOP % complete 26 April 2011 Peninsula) Approval report to CRaC/Council N/A 27 June 10 October 201 Little Akaloa Open DEE Assessment % complete Community Hall Damage Assessment and options% complete 14 June 2012 (Banks Insurance negotiation and SOP % complete 30 June 2012 Peninsula) Approval report to CRaC/Council 2 July 2012 27 June Okains Bay Open DEE Assessment % complete Level 5 - 10 Sept 2012 Community Damage Assessment and options% complete N/A Centre (Banks Insurance negotiation and SOP % complete 26 April 2011 Peninsula) Approval report to CRaC/Council 2 July 2012 Level 5 - 7 Dec 2012 Woolston Open DEE Assessment % complete Creche Damage Assessment and options% complete 3 Oct 2011 Insurance negotiation and SOP % complete 10 Oct 2011 Approval report to CRaC/Council N/A ATTACHMENT 2 TO CLAUSE 4 COMMUNITY, RECREATION AND CULTURE COMMITTEE 6. 8. 2013 49 Community Facilities 25% 50% 75% 100% Planned Actual DEE Assessment % complete Level 4 - 7 Feb 2013 Allendale Closed Community Damage Assessment and options% complete 6 Apr 2013 Centre Insurance negotiation and SOP % complete Sept 2013 Approval report to CRaC/Council Oct 2013
Level 2 - 24 Mar 2011 Heathcote Closed DEE Assessment % complete Community Damage Assessment and options% complete 1 March 2012 Centre Insurance negotiation and SOP % complete 10 June 2013 Approval report to CRaC/Council Sept 2013
Level 5 - 17 Dec 2012 Hei Hei Closed DEE Assessment % complete Community Damage Assessment and options% complete 15 April 2013 Centre Insurance negotiation and SOP % complete 17 June 2013 Approval report to CRaC/Council Sept 2013
Wainoni Closed DEE Assessment % complete 18 July 2012 Community Damage Assessment and options% complete 2 May 2013 3 July 2013 Centre Insurance negotiation and SOP % complete Sept 2013 Approval report to CRaC/Council Oct 2013 27 July 2013 26 Oct 2012 Northbeach Closed DEE Assessment % complete Community Damage Assessment and options% complete 28 June 2013 Creche Insurance negotiation and SOP % complete 12 Aug 2013 Approval report to CRaC/Council Oct 2013 ATTACHMENT 2 TO CLAUSE 4 COMMUNITY, RECREATION AND CULTURE COMMITTEE 6. 8. 2013 50 Libraries 25% 50% 75% 100% Planned Actual DEE Assessment % complete 21 June 2012 Papanui Library Open Damage Assessment and options% complete 10 June 2013 16 July 2013 Insurance negotiation and SOP % complete 10 Sept 2013 Approval report to CRaC/Council Oct 2013
DEE Assessment % complete 28 June 2013 11 June 2013 Lyttelton Library Open Damage Assessment and options% complete 30 Aug 2013 Insurance negotiation and SOP % complete 15 Dec 2013 Approval report to CRaC/Council Feb 2014
19 Dec 2012 Parklands Open DEE Assessment % complete Library Damage Assessment and options% complete 30 Aug 2013 Jan 2014 Insurance negotiation and SOP % complete 15 Dec 2013 Approval report to CRaC/Council Feb 2014
Sept 2012 New Brighton Open DEE Assessment % complete Library Damage Assessment and options% complete 15 July 2013 5 Aug 2013 Insurance negotiation and SOP % complete 15 Oct 2013 Approval report to CRaC/Council Dec 2013
9 Jan 2013 Shirley Library Open DEE Assessment % complete Damage Assessment and options% complete 26 July 2013 Jan 2014 Insurance negotiation and SOP % complete 26 Oct 2013 Approval report to CRaC/Council Dec 2013
30 Jan 2012 Spreydon Open DEE Assessment % complete Library Damage Assessment and options% complete 26 July 2013 Jan 2014 Insurance negotiation and SOP % complete 26 Oct 2013 Approval report to CRaC/Council Dec 2013
12 April 2013 Upper Riccarton Open DEE Assessment % complete Library Damage Assessment and options% complete 1 August 2013 Jan 2014 Insurance negotiation and SOP % complete 1 Nov 2013 Approval report to CRaC/Council Dec 2013 ATTACHMENT 2 TO CLAUSE 4 COMMUNITY, RECREATION AND CULTURE COMMITTEE 6. 8. 2013 51 Sport and Recreation 25% 50% 75% 100% Planned Actual DEE Assessment % complete Jellie Park Closed (Plant Room) Damage Assessment and options% complete 28 June 2013 July 2013 Insurance negotiation and SOP % complete Sept 2013 Approval report to CRaC/Council Oct 2013
Pioneer Leisure Open DEE Assessment % complete Centre Damage Assessment and options% complete 19 July 2013 Aug 2013 Insurance negotiation and SOP % complete 16 Aug 2013 Approval report to CRaC/Council Sept 2013
Wharenui Pool Partially DEE Assessment % complete Damage Assessment and options% complete 19 July 2013 Aug 2013 and Recreation Open Centre Insurance negotiation and SOP % complete 16 Aug 2013 Approval report to CRaC/Council Sept 2013
Sockburn Partially DEE Assessment % complete Squash Centre Damage Assessment and options% complete 28 June 2013 July 2013 Open Insurance negotiation and SOP % complete 26 July 2013 Aug 2013 Approval report to CRaC/Council Aug 2013 Sept 2013
Wigram Gym Open DEE Assessment % complete Damage Assessment and options% complete 31 May 2013 Insurance negotiation and SOP % complete July 2013 Approval report to CRaC/Council Aug 2013
DEE Assessment % complete Denton Oval Closed Damage Assessment and options% complete Aug 2013 Insurance negotiation and SOP % complete Aug 2013 Approval report to CRaC/Council Oct 2013 ATTACHMENT 2 TO CLAUSE 4 COMMUNITY, RECREATION AND CULTURE COMMITTEE 6. 8. 2013 52 Sport and Recreation 25% 50% 75% 100% Planned Actual DEE Assessment % complete Governors Bay Closed July 2013 Pool Damage Assessment and options% complete 19 July 2013 Insurance negotiation and SOP % complete 6 Aug 2013 Approval report to CRaC/Council Sept 2013
Halswell Open DEE Assessment % complete Aug 2013 Aquatic Centre Damage Assessment and options% complete 31 May 2013 Insurance negotiation and SOP % complete 28 June 2013 Approval report to CRaC/Council July 2013
Cuthberts Open DEE Assessment % complete Aug 2013 Green softball Damage Assessment and options% complete 19 July 2013 Aug 2013 complex Insurance negotiation and SOP % complete 6 Aug 2013 Approval report to CRaC/Council Sept 2013
South Brighton Open DEE Assessment % complete July 2013 Camping Damage Assessment and options% complete 19 July 2013 Aug 2013 Ground Insurance negotiation and SOP % complete 6 Aug 2013 Sept 2013 Approval report to CRaC/Council Sept 2013 ATTACHMENT 2 TO CLAUSE 4 COMMUNITY, RECREATION AND CULTURE COMMITTEE 6. 8. 2013 53 Greenspace 25% 50% 75% 100% Planned Actual Hagley Demolished Not Insured - Demolished Park South - Implement Shed
9 April 2013 Hagley Closed DEE Assessment % complete Park North - Damage Assessment and options% complete 1 July 2013 Lake Albert Insurance negotiation and SOP % complete 1 Aug 2013 Toilets Approval report to CRaC/Council N/A 23 May 2013 Hagley Closed DEE Assessment % complete Park North - Damage Assessment and options% complete 1 Aug 2013 Former RSA Insurance negotiation and SOP % complete 1 Sept 2013 (now Petanque Club) Approval report to CRaC/Council Sept 2013 19 July 2013 Linwood Closed DEE Assessment % complete Harewood Damage Assessment and options% complete To be demolished Nurseries Insurance negotiation and SOP % complete 1 Aug 2013 (21 buildings in total) Approval report to CRaC/Council N/A 15 Feb 2013 Spencer Park Open DEE Assessment % complete Beach Surf Club Damage Assessment and options% complete N/A - To be demolished Insurance negotiation and SOP % complete N/A - To be demolished Approval report to CRaC/Council N/A - To be demolished
21 Nov 2013 Avonhead Park Partially DEE Assessment % complete Pavillion Damage Assessment and options% complete 8 May 2013 Open Insurance negotiation and SOP % complete 10 June 2013 Approval report to CRaC/Council July 2013
24 Jan 2013 Waltham Park Closed DEE Assessment % complete Changing Damage Assessment and options% complete 1 June 2013 Rooms Insurance negotiation and SOP % complete 1 July 2013 Approval report to CRaC/Council July 2013 4 Feb 2013 Coronation Hill Open DEE Assessment % complete Reserve - Sign Damage Assessment and options% complete 29 April 2013 of the Kiwi Insurance negotiation and SOP % complete 1 May 2013 toilets Approval report to CRaC/Council N/A ATTACHMENT 2 TO CLAUSE 4 COMMUNITY, RECREATION AND CULTURE COMMITTEE 6. 8. 2013 54 Greenspace 25% 50% 75% 100% Planned Actual DEE Assessment % complete 13 March 2013 Hagley Park Open South - Toilets Damage Assessment and options% complete 13 March 2013 near hospital Insurance negotiation and SOP % complete 1 June 2013 Approval report to CRaC/Council N/A
16 Oct 2012 Hagley Park North - Closed DEE Assessment % complete Bandsman Damage Assessment and options% complete 16 May 2013 12 June 2013 Memorial Insurance negotiation and SOP % complete 14 June 2013 12 July 2013 Approval report to CRaC/Council July 2013 Aug 2013
14 Dec 2012 Bradford Park Open DEE Assessment % complete Pavillion Damage Assessment and options% complete 7 Dec 2012 Insurance negotiation and SOP % complete 30 Jan 2013 Approval report to CRaC/Council N/A
12 Nov 2012 Pioneer Women’s Closed DEE Assessment % complete Shelter Damage Assessment and options% complete 10 June 2013 1 Aug 2013 Insurance negotiation and SOP % complete 1 July 2013 1 Sept 2013 Approval report to CRaC/Council July 2013 Sept 2013
Cressy Terrace Open No earthquake damage Tennis Club Building
26 March 2013 South New Open DEE Assessment % complete Brighton Beach - Damage Assessment and options% complete 29 April 2013 Changing Insurance negotiation and SOP % complete 1 June 2013 sheds/toilets Approval report to CRaC/Council N/A ATTACHMENT 2 TO CLAUSE 4 COMMUNITY, RECREATION AND CULTURE COMMITTEE 6. 8. 2013 55 Corporate Accommodation 25% 50% 75% 100% Planned Actual DEE Assessment % complete R&R Sport Closed Penny Lane Damage Assessment and options% complete Insurance negotiation and SOP % complete Approval report to CRaC/Council GM Approval
DEE Assessment % complete Rohitis/Mayur Closed Indian Damage Assessment and options% complete Restaurant Insurance negotiation and SOP % complete Approval report to CRaC/Council GM Approval
15 June 2012 10 June 2012 Dog Pound Open DEE Assessment % complete Damage Assessment and options% complete 30 Nov 2013 Insurance negotiation and SOP % complete 30 June 2014 Approval report to CRaC/Council 31 July 2014
Milton Street Partially DEE Assessment % complete 30 June 2013 Depot Damage Assessment and options% complete 30 Nov 2013 Open Insurance negotiation and SOP % complete 30 June 20 Approval report to CRaC/Council 31 July 2014 ATTACHMENT 2 TO CLAUSE 4 COMMUNITY, RECREATION AND CULTURE COMMITTEE 6. 8. 2013 56 Heritage 25% 50% 75% 100% Planned Actual DEE Assessment % complete 1 Oct 2012 Addington Closed Water Station Damage Assessment and options% complete 1 Aug 2013 Insurance negotiation and SOP % complete 1 Sept 2013 Approval report to CRaC/Council 1 Nov 2013
15 June 2013 Chokebore Closed DEE Assessment % complete Lodge Damage Assessment and options% complete 1 Sept 2013 Insurance negotiation and SOP % complete 1 Oct 2013 Approval report to CRaC/Council 1 Nov 2013
1 March 2012 Mona Vale - Closed DEE Assessment % complete BathHouse Damage Assessment and options% complete 1 Oct 2013 Insurance negotiation and SOP % complete 1 Nov 2013 Approval report to CRaC/Council 1 Jan 2014
Mona Vale - Closed DEE Assessment % complete 1 July 2013 Gate House Damage Assessment and options% complete 1 Oct 2013 Insurance negotiation and SOP % complete 1 Nov2013 Approval report to CRaC/Council 1 Dec 2013
1 March 2012 Mona Vale - Closed DEE Assessment % complete Homestead Damage Assessment and options% complete 1 Oct 2013 Insurance negotiation and SOP % complete 1 Nov 2013 Approval report to CRaC/Council 1 Dec 2013
1 March 2012 Mona Vale - Closed DEE Assessment % complete Lodge Damage Assessment and options% complete 1 Aug 2013 Insurance negotiation and SOP % complete 1 Sept 2013 Approval report to CRaC/Council 1 Oct 2013 ATTACHMENT 2 TO CLAUSE 4 COMMUNITY, RECREATION AND CULTURE COMMITTEE 6. 8. 2013 57 Heritage 25% 50% 75% 100% Planned Actual DEE Assessment % complete 1 Aug 2013 Old Stone Closed House (3) Damage Assessment and options% complete 1 Aug 2013 Insurance negotiation and SOP % complete 1 Aug 2013 Approval report to CRaC/Council 1 Nov2013
1 Oct 2013 Risingholme Hall Closed DEE Assessment % complete Damage Assessment and options% complete 1 Sept 2013 Insurance negotiation and SOP % complete 1 Aug 2013 Approval report to CRaC/Council 1 Nov 2013
1 Oct 2012 Risingholme Closed DEE Assessment % complete Homestead Damage Assessment and options% complete 1 Sept 2013 Insurance negotiation and SOP % complete 1 Sept 2013 Approval report to CRaC/Council 1 Nov2013
Rose Historic Closed DEE Assessment % complete 1 July 2013 Chapel Damage Assessment and options% complete 1 Oct2013 Insurance negotiation and SOP % complete 1 Dec 2013 Approval report to CRaC/Council 1 Dec 2014
N/A Signal Mast Closed DEE Assessment % complete Cave Rock Damage Assessment and options% complete 1 April 2013 Insurance negotiation and SOP % complete 1 June 2013 Approval report to CRaC/Council 1 Aug 2013
N/A Stoddarts Closed DEE Assessment % complete Cottage Damage Assessment and options% complete 1 Aug 2013 Insurance negotiation and SOP % complete 1 Aug 2013 Approval report to CRaC/Council 1 Nov 2013
1 Feb 2012 Victoria Park Closed DEE Assessment % complete Information Damage Assessment and options% complete 1 Oct 2012 Centre Insurance negotiation and SOP % complete 1 July 2013 Approval report to CRaC/Council 1 Oct 2013 58 ATTACHMENT 3 TO CLAUSE 4 59 COMMUNITY, RECREATION AND CULTURE COMMITTEE 6. 8. 2013
Attachment 3 - Social Housing Programme Status Update
Date: 17 July 2013
1. Social Housing Portfolio Operational Status The Social Housing Programme has a total portfolio of 2649 including 113 units closed in the Residential Red Zone (located in 5 housing complexes).
As at 17 July 2013, 2183 (82%) units are open.
Closed units total 353 subject to repair under the Facilities Rebuild Programme and consist of the following:
290 units closed due to varying degrees of structural damage and design weakness, which includes 150 units closed due to failing a DEE assessment. o This includes 2 additional units at Avonheath Courts and 1 additional unit at Brougham Village due to major damage on vacancy. 63 units closed due to health & safety.
During the period, 13 open unit repairs including strengthening have been completed at Knightsbridge Lane.
Refer to Appendix 1 for closed unit details.
1.1. Housing Wait List Status As at 30 June 2013, there are 366 applicants on our waiting list consisting of 295 single applicants, 43 couples and 28 families. Thirteen of these applications have been assessed as having urgent, immediate need.
2. Social Housing Programme Repair/Reinstatement Status
2.1. Social Housing Monthly Progress Summary Subsequent to the last May 2013 report, the following activities have been completed:
Detailed Engineering Evaluations (DEEs) finalised for another 2 complexes. Open unit repairs (including strengthening) completed on 13 of 17 units at Knightsbridge Lane with remaining 4 units are targeted to be completed by mid September 2013. First 14 closed unit repairs at Airedale Courts are underway with 7 units scheduled for return to service on 19 July 2013 and remainder by end of month. Maurice Carter Courts (Dundee Place) new units intensification tender recommendation approved at 27 June 2013 Council Meeting, contract signed with Fusion Homes Ltd and detailed design currently underway. Social Housing Partnership EOI closed and evaluation completed. Council Report scheduled for approval at 25 July 2013 Council Meeting. Participation in CERA led PMO Residential Repairs Survey. Social housing ward specific status presentation given to Hagley-Ferrymead Ward and team contributed to Social Housing Status at Community Forums.
Page 1 of 10 ATTACHMENT 3 TO CLAUSE 4 60 COMMUNITY, RECREATION AND CULTURE COMMITTEE 6. 8. 2013
2.2. Top Programme Risks Summary The current Top Programme risks are as follows:
1) Because of the unexpectedly complex issues with the Airedale Courts facility, there is a programme delivery risk of the Work Package 1 open and closed unit repair targets which are strongly linked to that facility. There are also some delays in the damage and insurance settlement process. Mitigations have been implemented with additional EQC Assessment staff, additional City Care Assessment staff (recruited and undergoing training) and additional Council Project Management resources being recruited. At this stage we expect 82% completion of the WP1 open unit repairs by the end of the calendar year with full completion by 30 April 2014 and 50% completion of the WP1 closed unit repairs by the end of the calendar year with full completion by 30 June 2013. We continue to work to improve these delayed dates. 2) Delivery of Maurice Carter Courts and Knightsbridge Lane by calendar year end now unlikely due to both tender evaluation delays. Learnings have been incorporated into planning of subsequent projects and will be reported on completion of tender evaluation.
2.3. Housing Repair Progress
2.3.1. Detailed Engineering Evaluation (DEE) Status The Social Housing Detailed Engineering Evaluation (DEE) process consists of 669 assessments commenced in June 2012 and currently forecast to be completed by April 2014. This is made up of 233 DEE’s complete, 198 in progress and the remaining 238 DEE’s not started as shown in figure 1.
Social Housing DEE Progress (17 July 2013)
DEEs DEEs Not Underway Started 30% 35%
DEEs Complete 35%
[Figure 1] : Social Housing Detailed Engineering Evaluation (DEE) Progress
Council staff are seeking to minimise the delivery time and cost risk on the remaining social housing DEE process by awarding the remaining DEEs to one supplier. At the current time, Council is experiencing significant time delays from 2-4 months with the completion of DEEs due to availability of resources as the rebuild activity increases.
Page 2 of 10 ATTACHMENT 3 TO CLAUSE 4 61 COMMUNITY, RECREATION AND CULTURE COMMITTEE 6. 8. 2013
The remaining complexes to undertake a DEE typically consist of both simpler and substantially similar housing designs in comparison to the initial 35% of the portfolio with their complicated and unique one-off designs. This approach is expected to provide a value solution due to economies of scale and also reduce delivery risk by locking in the allocation of resources needed to complete the remaining DEEs. A Request for Proposal (RFP) has been issued to the DEE Panel Members which closes on 24 July 2013 with award scheduled for early August 2013.
2.3.2. Damage Assessment (DA) Status
2.3.2.1. Need for Revised EQC Damage Assessments The need for revised EQC damage assessments on all the social housing complexes stems from fact that the $21 million interim EQC payment is based solely on a high level cosmetic damage assessment across the portfolio. Council staff consider the high level damage assessment does not represent the true scope of damage as it has missed cosmetic damage and not adequately assessed structural damage, external building damage and damage to services.
Revenue for the Social Housing portfolio is derived solely from the tenant’s rents. Consequently, the time and effort expended in reaching a damage assessment settlement of repair costs with EQC is justified in order to achieve our full entitlement to minimise the impact on future rent increases. This approach is identical to the approved EQC Opt-Out Residential Repairs process.
This approach however requires the damage scope assessments to be agreed with EQC first prior to repairs being undertaken at the detriment of rapid progress.
The damage assessment process is divided into two categories:
Open/Closed Unit Low Value Repairs Open/Closed Unit High Value Repairs
2.3.2.2. Open/Closed Unit Low Value Repairs Damage Assessment Low value open/closed unit damage assessments are being performed by City Care Ltd (CCL) (under the existing Facilities Maintenance Contract) on a complex by complex basis and working directly with EQC.
The current Work Package 1 (WP1) complexes (as defined in Appendix 2) currently undergoing damage assessment and settlement are listed as follows in priority order (highest to lowest):
Airedale Courts (71 units closed out of 115 units total) Berwick Courts (12 open unit repairs – total complex) Gloucester Courts (13 open unit repairs out of 20 units) Aorangi Courts (18 open unit repairs, 4 closed unit repairs out of 33 units total) Harman Courts (60 open unit repairs – total complex) Hornby Courts (22 open unit repairs – total complex) Margaret Murray Courts (13 open unit repairs out of 18 units total) Lyn Christie Place (4 closed unit repairs out of 28 units total) Whakahoa Village (5 closed unit repairs & 15 open unit repairs – total complex)
Page 3 of 10 ATTACHMENT 3 TO CLAUSE 4 62 COMMUNITY, RECREATION AND CULTURE COMMITTEE 6. 8. 2013
At the current time, the delivery risk remains around achieving the open and closed unit repair targets of 70 closed units and 202 open units by the end of the calendar year. This is primarily due to the time taken to date to reach damage settlement with EQC which is due to both CCL and EQC finite resources and EQC processes. It is further compounded by the complexity of reaching settlement first on the social housing complexes with combinations of multi-storey designs and/or significant structural damage as a result of the ordering of the DEE process.
In order to mitigate the settlement delays, CCL and EQC have recently entered into a successful process of initially jointly inspecting each unit and agreeing the scope at the beginning of the damage assessment avoiding the time lost previously associated with scope clarifications between parties. In addition, both CCL and EQC have provided additional resource to increase the processing rate of the damage assessments with a demonstrated increase in claim settlement rates.
To achieve the current targets Council needs to complete 40 unit repairs a month. In order to provide a consistent delivery stream of repairs, a minimum of 5 social housing complexes are required to be settled in advance to create a buffer between agreement and the work getting underway. At the current time, the settlement process and repair process remain back to back with no buffer which is providing sub-optimal delivery due to inability to efficiently schedule the allocation of resources. In practice, Council is currently seeking to settle 80 unit damage assessments per month in order to get ahead of the repair process.
With respect to the EQC settlement process, settlement is only performed for each social housing complex as a whole when the EQC Insurance Group has received all of the following information and applied apportionment between EQ events and verified client insurance information:
Cosmetic/Structural damage elements (agreed and costed as above) Services damage (this is being assessed separately by EQR (Fletchers) resources as per all residential claims with potentially long assessment times) Emergency Works (claim response submitted by EQC but yet to be finalised by Council staff) Excesses (claim deductibles assessed)
To date, this process is taking months and whilst Council staff consider it to be a valid process, the settlement timing has been compounded by assessing the most badly damaged complexes first that require significant engineering/geotechnical analysis.
Council staff have adopted a faster process within the current delegations where unit repairs are commenced following agreement of unit repair costs with EQC but prior to full settlement of each complex.
2.3.2.3. Open/Closed Unit High Value Repairs Damage Assessment In parallel with the low value damage assessments, an accelerated joint damage assessment process with EQC is being trialled on four initial housing complexes containing significant structural damage (i.e. high value $100k overcap units). Council is currently awaiting a review response from EQC.
Council staff are seeking to adopt this process to reach a damage assessment position with EQC on the most badly damaged complexes in the portfolio by the end
Page 4 of 10 ATTACHMENT 3 TO CLAUSE 4 63 COMMUNITY, RECREATION AND CULTURE COMMITTEE 6. 8. 2013
of the calendar year. This consists of 36 complexes across the portfolio identified to contain significant structural damage.
The four trial housing complexes are as follows:
Avonheath Courts (10 closed units out of 17 units total) Brougham Village (83 closed units out of 89 units total) Concord Place (8 closed units out of 52 units total) Louisson Courts (6 closed units out of 13 units total)
In conjunction, the process is currently also being used to assess damage on:
Airedale Courts (71 units closed out of 115 units total) Whakahoa Village (5 units closed out of 20 units total) Osborne Street (4 units closed out of 4 units total) Charles Street (4 units closed out of 4 units total) Tommy Taylor Courts (12 units closed out of 25 total) Boyd Cottages (4 units closed out of 4 units total) Berwick Courts (12 open units, some with level issues)
2.3.2.4. Units with No Damage Current EQC assessments of damage indicate that there are 167 units with no damage which are currently being verified by Council staff and scheduled to be complete by end of July 2013. Unfortunately, 140 units have been identified with minor earthquake damage and recommended for EQC re-inspection as part of the complex by complex assessment process. Council is awaiting a response from EQC on this.
2.3.2.5. Residential Red Zone Housing Damage Assessments Damage to the five Residential Red Zone complexes (113 units in total with a combined valuation of $15.47M) has been initially assessed by the Insurer’s Loss Adjustor with the last of the 5 damage reports submitted to Council late last month. Initial indications are that the Insurer’s position is that the damage value will be based solely on the cost of damage to each complex.
In parallel, Council staff have been advised that ownership of the complexes will be transferred to CERA as part of the Council-Government Cost Sharing Agreement deal. Staff are currently working through the operational logistics of the transfer including insurance settlement implications.
2.3.3. Social Housing Repairs Status Repairs have started on the following Work Package 1 complexes:
Knightsbridge Lane: 13 open unit repairs (including strengthening) completed out of 17 units total. Progress has been delayed due to the requirement of additional concrete floor crack repairs and the discovery of asbestos in the ceiling stipple finish of the remaining 4 units. The availability of qualified asbestos handling contractors has delayed completion of repairs to the 4 units to early September 2013. Airedale Courts: 8 of the first 17 closed unit repairs will be returned to service by 19 July 2013 with the remainder scheduled by end of July 2013.
Page 5 of 10 ATTACHMENT 3 TO CLAUSE 4 64 COMMUNITY, RECREATION AND CULTURE COMMITTEE 6. 8. 2013
Based on the delays with the damage assessment and repair settlement process, the 202 open and 70 closed unit repairs in Work Package 1 are now forecast to be complete by 31 April 2014 and 30 June 2014 respectively. By end of this calendar year, the forecast completed repairs (refer figure 2) are 165 open unit repairs (82%) and 35 closed unit repairs (50%).
The performance against targets of the open and closed unit repairs are dominated by the additional complexity of repairing Airedale Courts (115 units), specifically with reference to the following:
Extensive foundation pad redesign and replacement of ground floor units in most blocks. Block E requires entire foundation to be relevelled. Blocks A & B require strengthening (31 closed units) due to original design in order to remove brittle-failure mechanism. This is a cost to Council with a high likelihood the blocks may be deemed uneconomic to repair. Significant underground services damage now known and requiring repair.
Social Housing Work Package 1 Open & Closed Unit Repairs Progress (17 July 2013)
250
200
150
100 Open Open & Closed Unit Repairs 50
0 Jul-13 Apr-13 Jun-13 Oct-13 Jan-13 Aug-13 Feb-13 Mar-13 Sep-13 Nov-13 Dec-13 May-13 Date Planned Open Unit Repairs Actual Open Unit Repairs Forecast Open Unit Repairs Planned Closed Unit Repairs Actual Unit Repairs Forecast Closed Unit Repairs
[Figure 2] : Social Housing Open & Closed Unit Repairs Progress (12 June 2013)
2.4. Housing New Build Projects Due to the scale and severity of the damage associated with the majority of closed units, an alternative strategy to aid in the restoration of service level is both the intensification of existing sites with the construction of additional units to replace red zone units and the redevelopment of sites through partnerships.
Page 6 of 10 ATTACHMENT 3 TO CLAUSE 4 65 COMMUNITY, RECREATION AND CULTURE COMMITTEE 6. 8. 2013
2.4.1. Housing Intensification Projects Progress on the Intensification Projects is as follows:
Maurice Carter Courts (Dundee Place): Council approved tender recommendation at meeting of 27 June 2013. Contract was awarded to Fusion Homes on 2 July 2013 for the construction of 12 Units and detailed design is currently underway. Knightsbridge Lane: Tender closed 15 May 2013 and evaluation nearing completion for construction of 8 units. Due to required additional clarifications, Tender recommendation will now be submitted for approval at Council meeting of 29 August 2013.
At the Council Meeting of 27 June 2013, the following Work Package 2 Intensification Projects were approved to go out for selective tender following an Expression of Interest (EOI) process:
HP Smith Courts: 4 x One Bedroom Units Berwick Courts: 3 x One Bedroom Units Harman Courts: 14 x One Bedroom Units & 4 x Two Bedroom Units
Subsequent staff programme analysis based on the revised tender award process requiring Council approval to proceed has confirmed that tender approval will now be delayed until the first Council meeting post elections.
2.4.2. Housing Partnership Developments The Council Report on the Social Housing Partnership Expression of Interest (EOI) recommendations will be submitted at the Council Meeting of 27 July 2013 seeking approval to enter into a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) agreements with the successful applicants.
Page 7 of 10 ATTACHMENT 3 TO CLAUSE 4 66 COMMUNITY, RECREATION AND CULTURE COMMITTEE 6. 8. 2013
Appendix 1: Social Housing Closed Units Summary
Total Closed Closed Closed Major Repair or Complex Name Ward Units H & S Risk Red Zone Land DEE Result Airedale Courts Hagley 115 0 0 71 Aorangi Courts Fendalton 26 0 0 4 Avonheath Courts Ferrymead 17 0 0 13 Biddick Courts Burwood 16 0 0 11 Boyd Cottages Banks P 4 4 0 0 Brougham Village Heathcote 89 1 0 83 Cecil Courts Heathcote 20 5 0 3 Charles Gallagher Pegasus 7 6 0 1 Charles Street Hagley 4 4 0 0 Concord Place Burwood 52 8 0 0 Cresselly Place Heathcote 30 7 0 19 Fred Price Place Burwood 38 0 0 4 Glue Place/Sparks Spreydon 34 2 0 0 Gowerton Place Hagley 30 3 0 3 Halswell Courts Wigram 15 0 0 1 HP Smith Courts Hagley 18 0 0 1 Louisson Courts Heathcote 13 0 0 13 Lyn Christie Place Pegasus 30 0 0 4 Mary McLean Place Heathcote 40 1 0 0 Osborne Street Hagley 4 2 0 2 Reg Stilwell Place Burwood 34 0 0 34 Santa Cruz Lane Pegasus 24 6 0 18 Sandilands Ferrymead 24 0 0 1 Tommy Taylor Courts Heathcote 25 12 0 0 Veronica Place Waimari 36 0 0 1 Whakahoa Village Hagley 20 2 0 3 FRP Closed Unit Repairs = 348 26 Complexes 63 0 290 Bangor Street Hagley 9 0 9 0 Bowie Place Hagley 32 0 32 0 Calbourne Courts Pegasus 26 0 23 0 Captain Thomas Courts Ferrymead 18 0 18 0 Shoreham Courts Pegasus 28 0 28 0 Red Zone Units Summary 5 Complexes 113 0 110 0 Total Closed Units = 463 63 110 290
Page 8 of 10 ATTACHMENT 3 TO CLAUSE 4 67 COMMUNITY, RECREATION AND CULTURE COMMITTEE 6. 8. 2013
Appendix 2: Social Housing Work Package 1 (Jan 2013 – Dec 2013) Social Housing Work Package 1 (WP1) includes the following complexes:
Total New Build Open Unit Closed Repairs done Complex Name Ward Units Units Repairs Unit Repairs No Damage (Pre WP1) Airedale Courts Hagley 115 0 40 44 0 0 Aorangi Courts Fendalton 26 0 18 4 0 4 Berwick Courts Shirley 12 0 12 0 0 0 Collet Courts Banks P 6 0 5 0 0 1 Gloucester Courts Hagley 20 0 13 0 0 7 Harman Courts Spreydon 60 0 60 0 0 0 Hornby Courts Wigram 22 0 22 0 0 0 Knightsbridge Lane Pegasus 17 10 0 17 0 0 Lyn Christie Place Pegasus 30 0 0 4 0 0 Margaret Murray Courts Waimari 18 0 13 0 5 0 Maurice Carter Courts Spreydon 33 12 0 0 0 0 Thurso Street Burwood 4 0 2 2 0 0 Whakahoa Village Hagley 20 0 15 5 0 0 TARGETTED TOTALS 22 200 76 5 12
Page 9 of 10 ATTACHMENT 3 TO CLAUSE 4 68 COMMUNITY, RECREATION AND CULTURE COMMITTEE 6. 8. 2013
Appendix 3: Social Housing – Asset Repair Programme
Page 10 of 10 Date: 17July2013 Social Housing-AssetRepairProgr PRIORITY PRIORITY 2 - COMPLEXES WITH PRIORITY 1 - HIGHEST RISK INITIAL CLOSED UNITS enfrMnrTruyPaePO07 90T2Fendalton TC2 1980 PRO0571 Jennifer/Manor/Torquay Place SOCIAL HOUSING lePae/Sak odPO19 91NA-T2 pednInProgress, dueSep2013 Spreydon N/A-TC2? 1961 PRO1097 Glue Place/SparksRoad hre alge lc R 24 17 C eau InProgress,due Sep2013 Pegasus TC3 1974 PRO1274 Charles GallagherPlace agrtMra orsPO00 90T1Waimari TC1 1990 PRO0208 Margaret MurrayCourts rc erc otgsPO35 1959 PRO3652 Bruce TerraceCottages ila asyCut R 95 17 C erma InProgress,due Sep2013 Ferrymead TC2 1975 PRO0925 William MasseyCourts COMPLEX arc atrCut R 13 19 / T2 Spreydon N/A-TC2? 1990 PRO1103 Maurice CarterCourts om alrCut R 08 20 C Heathcote TC3 2001 PRO1048 Tommy TaylorCourts arc ae lc R 85 17 / T3 erma InProgress,dueSep 2013 Ferrymead N/A-TC3? 1975 PRO0855 Maurice HayesPlace omnKr orsPO13 94&17 / C?Heathcote N/A-TC2? 1974&1976 PRO1137 Norman KirkCourts ngtbig aePO16 97T2Pegasus TC2 1977 PRO1265 Knightsbridge Lane ayMLa lc R 92 16 / C?HahoeInProgress,dueSep 2013 Heathcote N/A-TC2? 1969 PRO0942 Mary McLeanPlace hlisonCut R 88 17 C erma InProgress,dueSep2013 Ferrymead TC2 1975 PRO0818 Phillipstown Courts rdeae orsPO14 97T2PgssInProgress,dueSep2013 Pegasus TC2 1977 PRO1347 Bridgewater Courts rehrtCut R 53 17 C Riccarton TC1 1978 PRO1563 Greenhurst Courts e tlwl lc R 30 17-99T3Burwood TC3 1974-1999 PRO1320 Reg StillwellPlace nrw rsetPO11 93T2Spreydon TC2 1953 PRO 1119 Andrews Crescent luetrCut U27 99T2Hagley TC2 1999 BU2373 Gloucester Courts hkhaVlaePO28 07NA-T3 Hagley N/A-TC3? 2007 PRO2680 Whakahoa Village y hitePaePO02 94NA-T3 Pegasus N/A-TC3? 1974 PRO0727 Lyn ChristiePlace vnet orsPO10 93T3Ferrymead TC3 1973 PRO1401 Avonheath Courts epeo orsPO17 96T1Wigram TC1 1976 PRO1672 Templeton Courts Fendalton TC2 1979 PRO0578 Resolution Courts rdPieCut R 33 17 / C?Burwood N/A-TC3? 1976 PRO1323 Fred PriceCourts mt orsPO07 95T2Hagley TC2 1985 PRO0677 H PSmithCourts ruhmSre R 02 17 C Heathcote TC2 1978 PRO1072 Brougham Street at rzLn R 34 17 / C?Pegasus N/A -TC3? 1977 PRO1344 Santa CruzLane ikrn orsPO01 98TC2 1978 PRO0611 Pickering Courts oisnCut R 06 99T3Heathcote TC3 1979 PRO1026 Louisson Courts tJhsCut R 83 17 C Ferrymead TC2 1977 PRO0853 St JohnsCourts oetnPaePO07 90NA-T3 alyInProgress,due Sep 2013 Hagley N/A-TC3? 1960 PRO 0678 Gowerton Place brol lc R 18 19 C Burwood TC3 1992 PRO0118 Aberfoyle Place rnw orsPO08 90NA-T2 Fendalton N/A-TC2? 1980 PRO0581 Bryndwr Courts afedCut R 16 17 / C?Heathcote N/A-TC3? 1978 PRO1126 Hadfield Courts rsel lc R 90 16 / C?HahoeInProgress,due Sep2013 Heathcote N/A-TC3? 1961 PRO0980 Cresselly Place uhe orsPO01 97NA-T2 Hagley N/A-TC2? 1977 PRO0812 Guthrey Courts ieaeCut R 91 16 / C?Hagley N/A-TC3? 1966 PRO1951 Airedale Courts son tetPO13 93T3Hagley TC3 1983 PRO1037 Osborne Street hmsCut R 16 17 TC2 1979 PRO2156 Thames Courts ahrtRa R 72 17 C Burwood TC3 1976 PRO0712 Gayhurst Road amnCut R 10 17 / C?Spreydon N/A-TC2? 1978 PRO1110 Harman Courts olo orsPO07 96TC3 1976 PRO0670 Poulton Courts ewc orsPO03 98T3Shirley TC3 1978 PRO 0630 Berwick Courts lwn orsPO01 97T2Spreydon TC2 1977 PRO0811 Aldwins Courts oag orsPO07 99NA-T2 Fendalton N/A-TC2? 1979 PRO 0574 Aorangi Courts ocr lc R 13 17 / C?Burwood N/A-TC3? 1970 PRO0163 Concord Place odCtae R 57 1964 PRO3517 Boyd Cottages onyCut R 50 20 / C?Wigram N/A-TC1? 2001 PRO1580 Hornby Courts idc orsPO00 98T3Burwood TC3 1988 PRO0707 Biddick Courts hre tetPO13 97T3Hge InProgress,dueMay2013 Hagley TC3 1987 PRO1039 Charles Street iiinSre R 57 17 / T2 Riccarton N/A-TC2? 1970 PRO0547 Division Street awc lc R 42 16 / C?Papanui N/A-TC2? 1968 PRO0442 Marwick Place asl tetPO08 90T2Spreydon TC2 1970 PRO0488 Walsall Street lio orsPO11 97T2Spreydon TC2 1977 PRO1113 Allison Courts rco tetPO08 91T2Papanui TC2 1991 PRO0589 Proctor Street olt orsPO31 1979 PRO3516 Collett Courts hroSre R 31 17 C Burwood TC3 1976 PRO1321 Thurso Street orn odPO08 90T2Spreydon TC2 1980 PRO0480 Torrens Road ea orsPO16 97T2Heathcote TC2 1977 PRO1061 Regal Courts as orsPO09 99NA-T2 Hagley N/A-TC2? 1979 PRO0792 Haast Courts oe orsPO01 96NA-T3 hre InProgress,dueSep 2013 Shirley N/A-TC3? 1976 PRO0619 Dover Courts as lc R 44 17 93NA-T3 Papanui N/A-TC3? 1970&1983 PRO0414 Manse Place ne orsPO04 98TC2 1978 PRO0643 Innes Courts ei orsPO14 96T3Heathcote TC3 1976 PRO1047 Cecil Courts uaCut R 80 17 / C?FryedInProgress,dueSep2013 Ferrymead N/A-TC2? 1975 PRO0840 Jura Courts adlnsPO05 97T2Ferrymead TC2 1947 PRO0755 Sandilands l rv R 72 15 C Hagley TC2 1956 PRO 0782 Elm Grove COMPLEX CODE a BUILT YEAR STATUS LAND WARD ak InProgress, dueAug2013 Banks P Banks P Banks P Shirley Shirley Shirley Shirley Draft L4,FinalL5dueJul-13 DEE &OCCUPANCY L5 -PartialFailure(Sep-12) L5 -PartialFailure(Feb-13) L5 -PartialFailure(Oct-12) L4 -Passed/L5Requested Draft L4,FinaldueJul-13 RULES STATUS L4/L5 -Passed(Apr-13) L4/L5 -Passed(Apr-13) L4 -Passed(May-13) L4 -Passed(May-13) L5 -Passed(May-13) L4 -Passed(May-13) L5 -Passed(Sep-12) L5 -Passed(Sep-12) L5 -Passed(Feb-13) L5 -Passed(Dec-12) L5 -Passed(Dec-12) L5 -Passed(Feb-13) L5 -Passed(Nov-12) L5 -Passed(Nov-12) L5 -Passed(Nov-12) L5 -Passed(Jun-13) L4 -Passed(Mar-13) L4 -Passed(Mar-13) L5 -Passed(Mar-13) L5 -Passed(Jun-13) L5 -Passed(Mar-13) L5 -Passed(Jun-13) L5 -Passed(Jun-13) L5 -Passed(Mar-13) L5 -Passed(Jan-13) L5 -Passed(Jan-13) L5 -Passed(Jan-13) L5 -Passed(Jan-13) L5 -Passed(Jan-13) L5 -Passed(Apr-13) L5 -Passed(Apr-13) L5 -Passed(Apr-13) L5 -Passed(Apr-13) L5 -Failed(Jan-13) L5 -Failed(Oct-12) Not Required 5 0%52 15JointEQCEngineeringDamageAssessmentunderway. DamageAssessmentunderway.First14UnitRepairsunderway 5 27 44 11 4 4 40 5 9 20 71 5 115 15 45% -100% 15% -100% 0 0%222 2 70% -100% 0 0%1 01 0DamageAssessmentunderway.EOIoutfor18xIntensificationUnits. 60 18 60 15 20% -100% 9 7 45 361JointEQCEngineeringDamageAssessmentunderway(InitialTrial) InitiateJointEQCEngineeringDamageAssessment. 1 6 43 12 2 8 17 8 8 13 52 20 17 14 10 3 49% -97% 38% -43% 21% -33% 7 2 641 DamageAssessmentunderway. 4 4 18 4 26 8 37% -82% 33 11 45% -95% 0 5 14 89 30% -55% 84 89 10 22% -68% 4 0 51 31 JointEQCEngineeringDamageAssessmentunderway. 12 13 12 34 25 34 1 8 34% -60% 10% -65% 2 7 13 23 Design/buildContractaward(July2013)toFusionHomes(12x1bed EPH Units) 33 12 33 11 22% -47% 4 6 20 3 34% -36% 4-0%25 42 2 6 84%-100% 38%-100% 3-0%732 7 33%-100% 9-0%31 11 BlocksA&Bclosed(21/02/13).InitiateJointEQCEngineeringDamage Assessment. 5 11 11 16 3 19%-100% 22%-100% 83%-100% 7 8%93 86 36 9 67% -86% RANGE 34%-85% 7-6 260 22 37%-56% 41%-75% 34%-35% 35%-83% 34%-38% 35%-50% %NBS 7 21 4 37% 4 22 3 44% 16% 8 232 32 8 28% 4 231 RepairsscheduledforAugust2013.EOIout3xIntensificationUnits. 12 3 4 1 12 6 69% 94% 52% 49% 2 7071 TenderEvaluationunderway(8x1bedEPHUnits) 17 7 0 17 4 22% 5 12 7 2 35% 81% 52% DEE'S PER COMPLEX 12 040 10 224 12 937 19 7 2 4 1 14 3 026 30 8 4 3 4 1 4 12 1 3 35 9 23 6 10 16 4 5 30 8 26 7 4 19 2 4 30 6 424 24 7 3 1 313 13 3 24 6 20 4 14 8 9 5 13 4 19 2 3 18 26 5 7 26 28 6 7 6 28 25 2 2 3 30 8 TOTAL UNITS 18 CLOSED UNITS 7 4 4 4 2 1 6 1 4 4 1 4 Intensification
WP1 (13) New Units WP2 (14/15) WP3 (15/16) WP4 (16/17) WP5 (17/18)
WP1 (13) Partnership New Units WP2 (14/15) 30 24 24 WP3 (15/16) 30 WP4 (16/17) PROGRAMME DELIVERYSTRATEGY WP5 (17/18) CCC Rebuild
WP1 (13) New Units WP2 (14/15) WP3 (15/16) 13 4 WP4 (16/17) WP5 (17/18) 2DamageAssessmentunderway. 22 37DamageAssessmentunderway. 7 13 13 Repairs&strengtheningcompletedinJune2013.Ancillaryrepairsleft. 2 2 5 WP1 (13) Repair Open 39 01InitiateDamageAssessment. 1 20 51 InitiateDamageAssessment. 3 14 25 81 L5assessment&missedGaragesrequested (5/02/13). 4 18 38 02InitiateDamageAssessment. 2 DEEUnderway. 1 2 20 29 33 931DamageAssessmentunderway. 1 3 29 4AwaitingL5DEE.ScheduledforJointEQCEngineeringDamageAssessment. 14 24 15 10 17 25 25 14 13 DamageAssessmentunderway. 5 7 WP2 (14/15) 14 11 10 21 15 10 23 19 17 14 26 27 4 4 WP3 (15/16)
WP4 (16/17) 30 3 WP5 (17/18) Repair Closed 4 4 WP1 (13) 1 4 7 26JointEQCEngineeringDamageAssessmentunderway. 6 22 6 4 1 WP2 (14/15) WP3 (15/16) WP4 (16/17)
2 WP5 (17/18) COMMUNITY, RECREATIONANDCULTURECOMMITTEE 6. 8.2013 Demolish only 31InitiateDamageAssessment. 1 InitiateDamageAssessment. 13 12 InitiateDamageAssessment. 2 4 InitiateJointEQCEngineeringDamageAssessment.EOIoutfor4xIntensificationUnits. 2 InitiateDamageAssessment. 1 9 InitiateDamageAssessment. 1 1 InitiateDamageAssessment. 1 1 5 InitiateDEE. 1 4 No Damage Repairs Done InitiateDEE. 1 DEEUnderway. 2 DamageAssessmentunderway. 1 InitiateJointEQCEngineeringDamageAssessment. 1 DEEUnderway. 1 InitiateDEE. 3 DEEUnderway. 3 AllUnitRepairscompletedinJune2013. 1 DEEUnderway. 3 DEEUnderway. 2 DEEUnderway. 1 (Pre WP1) Joint EQCDamageAssessmentunderway.No DEErequired,totalconstructiveloss DEE Underway. Joint EQCDamageAssessmentunderway(Initial Trial) DEE Underway. Initiate DamageAssessment. DEE Underway. DEE Underway. Initiate DEE. Initiate DEE. Damage Assessmentunderway. Joint EQCEngineeringDamageAssessmentunderway(InitialTrial) Damage Assessmentunderway. Joint EQCEngineeringDamageAssessmentunderway(InitialTrial) DEE Underway. DEE Underway. Initiate DEE. Possible PartnershipSite-Masterplanning&damageassessmentunderway. Damage Assessmentunderway.PotentialIntensificationsite. Initiate DEE. Initiate DEE. Initiate DEE. Initiate DEE. DEE Underway. Initiate DEE. Initiate DEE. COMMENT &NEXTACTIVITY ATTACHMENT 3TO CLAUSE 4 69 Date: 17July2013 Social Housing-AssetRepairProgr PRIORITY
PRIORITY 3 - LOW RISK / LOW VALUE REPAIRS aWhn rs afa os R 58 1954&1989 PRO2538 Ka WahineTrustHalfwayHouse es lc olo tetPO10 99NA-T2 pednIn Progress,dueSep2013 Spreydon N/A-TC2? 1959 PRO1107 Feast Place/PoulsonStreet SOCIAL HOUSING aeg emr tet R 30 16 C Waimari TC2 1963 PRO0320 Raleigh /NewmarkStreets oe&Fml uligPO21 1965 PRO2513 Home &FamilyBuilding ati hmsCut R 43 17 e oeFerrymead RedZone 1977 PRO1463 Captain ThomasCourts COMPLEX aodDno lc R 68 17 TC2 1972 PRO0618 Harold DentonPlace ae oadPaePO09 98NA-T2 alyInProgress,dueSep2013 Hagley N/A-TC2? 1968 PRO0699 Mabel HowardPlace u ir otgsPRO 3632 Rue ViardCottages e dm orsPO08 90T2Fendalton TC2 1980 PRO0583 Reg AdamsCourts us aeCut R 59 17 C Spreydon TC2 1977 PRO 1519 Guise LaneCourts acwo orsPRO2506 Lancewood Courts akni orsPO02 96T2Ferrymead TC2 1976 PRO0921 Mackenzie Courts abun orsPO19 97RdZn Pegasus RedZone 1977 PRO1293 Calbourne Courts aGbo lc R 11 16 / C?Sryo InProgress, due Sep2013 Spreydon N/A-TC2? 1961 PRO1131 MacGibbon Place hrhmCut R 39 17 e oePegasus RedZone 1977 PRO1349 Shoreham Courts atnae odPO13 94T2Ferrymead TC2 1974 PRO1731 Martindales Road ense lc R 03 16 C pednInProgress,dueSep 2013 Spreydon TC2 1961 PRO1093 Hennessey Place rdiikPaePRO3520 Treddinick Place amtaPaePO01 97T2Papanui TC2 1977 PRO0417 Kaumatua Place ata orsPO14 94NA-T2 Hagley N/A-TC2? 1974 PRO1049 Waltham Courts FAlnCut R 43 18 C Ferrymead TC2 1983 PRO1453 GF AllanCourts aselCut R 60 17 / C?Wga InProgress,dueSep2013 Wigram N/A-TC3? 1975 PRO1630 Halswell Courts ant vnePO14 99NA-T2 Heathcote N/A-TC2? 1939 PRO 1140 Barnett Avenue eoiaPaePO01 98NA-T2 Waimari N/A-TC2? 1978 PRO0317 Veronica Place aln tetPO15 95T2Ferrymead TC2 1985 PRO1454 Nayland Street evrCut R 55 16 / C?RcatnInProgress,dueSep2013 Riccarton N/A-TC1? 1965 PRO1565 Weaver Courts icn orsPO11 97NA-T2 Heathcote N/A-TC2? 1977 PRO1012 Vincent Courts ugn lc R 68 15 / C?Shirley N/A -TC3? 1958 PRO0638 Huggins Place yoaCut R 56 16 C irmInProgress,dueSep2013 Wigram TC1 1967 PRO1556 Wycola Courts agrCut R 21 18 e oeHagley RedZone 1981 PRO1251 Bangor Courts lthrPaePO03 93NA-T1 Riccarton N/A-TC1? 1963 PRO0230 Fletcher Place omt lc R 97 17 / C?FryedInProgress,dueSep2013 Ferrymead N/A-TC3? 1973 PRO0917 Roimata Place itnAeu R 50 17 C Riccarton TC2 1975 PRO0530 Picton Avenue lln tetPO07 96T2Papanui TC2 1976 PRO0378 Cleland Street atetSre R 54 16 C Riccarton TC2 1964 PRO0524 Bartlett Street nu orsPO14 97T2Heathcote TC2 1977 PRO1144 Angus Courts esnSre R 50 17 C Riccarton TC2 1975 PRO 0530 Nelson Street alsrPaePO02 94NA-T2 Waimari N/A-TC2? 1964 PRO0327 Palliser Place ilr tetPO11 99NA-T3 Spreydon N/A-TC3? 1939 PRO1112 Willard Street yoeSre R 36 17 C Papanui TC2 1974 PRO0376 Tyrone Street ofrCut R 69 17 / C?Shirley N/A-TC3? 1978 PRO0629 Forfar Courts ra orsPO02 95T2FryedInProgress,dueSep2013 Ferrymead TC2 1975 PRO0823 Arran Courts ae tetPO13 92NA-T2 Heathcote N/A-TC2? 1942 PRO1132 Carey Street Bowie Place oe lc R 66 15 / C?Shirley N/A-TC3? 1953 PRO0616 Coles Place ea ak R 61 20 TC2 2001 PRO2631 Cedar Park ek lc R 72 16 / C?Hagley N/A-TC2? 1964 PRO0702 Jecks Place oryAePO01 95T1Waimari TC1 1975 PRO0310 Mooray Ave rgsRwPO31 1965 PRO3519 Briggs Row laPaePO01 93NA-T2 uwo InProgress,dueSep2013 Burwood N/A-TC2? 1963 PRO0715 Alma Place ln aePO19 97NA-T2 Spreydon N/A-TC2? 1977 PRO1091 Clent Lane WAPO21 1965 PRO2311 YWCA COMPLEX R 65 16 95RdZn Hagley RedZone 1969&1975 PRO 0695 CODE a BUILT YEAR STATUS LAND WARD Spreydon Spreydon Banks P Banks P Banks P Hagley Hagley hre InProgress,dueSep2013 Shirley Shirley DEE &OCCUPANCY Social HousingCurrentLevelofService(Open Units) RULES STATUS Social HousingCurrentLevelofService(% Open) L5 -Passed(Jul-13) Red ZonedLand Red ZonedLand Red ZonedLand Red ZonedLand Red ZonedLand Social HousingTotals Red ZoneTotals Sub-Totals RANGE %NBS 40% DEE'S PER COMPLEX 6 56331 52 6273 441 1 4 4 5 0 36 202617112 167 6 2 0 22 69 63 303 353 343 546 213 0 19 4 14 0 0 30 227 86 0 0 0 21 25 19 353 2536 669 0 2649 701 559 15 420 14 224 12 135 11 668 24 16 13 252 12 213110 113 32 818 18 4 623 26 6 232 28 32 28 8 7 9 7 20 5 20 4 21 29 3 36 7 8 8 11 2 2 30 8 4 16 1 4 15 5 36 9 9 3 26 6 12 3 30 5 14 4 10 2 14 12 24 5 3 5 36 4 24 7 24 6 15 7 2 32 22 8 6 6 2 12 2 7 26 26 1 6 9 4 1 18 5 6 2 7 2 3 1 5 1 TOTAL UNITS 2183 82% CLOSED UNITS 466 9 1 1 Intensification
WP1 (13) New Units WP2 (14/15) WP3 (15/16) WP4 (16/17) WP5 (17/18)
WP1 (13) Partnership New Units WP2 (14/15)
WP3 (15/16) WP4 (16/17) PROGRAMME DELIVERYSTRATEGY WP5 (17/18) CCC Rebuild
WP1 (13) New Units WP2 (14/15)
4 WP3 (15/16)
2 WP4 (16/17) WP5 (17/18)
WP1 (13) Repair Open 34 WP2 (14/15) 21 12 15 17 21 8 4 9 4 5 7 5 WP3 (15/16) 13 20 20 52 10 14 35 14 26 24 14 12 23 11 42 9 4 3 7 WP4 (16/17) 19 20 23 19 24 28 10 31 55 16 25 WP5 (17/18) Repair Closed WP1 (13)
1 WP2 (14/15) WP3 (15/16) WP4 (16/17) WP5 (17/18) COMMUNITY, RECREATIONANDCULTURECOMMITTEE 6. 8.2013 Demolish only 52InitiateDEE. 2 15 12InitiateDEE. 2 11 DEEUnderway. 4 2 DEEUnderway. 1 5 InitiateDEE. 2 DEEUnderway. 1 InitiateDEE. 2 5 DEEUnderway. 2 6 2 InitiateDEE. 1 1 InitiateDEE. 1 1 InitiateDEE. 1 InitiateDEE. 2 1 7 InitiateDEE. 2 8 DEEUnderway. 4 7 InitiateDEE. 5 5 No Damage Repairs Done InitiateDEE. 1 InitiateDEE. 1 InitiateDEE. 1 InitiateDEE. 1 InitiateDEE. 2 InitiateDEE. 2 InitiateDEE. 4 DEEUnderway. 7 InitiateDEE. 1 InitiateDEE. 3 InitiateDEE. 1 DEEUnderway. 1 InitiateDEE. 1 DEEUnderway. 3 InitiateDEE. 4 (Pre WP1) DEE Underway. Initiate DEE. Initiate DEE. Initiate DEE. SKM DamageAssessmentReportreceived.CERAOwnershipTransferunderway. Initiate DEE. Initiate DEE. SKM DamageAssessmentReportreceived.CERAOwnershipTransferunderway. SKM DamageAssessmentReportreceived.CERAOwnershipTransferunderway. Initiate DamageAssessment. Initiate DEE. SKM DamageAssessmentReportreceived.CERAOwnershipTransferunderway. SKM DamageAssessmentReportreceived.CERAOwnershipTransferunderway. DEE Underway. Initiate DEE. Initiate DEE. DEE Underway. Initiate DEE. Initiate DEE. Initiate DEE. Initiate DEE. Initiate DEE. COMMENT &NEXTACTIVITY ATTACHMENT 3TO CLAUSE 4 70 ATTACHMENT 4 TO CLAUSE 4 71 COMMUNITY, RECREATION AND CULTURE COMMITTEE 6. 8. 2013
CRaC Committee 06 August 2013 Attachment 4– Heritage Program
CRaC Committee 06 August 2013 Heritage Program
ATTACHMENT 4 TO CLAUSE 4 72 COMMUNITY, RECREATION AND CULTURE COMMITTEE 6. 8. 2013
CRaC Committee 06 August 2013 Attachment 4– Heritage Program
Glossary of terms: Assessment of position (AOP): Councils response to the Loss Adjuster Damage assessment (DA): Work to identify all of a building’s damage and its associated cost Level survey: A check to see if the building has settled off level as a result of a quake. Loss Adjusting Team (LAT): Work on behalf of the Insurers to adjust our claims. Offer of service (OOS): When Council requests a cost to undertake a piece of work. Statement of Position (SOP): The Loss Adjusters response to Council
HERITAGE
Addington Water Station
Building Status: Closed DEE Result: 68%NBS
Total Sum Insured: $0.00 Indemnity: $0.00 Insurance Reference: IR5005
Value claimed from Insurer: $ Under Review
Insurer supported costs $ Under Review
Council report approved value $ Under Review
Council approved betterment & maintenance cost $ Under Review
Progress to date and current status: Investigations to confirm quantitative NBS % have been completed and letter has been issued by structex confirming 68% NBS for building The perimeter fencing required to protect the public from spalling /falling concrete has reduced in size and the container (protected walkway for tenant) previously located alongside the tower has been removed
Next Steps:
Review the methodology for the concrete repairs, with a view to removing the fences and opening the asset. SOP documentation sought for support of works completed to date and proposed works.
ATTACHMENT 4 TO CLAUSE 4 73 COMMUNITY, RECREATION AND CULTURE COMMITTEE 6. 8. 2013
CRaC Committee 06 August 2013 Attachment 4– Heritage Program Akaroa Court House
Building Status: Closed DEE Result: 70% (under review due to recent works)
Total Sum Insured: $296,532 Indemnity: $53,262 Insurance Reference: IR0045
Value claimed from Insurer: $ Under Review
Insurer supported costs $ Under Review
Council report approved value $ Under Review
Council approved betterment & maintenance cost $ Under Review
Progress to date and current status: Building consent will be required for strengthening works, council approval required before moving to design. Obtainment of relevant reports with regards to updating fire, accessibility and emergency lighting requirements Timber piles have been completed and DEE result is suggested to be 70% NBS. Insight to obtain a copy of the DEE report from Opus to confirm this. Insight unlimited have reviewed the asset Next Steps: The museum team are able to open the building once a decision has been made regarding how it is utilised, to determine the next stage. SOP documentation sought for support of works completed to date and proposed works. Code of compliance documentation and assessments
ATTACHMENT 4 TO CLAUSE 4 74 COMMUNITY, RECREATION AND CULTURE COMMITTEE 6. 8. 2013
CRaC Committee 06 August 2013 Attachment 4– Heritage Program
Akaroa Museum
Building Status: CLOSED (partially open – Concourse) DEE: 12%-38%NBS
Total Sum Insured: $605,694 Indemnity: $474,517 Insurance Reference: IR0048
Value claimed from Insurer: $ Under Review
Insurer supported costs $ Under Review
Council report approved value $ Under Review
Council approved betterment & maintenance cost $ Under Review
Progress to date:
The main building has six separate structures of different ages and construction strengths. Temporary propping possible but permanent repair / strengthening may be complicated.
The Project team are focused on 2013/14 summer opening.
Current status:
A temporary (partial) opening of the foyer area, by deconstructing the wall between gallery 1 and the Foyer, has now been completed. This means that once the Museum staff has prepared the building to have artefacts displayed in the Foyer area, the public would have access to view limited items, while a permanent repair strategy is developed. Structural engineer tendering in progress for DEE peer review, building strengthening design and documentation.
Next Steps:
Peer review of structural damage assessments Develop repair methodologies Obtain all documentation from City Care SOP documentation sought for support of works completed to date and proposed works. Developing budgets for maintenance and betterment for approval via Council Hold point for Council approval
ATTACHMENT 4 TO CLAUSE 4 75 COMMUNITY, RECREATION AND CULTURE COMMITTEE 6. 8. 2013
CRaC Committee 06 August 2013 Attachment 4– Heritage Program
Akaroa Service Centre
Building Status: CLOSED DEE: 26%NBS Total Sum Insured: $754.657 Indemnity: $183.195 Insurance Reference: IR0051
Value claimed from Insurer: $ Under Review
Insurer supported costs $ Under Review
Council report approved value $ Under Review
Council approved betterment & maintenance cost $ Under Review
Progress to date:
Project team focussing on opening for 2013-2014 summer. Current status:
Structural engineer tendering in progress for DEE peer review, building strengthening design and documentation.
Next Steps: Peer review of structural damage assessments Develop repair methodologies Obtain all documentation from City Care
Akaroa Weighbridge
Building Status: OPEN DEE Result: 68% NBS
Total Sum Insured: $0.00 Indemnity: $0.00 Insurance Reference: IR5015
Value claimed from Insurer: $ Under Review
Insurer supported costs $ Under Review
Council report approved value $ Under Review
Council approved betterment & maintenance cost $ Under Review
Progress to date and current status:
Finalise revised scope for pebbledash repair, undertake works asap. Engineer to review external wall base connection when the temporary cladding is removed for ATTACHMENT 4 TO CLAUSE 4 76 COMMUNITY, RECREATION AND CULTURE COMMITTEE 6. 8. 2013
CRaC Committee 06 August 2013 Attachment 4– Heritage Program permanent repair, to confirm that the timber plate is connected to the foundation. If the building is found to be not well connected to the foundation, connection to be added. This building has been placed on hold to further notice as directed by CCC as not part of priority 1 and 2 projects
Next Steps: Peer review of structural damage assessments Develop repair methodologies Obtain all documentation from City Care
Avebury Park
Building Status: CLOSED – Scheduled re-opening August 2013 DEE Result: 100% NBS on completion
Total Sum Insured: $1,030,397 Indemnity: $142,177 Insurance Reference: IR0101 Value claimed from Insurer: $
Insurer supported costs $942,879.51 (job cost tracking under budget)
Council report approved value $887,426.00
Council approved betterment & maintenance cost $42,781.45 (job cost tracking to budget)
Progress to date and current status: Head contractor will have completed reinstatement works, and will be off site on Friday 5th July 2013 Next Steps: Code of compliance inspection scheduled 9th July 2013 Handover asset to council property asset team 21st July 2013 Coachhouse report from Engineer on foundations (separate project) On receipt of Coach house engineers report, review at HRWG meeting.
ATTACHMENT 4 TO CLAUSE 4 77 COMMUNITY, RECREATION AND CULTURE COMMITTEE 6. 8. 2013
CRaC Committee 06 August 2013 Attachment 4– Heritage Program
Café Trubys
Building Status: OPEN DEE Result: 50% NBS
Total Sum Insured: $84,200 Indemnity: $14,455 Insurance Reference: IR0505
Value claimed from Insurer: $ Under Review
Insurer supported costs $ Under Review
Council report approved value $ Under Review
Council approved betterment & maintenance cost $ Under Review
Progress to date and current status: This building is currently open and operational. Strengthening concepts and estimates have been developed and forwarded to council. Project review summary document has been developed and has been issued to council for review and comment. Intention of this document is to assist with preparation of Council report and also for discussion document at review meeting to assess overall building scope of works and costs to be held with stakeholders. Project has been put on hold as not a part of CCC priority 1 and 2 buildings
Next Steps:
Project complete. Settle claim with Insurers for works completed to date
ATTACHMENT 4 TO CLAUSE 4 78 COMMUNITY, RECREATION AND CULTURE COMMITTEE 6. 8. 2013
CRaC Committee 06 August 2013 Attachment 4– Heritage Program
Canterbury Provincial Chambers
Building Status: CLOSED DEE: Stabilisation underway before DEE assessment can be commenced. Total Sum Insured: $32,884,529 Indemnity: $6,221,541 Insurance Reference: IR0245
Value claimed from Insurer: $
Insurer supported costs $4,437,315.44 (Stabilisation costs)
Council report approved value $
Council approved betterment & maintenance cost $Nil to date
Progress to date: Building is severely damaged. Potential land issues. Rebuild of significant portions of the building necessary. A revised stabilisation plan has been developed. This plan incorporates the remaining deconstruction and stabilisation works as a result of gaining access to damaged areas not previous available. Current status: Due to the extent of the revised stabilisation plan and engineering resources Insight Unlimited decided to stage the documentation allowing work on site to commence at an earlier date. The sequence for the engineering documentation is the Stone Chamber, Timber Chamber followed by the SW corner of Bellamys. Stabilisation design for stages 1 to 4 (stone and timber chamber; Timber offices; Belgian beer Café; bellamys) is now complete Stabilisation work are now complete for Belgian beer café and timber chamber,Stage four detailed design is underway, to be lodged for RC 30/06/13
The additional work has extended the project end date by seven months with a programmed completion date Dec 2013. Next Steps: Complete stabilisation to stone chamber and timber offices and bellamys Future repair strategy requires detailed consideration and consultation with CCC, DOC and NZHPT. Completion of the timber enclosure over the Stone Chamber Resource consent was lodged on 30/06/13
ATTACHMENT 4 TO CLAUSE 4 79 COMMUNITY, RECREATION AND CULTURE COMMITTEE 6. 8. 2013
CRaC Committee 06 August 2013 Attachment 4– Heritage Program
Chokebore Lodge
Building Status: CLOSED DEE Result: Pending
Total Sum Insured: $648,207 Indemnity: $53,978 Insurance Reference: IR0316
Value claimed from Insurer: $
Insurer supported costs $
Council report approved value $
Council approved betterment & maintenance cost $
Progress to date and current status: CCC is submitting notice to EQC to claim cost. HRPG confirmed 10/10/12 that DEE’s are required for Council residential buildings. All chimney design work and chimney strengthening to code is complete DEE report is underway.
Next Steps: Finalise comments and repair methodologies to the cob work on the project Receive DEE report from Structural Concepts 14/07/13 Review DEE on receipt and modify documentation if required as a result of DEE Agree Cob repair methodology with HRWG Complete design and documentation Gain sign off for design via HRWG Request SOP from Insurer Prepare Council report for asset ATTACHMENT 4 TO CLAUSE 4 80 COMMUNITY, RECREATION AND CULTURE COMMITTEE 6. 8. 2013
CRaC Committee 06 August 2013 Attachment 4– Heritage Program
Cob Cottage
Building Status: CLOSED DEE Result:
Total Sum Insured: $109,829 Indemnity: $28,084 Insurance Reference: IR0336
Value claimed from Insurer: $
Insurer supported costs $
Council report approved value $
Council approved betterment & maintenance cost $
Progress to date and current status:
The asset owner has advised to hold works on this project. Total cost to rebuild cottage including costs to date, consultants, and consents. etc. $181,690.00 Temporary road has been constructed very close to structure. Insight will check for deterioration
Next Steps: Project on HOLD
Coronation Library (Akaroa)
Building Status: OPEN DEE Result: 44% NBS
Total Sum Insured: $220,896 Indemnity: $43,569 Insurance Reference: IR0390
Value claimed from Insurer: $ Under Review
Insurer supported costs $ Under Review
Council report approved value $ Under Review
Council approved betterment & maintenance cost $ Under Review
Progress to date and current status: Limited Investigation of roof structure completed late November 2011 as part of DEE assessment Qualitative completed and issued early January 2012. No critical structural weaknesses identified. Chimney previously deconstructed - waterproofed was checked ATTACHMENT 4 TO CLAUSE 4 81 COMMUNITY, RECREATION AND CULTURE COMMITTEE 6. 8. 2013
CRaC Committee 06 August 2013 Attachment 4– Heritage Program Intrusive investigations to roof to establish wall and roof framing construction to help understand strength and flexibility of roof Diaphragm Conceptual strengthening scheme report was completed and issued mid June 2012, A quantitative DEE report was carried out as part of this report and it was established that building NBS was 44% therefore not EQ prone but bookshelf would need to be secured before occupancy of building Draft project review summary document was issued to Council for review and comment on 15th November 2012 Council have approved estimate for bookcase repair and have instructed City Care Ltd to commence works 11th December CCC have completed official opening processes building is currently open for short term interim as structure confirmed not earthquake prone. Strengthening works to be carried out at a later date Next Steps:
Once above strategy assessment has been completed and direction given by council, the next phase will be to move to design Building consent will be required for any strengthening works, council approval required before moving to design. Confirm scope of works to include with building consent - maintenance, betterment & earthquake related repairs Lodge and then uplift building and resource consents and undertake works Representatives from Cunningham Lindsey have reviewed the asset Obtain Insurers SOP on project for works completed to date, and proposed works going forward. Insight to review and certify earthquake works completed to date Identify with asset owner requirements relating to strengthening
Curators House
Building Status: OPEN DEE Result: 67% NBS
Total Sum Insured: $1,105,817 Indemnity: $270,733 Insurance Reference: IR0412
Value claimed from Insurer: $
Insurer supported costs $592,624.37 (job finished and under budget by $66,398.22)
Council report approved value $544,491.00
Council approved betterment & maintenance cost $208,267.00
Progress to date and current status: An initial site inspection was carried out by Structex & investigation works were carried out as a result of the damage report. The DEE report was completed September 2011, following the report some stabilisation & deconstruction works commenced & completed February 2012. Design & budgets were developed & approved through the Insurer/CCC process Insight held a site start up meeting with Heritage on the 2/5/12. ATTACHMENT 4 TO CLAUSE 4 82 COMMUNITY, RECREATION AND CULTURE COMMITTEE 6. 8. 2013
CRaC Committee 06 August 2013 Attachment 4– Heritage Program Documentation was finalised & submitted for RC & BC, these were issued to Insight 11/5/12 Simon Construction established the site & commenced works on the 14/5/12 Works have been completed & code of compliance applied for 3/10/12 & was approved 10/10/12 Maintenance works included: Wools Insulation in the ceiling, replacement of internal valley flashings, repair an existing water leak to the south roof elevation, internal painting & staining.
Next Steps:
Project complete Finalise insurer settlements
Custom House
Building Status: CLOSED DEE Result: 41% NBS
Total Sum Insured: $70,782 Indemnity: $13,398 Insurance Reference: IR0413
Value claimed from Insurer: $ Under Review
Insurer supported costs $ Under Review
Council report approved value $ Under Review
Council approved betterment & maintenance cost $ Under Review
Progress to date and current status: Make safe works included deconstruction of brick chimney to below roofline and waterproofed with plywood cap No intrusive Investigations have been requested or carried out Opus commenced a DEE assessment in mid-September , expected release date for report is early November Draft Quantitative DEE issued for this building currently under review. Project has been put on hold until further notice from Council A proposal to open building in short term is being investigated as draft quantitative records building to be at 41% NBS. Review by engineer and minor maintenance works to be complete
Next Steps:
Once above assessment has been completed and direction given by council, the next phase will be to move to design Obtainment of relevant reports with regards to updating fire, accessibility and emergency lighting requirements Concepts and estimates for conceptual strengthening options of 34%, 67%, and 100% NBS to be completed Develop project review document, council approval required before moving to design. Peer review of structural damage assessments Develop repair methodologies Obtain all documentation from City Care Insight to review next steps with asset owner in relation to maintenance and earthquake repair works Following direction from the asset owner, tender fee proposals for engineering design and documentation.
ATTACHMENT 4 TO CLAUSE 4 83 COMMUNITY, RECREATION AND CULTURE COMMITTEE 6. 8. 2013
CRaC Committee 06 August 2013 Attachment 4– Heritage Program
Edmond Band Rotunda
Building Status: CLOSED DEE Result:
Total Sum Insured: $686,472 Indemnity: $463,421 Insurance Reference: IR1393
Value claimed from Insurer: $
Insurer supported costs $755,119.00 (Preliminary budget $1.2M)
Council report approved value $
Council approved betterment & maintenance cost $ Not yet known
Progress to date and current status: Asset has been deconstructed and heritage items have been retrieved and stored on site A Permanent fence has been installed Preliminary design documents have been completed Preliminary budgets for rebuild have been completed Next Steps: Prepare council report - underway ATTACHMENT 4 TO CLAUSE 4 84 COMMUNITY, RECREATION AND CULTURE COMMITTEE 6. 8. 2013
CRaC Committee 06 August 2013 Attachment 4– Heritage Program
Edmonds Clock Tower
Building Status: CLOSED DEE Result: 67% (On completion)
Total Sum Insured: $485,478 Indemnity: $379,339 Insurance Reference: IR0330
Value claimed from Insurer: $
Insurer supported costs $304,142.76 (job tracking to budget)
Council report approved value $260,000.00
Council approved betterment & maintenance cost $ (Note: Includes betterment for clockwork – est. $10,000.00)
Progress to date and current status: Fulton Hogan started on site 21/01/13 Delays: Fulton Hogan had found that the depth of the foundations are only 350mm, revised design / methodology / approved. New foundations completed The top roof section has been successfully returned into place following removal for repairs A budget for exterior stone and internal maintenance is being prepared, along with methodologies for these works.
Next Steps: Maintenance work repair methodology to be approved Start on the external repairs. Schedule completion date, end December pending approval on maintenance, the stonemason delayed works by two weeks
ATTACHMENT 4 TO CLAUSE 4 85 COMMUNITY, RECREATION AND CULTURE COMMITTEE 6. 8. 2013
CRaC Committee 06 August 2013 Attachment 4– Heritage Program Former Council Stables
Building Status: CLOSED DEE Result: Pending
Total Sum Insured: $364,576 Indemnity: $90,860 Insurance Reference: IR0436
Value claimed from Insurer: $
Insurer supported costs $ Funds for DEE supported
Council report approved value $
Council approved betterment & maintenance cost $
Progress to date and current status:
Insurers SOP received Current focus is on preparation of the DEE report, at which point the project will go on hold until further direction is received from the asset owner. Preliminary schismatic design and budget works completed. Next Steps: Complete the DEE – HOLD POINT
Governors Bay Old School House
Building Status: CLOSED DEE Result:
Total Sum Insured: $74,524 Indemnity: $9,758 Insurance Reference: IR1017
Value claimed from Insurer: $ Under Review
Insurer supported costs $ Under Review
Council report approved value $ Under Review
Council approved betterment & maintenance cost $ Under Review
Progress to date and current status: Chimney was deconstructed as part of make safe works Conceptual designs have been developed for chimney reinstatement Site visits by SKM engineers (as part of the Quantitative) occurred for both the Governors Bay Old School House and Headmasters House on 29th October 2012 Intrusive request issued by engineer on 8th November 2012 as part of quantitative assessment ATTACHMENT 4 TO CLAUSE 4 86 COMMUNITY, RECREATION AND CULTURE COMMITTEE 6. 8. 2013
CRaC Committee 06 August 2013 Attachment 4– Heritage Program Intrusive methodology developed by architect and forwarded to heritage team for approval to commence works Project on hold as not included with CCC priority 1 and 2 buildings Complete intrusive investigation for completion of Dee assessment SKM engineers are undertaking a Quantitative DEE assessment Next Steps:
Follow up with SKM to determine what stage the DEE report is in relation to completeness. Review DEE report when received – this is then the HOLD POINT
Governors Bay School Headmasters House Building Status: CLOSED DEE Result:
Total Sum Insured: $248,906 Indemnity: $34,038 Insurance Reference: IR1016
Value claimed from Insurer: $ Under Review
Insurer supported costs $ Under Review
Council report approved value $ Under Review
Council approved betterment & maintenance cost $ Under Review
Progress to date and current status: Site visits by SKM engineers (as part of the Quantitative) occurred for both the Governors Bay Old School House and Headmasters House on 29th October 2012 Intrusive request issued by engineer on 8th November 2012 as part of quantitative assessment Intrusive methodology developed by architect and forwarded to heritage team for approval to commence works This building has been placed on hold to further notice as directed by CCC as not part of priority 1 and 2 projects Complete intrusive investigation for completion of DEE assessment SKM engineers are undertaking a Quantitative DEE assessment
Next Steps:
Follow up with SKM to determine what stage the DEE report is in relation to completeness. Representatives from Cunningham Lindsey have reviewed the asset Council to advise when the project can re-start – On HOLD as of July 2013 Council direction.
ATTACHMENT 4 TO CLAUSE 4 87 COMMUNITY, RECREATION AND CULTURE COMMITTEE 6. 8. 2013
CRaC Committee 06 August 2013 Attachment 4– Heritage Program
Grubb Cottage
Building Status: OPEN DEE Result: 86% NBS
Total Sum Insured: $123,900 Indemnity: $81,125 Insurance Reference: IR0622
Value claimed from Insurer: $ Under Review
Insurer supported costs $ Under Review
Council report approved value $ Under Review
Council approved betterment & maintenance cost $ Under Review
Progress to date and current status: Conceptual strengthening options have been issued by Opus and due to additional assessment guidelines and information seismic capacity for building has been upgraded from < 34% to 86% NBS Council have advised that preference is to accept current 86 NBS% and open building. CCC property asset team are reviewing this to ensure appropriate CCC opening protocols are completed Access to the room with EQ damage to the Chimney has been prevented.
Next Steps:
Review and submit conceptual strengthening report to Council, for the damage to the Chimney. These repairs will be made while the building is open. Obtain all documentation from City Care Review DEE report SOP documentation sought for support of works completed to date and proposed works.
ATTACHMENT 4 TO CLAUSE 4 88 COMMUNITY, RECREATION AND CULTURE COMMITTEE 6. 8. 2013
CRaC Committee 06 August 2013 Attachment 4– Heritage Program Halswell Quarry Old Stone House
Building Status: CLOSED DEE Result:
Total Sum Insured: $398,088 Indemnity: $107,710 Insurance Reference: IR0669
Value claimed from Insurer: $
Insurer supported costs $
Council report approved value $
Council approved betterment & maintenance cost $
Progress to date and current status: CCC is submitting notice to EQC to claim cost. East Chimney strengthening design in progress & Engineer has carried out an inspection of chimney 2 to determine work required. Stone Garage; Internal & external inspection on completed, Minor mortar cracking around one stone on the NW corner. Structural concepts engaged to perform DEE report
Next Steps:
On Receipt of the DEE report, this is a hold point
ATTACHMENT 4 TO CLAUSE 4 89 COMMUNITY, RECREATION AND CULTURE COMMITTEE 6. 8. 2013
CRaC Committee 06 August 2013 Attachment 4– Heritage Program
Halswell Quarry Crusher Building
Building Status: CLOSED DEE Result:
Total Sum Insured: $148,500 Indemnity: $1,687 Insurance Reference: IR1012
Value claimed from Insurer: $
Insurer supported costs $
Council report approved value $
Council approved betterment & maintenance cost $
Progress to date and current status: Insurers have supported the costs to cut the bank back following the recommendations within the Geotech report. Insight has circulated the damage report. Comments received from HRWG/PG. Insight has pegged out the cut line on top of the bank; Council have approved the peg layout. Insight has advised Council an archaeologist Authority and RC have been received DEE Report received. PO number for $30K - Insurer funded, has now been received. Insight to lodge for a RC application for above works, a draft copy of the RC application is with Maria Adamski for comment prior to lodging. Resource consent was lodged 28/03/13 - awaiting approval.
Next Steps: Commence bank stabilisation Insight to arrange Pre-start meeting
ATTACHMENT 4 TO CLAUSE 4 90 COMMUNITY, RECREATION AND CULTURE COMMITTEE 6. 8. 2013
CRaC Committee 06 August 2013 Attachment 4– Heritage Program
Halswell Quarry Singlemans Quarters Building Status: CLOSED DEE Result: 39% NBS
Total Sum Insured: $220,725 Indemnity: $42,525 Insurance Reference: IR1015
Value claimed from Insurer: $
Insurer supported costs $
Council report approved value $
Council approved betterment & maintenance cost $
Progress to date and current status: Stabilisation methodology and works completed. Engineering design work in final stages – subject to asset owner confirming target NBS% strength for the building.
Next Steps:
Statement required from Engineer regarding NBS rating following pinning and grout of wall Design to be placed on hold following receipt of wall adjustments
ATTACHMENT 4 TO CLAUSE 4 91 COMMUNITY, RECREATION AND CULTURE COMMITTEE 6. 8. 2013
CRaC Committee 06 August 2013 Attachment 4– Heritage Program Jubilee Clock Tower
Building Status: CLOSED Scheduled hand over date 23rd Dec 2013 DEE Result: 67% NBS (on completion)
Total Sum Insured: $1,016,117 Indemnity: $793,965 Insurance Reference: IR0333
Value claimed from Insurer: $
Insurer supported costs $704,194.75 (Tracking to budget) + (contested cost artisian water $36,890.00)
Council report approved value $
Council approved betterment & maintenance cost $13,000 for clock maintenance (+contested cost for artesian water $36,890.00)
Progress to date and current status: Clock Tower stabilised and artesian water diverted. Start onsite 11/02/2013 Projected completion date of 23/12/13. Post tensioning rods placed through steps and foundation.
Next Steps: Clock repair to begin. st Deconstruction of 1 stone column to commence, then continue with 3 remaining columns
ATTACHMENT 4 TO CLAUSE 4 92 COMMUNITY, RECREATION AND CULTURE COMMITTEE 6. 8. 2013
CRaC Committee 06 August 2013 Attachment 4– Heritage Program Kapuatohe Cottage
Building Status: OPEN DEE Result:
Total Sum Insured: $ Indemnity: $ Insurance Reference:
Value claimed from Insurer: $
Insurer supported costs $
Council report approved value $
Council approved betterment & maintenance cost $ Progress to date:
Damage assessment: no damage to chimney. Vertical movement to rear entry and southwest corner, due to settlement from the earthquakes. Minor works to be completed at the same time as the Kapuatohe Dwelling.
Current status:
Next Steps: Finalise repair methodology
Kapuatohe Museum (Belfast District Museum) Building Status: CLOSED DEE Result: 35%
Total Sum Insured: $183,705 Indemnity: $21,423 Insurance Reference: IR0972
Progress to date Minor works will schedule in conjunction with the dwelling project CCC submitting notice to EQC to claim cost. current status: Review repair methodology Next Steps:
Finalise repair methodology
ATTACHMENT 4 TO CLAUSE 4 93 COMMUNITY, RECREATION AND CULTURE COMMITTEE 6. 8. 2013
CRaC Committee 06 August 2013 Attachment 4– Heritage Program
Kapuatohe Dwelling
Building Status: OPEN DEE Result: 100% top and bottom floors. 0% Chimneys
Total Sum Insured: $243,960 Indemnity: $26,076 Insurance Reference: IR0474
Value claimed from Insurer: $
Insurer supported costs $
Council report approved value $
Council approved betterment & maintenance cost $
Progress to date and current status: CCC submitting notice to EQC to claim cost. Insight to circulate latest documents for HRWG approval. Done, comments received & return response sent. All comments have been responded to & Garry to make minor adjustments to the drawings HRPG confirmed 10/10/12 that DEE’s are required for all Council buildings, Insight to obtain a fee proposal. Minor works to cottage will be scheduled in conjunction with the dwelling project. All budgets complete, dependant on DEE report DEE report received 27/03/13 SOP applied for April 2013
Next Steps:
Council report to be issued following SOP
ATTACHMENT 4 TO CLAUSE 4 94 COMMUNITY, RECREATION AND CULTURE COMMITTEE 6. 8. 2013
CRaC Committee 06 August 2013 Attachment 4– Heritage Program Kukupa Hostel
Building Status: CLOSED DEE Result:
Total Sum Insured: $174,048 Indemnity: $102,375 Insurance Reference: IR0775
Value claimed from Insurer: $ Under Review
Insurer supported costs $ Under Review
Council report approved value $ Under Review
Council approved betterment & maintenance cost $ Under Review
Progress to date and current status: Temporary propping of the slumped veranda and waterproofing of the roof and chimney was carried out in 2011 Intrusive methodology for intrusive request issued by engineer has been developed and approved by Heritage team awaiting release of purchase order to commence Project on hold as not a part of CCC priority 1 and 2 buildings City Care to undertake intrusive investigations Opus to provide combined qualitative/quantitative DEE assessment
Next Steps:
Insight to review and assess the quote for the work completed to date on the DEE report
ATTACHMENT 4 TO CLAUSE 4 95 COMMUNITY, RECREATION AND CULTURE COMMITTEE 6. 8. 2013
CRaC Committee 06 August 2013 Attachment 4– Heritage Program
LE Cottage
Building Status: CLOSED (Open for external viewing) DEE Result: 51% NBS
Total Sum Insured: $65,268 Indemnity: $11,415 Insurance Reference: IR0504
Value claimed from Insurer: $ Under Review
Insurer supported costs $ Under Review
Council report approved value $ Under Review
Council approved betterment & maintenance cost $ Under Review
Progress to date and current status:
Make Safe works included chimney deconstruction below roofline and waterproofing of same Investigations included Structex viewing the inside of the chimney as it was deconstructed below roofline Geoscience report 29th July 2011 stated no land damage was noted Opus commenced a Dee assessment in mid-September and expected release date for report is early November Opus completed a Dee assessment and issued a draft quantitative report detailing 51% NBS for building Proposal underway to open building in short term as 51% NBS and will be included as part of Akaroa Strategy to get a number of buildings operational as soon as possible
Next Steps:
Confirm reinstatement budget support Peer review of structural damage assessments Develop repair methodologies Obtain all documentation from City Care Review the DEE report – determine the extent of the work to complete the DEE report
ATTACHMENT 4 TO CLAUSE 4 96 COMMUNITY, RECREATION AND CULTURE COMMITTEE 6. 8. 2013
CRaC Committee 06 August 2013 Attachment 4– Heritage Program
Linwood Community Arts
Building Status: OPEN DEE Result: 100% NBS on completion
Total Sum Insured: $463,105 Indemnity: $47,247 Insurance Reference: IR0807
Value claimed from Insurer: $
Insurer supported costs $509,416.00
Council report approved value $
Council approved betterment & maintenance cost $35,884.00
Progress to date and current status: Site disestablishment underway
Next Steps:
Code of compliance issued 24/06/13 Insight handover to council 24/06/13
ATTACHMENT 4 TO CLAUSE 4 97 COMMUNITY, RECREATION AND CULTURE COMMITTEE 6. 8. 2013
CRaC Committee 06 August 2013 Attachment 4– Heritage Program
Little River Library
Building Status: CLOSED DEE Result:
Total Sum Insured: $321,734 Indemnity: $53,277 Insurance Reference: IR0776
Value claimed from Insurer: $ Under Review
Insurer supported costs $ Under Review
Council report approved value $ Under Review
Council approved betterment & maintenance cost $ Under Review
Progress to date and current status: Direction is required from council to proceed Project Summary Review Document has been developed and issued to council for review and comment Initial make safe works have been undertaken. Engineered timber propping with dead man weighting was installed to the south west and North West corners of the building to make it safe for further investigation and works. Two lots of intrusive investigations have been undertaken to provide sufficient information for the engineer to complete their DEE assessments Conceptual strengthening options have been developed and costs estimated, project review document has been drafted ready for council report Further make safe works (internal timber propping of East Wall above Bay Window) have been instructed. CCL still to undertake works Maria has removed the war memorial boards, pictures that were remaining in the building into storage. Storage facility is located at Pages Road, Christchurch. A catalogue of these is being assembled by Lynn Campbell This building has been placed on hold to further notice as directed by CCC as not part of priority 1 and 2 projects Awaiting direction from council to proceed
Next Steps:
Obtain all documentation from City Care SOP documentation sought for support of works completed to date and proposed works.
ATTACHMENT 4 TO CLAUSE 4 98 COMMUNITY, RECREATION AND CULTURE COMMITTEE 6. 8. 2013
CRaC Committee 06 August 2013 Attachment 4– Heritage Program
Lyttelton Clocktower
Building Status: CLOSED (MOE owns land, project under review) DEE Result: 25% NBS
Total Sum Insured: $0.00 Indemnity: $0.00 Insurance Reference: IR5006
Progress to date and current status:
Structex provided information regarding strengthening ratios SOP applied for from Insurer.
Next Steps:
Project on hold until further notice – Insurer clarification in progress
Mona Vale Bathhouse
Building Status: CLOSED DEE Result: 25% NBS (damaged state)
Total Sum Insured: $131,794 Indemnity: $15,045 Insurance Reference: IR0960
Progress to date and current status:
DEE reports completed; Geotechnical report and onsite drilling works completed, Results received. Concept design completed awaiting approval and further consultation. Stabilisation works now completed Next Steps:
Asset owner to confirm % NBS required Design and documentation to be completed for consent Prepare budget based on design Request SOP from Insurer Prepare council report
ATTACHMENT 4 TO CLAUSE 4 99 COMMUNITY, RECREATION AND CULTURE COMMITTEE 6. 8. 2013
CRaC Committee 06 August 2013 Attachment 4– Heritage Program
Mona Vale Gatehouse(Residential)
Building Status: CLOSED DEE Result: Pending
Total Sum Insured: $404,881 Indemnity: $123,088 Insurance Reference: IR0962
Progress to date and current status: Council attempting to engage a meeting with EQC to review claim for costs Stabilisation works are complete DEE report and design concepts are currently being prepared
Next Steps:
DEE report and design to be completed Asset owner to confirm % NBS required Design and documentation to be completed for consent Prepare budget based on design Request SOP from Insurer Prepare council report
Mona Vale Homestead
Building Status: CLOSED DEE Result: 5%
Total Sum Insured: $3,922,202 Indemnity: $912,140 Insurance Reference: IR0964
Progress to date and current status:
Resource and building consent documentation have been completed Documentation for SOP request is underway
Next Steps:
Prepare council report Submit SOP request rd Lodge Council report to Crac 3 September
ATTACHMENT 4 TO CLAUSE 4 100 COMMUNITY, RECREATION AND CULTURE COMMITTEE 6. 8. 2013
CRaC Committee 06 August 2013 Attachment 4– Heritage Program
Mona Vale Lodge (Residential)
Building Status: OPEN DEE Result: 45%
Total Sum Insured: $291,748 Indemnity: $92,409 Insurance Reference: IR0966
Value claimed from Insurer: $
Insurer supported costs $
Council report approved value $
Council approved betterment & maintenance cost $
Progress to date and current status:
Resource and Building consent documentation have been completed Documentation to request SOP is currently being prepared
Next Steps:
Apply for SOP from Insurer. rd Lodge Council report to CraC 3 Sept 2013
ATTACHMENT 4 TO CLAUSE 4 101 COMMUNITY, RECREATION AND CULTURE COMMITTEE 6. 8. 2013
CRaC Committee 06 August 2013 Attachment 4– Heritage Program
Old Stone House
Building Status: CLOSED DEE: 10% NBS Total Sum Insured: $1,584,732 Indemnity: $361,143 Insurance Reference: IR0346
Value claimed from Insurer: $ Under Review
Insurer supported costs $ Under Review
Council report approved value $ Under Review
Council approved betterment & maintenance cost $ Under Review
Progress to date: The following completed have been completed: Accessibility report Electrical report Fire report Chimney securing and stabilisation methodology North Store securing and stabilisation methodology Methodology for mezzanine propping Visual Geotech assessment of land damage Stabilisation works to the chimney completed Next Steps:
Structural engineer tendering in progress for DEE peer review, building strengthening design and documentation. SOP documentation sought for support of works completed to date and proposed works.
ATTACHMENT 4 TO CLAUSE 4 102 COMMUNITY, RECREATION AND CULTURE COMMITTEE 6. 8. 2013
CRaC Committee 06 August 2013 Attachment 4– Heritage Program
Our City Otautahi
Building Status: CLOSED DEE: too dangerous for internal inspections
Total Sum Insured: $5,717,100 Indemnity: $1,015,980 Insurance Reference: IR1013
Value claimed from Insurer: $
Insurer supported costs $
Council report approved value $
Council approved betterment & maintenance cost $
Progress to date:
Building is stabilised but severely damaged. Rebuild of significant portions of the building necessary. Reinstatement cost is well in excess of insured amount.
Current status:
Three preliminary options have been put to staff for review: 1 - A traditional engineering strengthening solution to 67% NBS (approx. $8,895,000) 2 - A base isolation solution (estimated at $10.5M) 3 – A traditional engineering strengthening solution to 33% NBS ($8,885,000) Damage report completed by Tony Ussher.
The insured value ($5.8M) is not expected to cover any option, therefore it is expected that Council will meet the difference in the chosen repair strategy.
Next Steps:
Staff are currently preparing a report to go to Council in August 2013, outlining the repair options for this building and asking for a decision. A decision to be made regarding engineers performing a DEE report due to dangerous state of the building A draft budget presented to Council, detailing traditional methods vs base isolation.
ATTACHMENT 4 TO CLAUSE 4 103 COMMUNITY, RECREATION AND CULTURE COMMITTEE 6. 8. 2013
CRaC Committee 06 August 2013 Attachment 4– Heritage Program Poseidon
Building Status: OPEN DEE Result: 87% NBS
Total Sum Insured: $494,646 Indemnity: $296,063 Insurance Reference: IR0133
Value claimed from Insurer: $
Insurer supported costs $314,902.44 (Job completed on budget)
Council report approved value $288,472.00
Council approved betterment & maintenance cost $2000.00
Progress to date and current status:
Building complete. Code of Compliance Certificate was issued 2/10/12 Opened for Business November 2012
Next Steps: Project Complete
Poplar Crescent Pavilion
Building Status: CLOSED DEE Result: 100% NBS
Total Sum Insured: $84,606 Indemnity: $14,160 Insurance Reference: IR1271
Progress to date and current status:
Asset owner approval required before any design works commence. The river wall is considered an ancillary structure from insurance perspective and will push the Band Rotunda and the adjacent Pavilion building over their insured values. DEE report received – 100% NBS Next Steps:
DEE report to be circulated
ATTACHMENT 4 TO CLAUSE 4 104 COMMUNITY, RECREATION AND CULTURE COMMITTEE 6. 8. 2013
CRaC Committee 06 August 2013 Attachment 4– Heritage Program
Riccarton Bush Deans Cottage
Building Status: CLOSED DEE Result:
Total Sum Insured: $138,030 Indemnity: $778 Insurance Reference: IR1199
Value claimed from Insurer: $
Insurer supported costs $
RBT approved value $
RBT betterment & maintenance cost $
Progress to date and current status: Engineering design complete RBT board have accepted the option to replace the chimney in red brick - These bricks will be salvaged from Chimney 1 in the homestead. Next Steps: Receipt of a DEE report Tender process to be followed for engineers Review tender summary and request PO for appointed engineer
Riccarton Bush Rangers Cottage (Residential – Tenanted) Building Status: Occupied by tenant DEE Result: RBT not requesting a DEE report, as asset is a residential dwelling
Total Sum Insured: $255,628 Indemnity: $110,920 Insurance Reference: IR1200
Value claimed from Insurer: $
Insurer supported costs $
RBT approved value $
RBT betterment & maintenance cost $
Progress to date and current status: Design work substantially complete and waiting for approval to complete design for Jan 12 event (SW wall) ATTACHMENT 4 TO CLAUSE 4 105 COMMUNITY, RECREATION AND CULTURE COMMITTEE 6. 8. 2013
CRaC Committee 06 August 2013 Attachment 4– Heritage Program CCC submitted notice to EQC to claim cost. EQC Insight to check values before CCC acceptance, Council to instigate. Council attempting to engage a meeting with EQC to review claim for costs Next Steps: Receipt of the DEE report Award engineering contract Obtain funding to complete make safe works. Commence Chimney design documentation Lodge Building consent Obtain SOP from Insurer
Riccarton House (RBT)
Building Status: CLOSED DEE Result: 18% NBS
Total Sum Insured: $3,720,390 Indemnity: $1,069,503 Insurance Reference: IR1202
Value claimed from Insurer: $
Insurer supported costs $2,026,101.50 (Tracking to budget)
RBT approved value $1,863,870.40
RBT betterment & maintenance cost $99,600.50
Progress to date and current status: Commenced on site Oct 12 Reinstatement works 50% complete Insight have recently been commissioned to undertake substantial Trust works including new kitchen fit-out, morning room project and heating project
Next Steps:
Award heating contract Update program due to substantial Trust work inclusion Variations works to commence on Chimney 1 Bricklayer to commence brick work through roof to chimneys Completion date is Feb 2014 due to inclusion of Heating and Kitchen projects
ATTACHMENT 4 TO CLAUSE 4 106 COMMUNITY, RECREATION AND CULTURE COMMITTEE 6. 8. 2013
CRaC Committee 06 August 2013 Attachment 4– Heritage Program
Risingholme Hall
Building Status: CLOSED DEE Result: 13% NBS
Total Sum Insured: $538,203 Indemnity: $130,735 Insurance Reference: IR1208
Value claimed from Insurer: $ Under Review
Insurer supported costs $ Under Review
Council report approved value $ Under Review
Council approved betterment & maintenance cost $ Under Review
Progress to date and current status: The building has been closed due to its 13% NBS rating. Concepts to strengthen the building have been developed by Structex and cost estimates have been developed by Joseph & Associates Currently the building is on a strategic hold. Peer review of work to date for this building has been completed by Aurecon engineers and they have advised no adverse comment Direction required from council
Next Steps:
Structural engineer tendering in progress for DEE peer review, building strengthening design and documentation.
ATTACHMENT 4 TO CLAUSE 4 107 COMMUNITY, RECREATION AND CULTURE COMMITTEE 6. 8. 2013
CRaC Committee 06 August 2013 Attachment 4– Heritage Program Risingholme Homestead
Building Status: CLOSED DEE Result: 33% NBS
Total Sum Insured: $1,089,199 Indemnity: $168,786 Insurance Reference: IR1209
Value claimed from Insurer: $ Under Review
Insurer supported costs $ Under Review
Council report approved value $ Under Review
Council approved betterment & maintenance cost $ Under Review
Progress to date and current status: Qualitative Dee report issued late November 2011. NBS was 33%. Lateral spreading and lack of connection between superstructure and the foundations. Strengthening to 67% NBS was recommended and deconstruction of chimneys was needed as part of achieving strengthening requirements and make safe Make safe works completed with removal of chimney's A& B to first floor level and waterproofing Deconstruction of chimney A1, A2 to ground level were later required and works undertaken. Linings were removed (as part of an intrusive investigation) from chimney B in mid-August 2012 Decision made that Chimney B should be deconstructed to ground due to damage viewed Aurecon engineers have still to complete review of design to date and have generally agreed with design proposed but have requested further information from design engineer. Complete Peer Review of design to date Acquire purchase order and deconstruct chimney Produce project review summary document, complete scope for maintenance, betterment and compliance works and associated costs Preliminary project budget underway Next Steps:
Structural engineer tendering in progress for DEE peer review, building strengthening design and documentation.
ATTACHMENT 4 TO CLAUSE 4 108 COMMUNITY, RECREATION AND CULTURE COMMITTEE 6. 8. 2013
CRaC Committee 06 August 2013 Attachment 4– Heritage Program
Rose Historic Chapel
Building Status: CLOSED DEE Result: 10% NBS
Total Sum Insured: $1,468,417 Indemnity: $437,037 Insurance Reference: IR1224
Progress to date and current status:
Council have advise Insight as to 67 %NBS standard desired for design stage. Stabilisation works are complete Structural and architectural design work 50% complete Next Steps:
Complete design documentation Prepare budgets Request SOP from Insurer
Shirley Community Centre
Building Status: DEMOLISHED DEE Result:
Total Sum Insured: $2,477,047 Indemnity: $443,259 Insurance Reference: IR0352
Value claimed from Insurer: $
Insurer supported costs $
Council report approved value $
Council approved betterment & maintenance cost $
Progress to date and current status:
Site works complete including cutting grass, security fences have been removed. Council will now take over control of site.
Next Steps:
Council have control of the site.
ATTACHMENT 4 TO CLAUSE 4 109 COMMUNITY, RECREATION AND CULTURE COMMITTEE 6. 8. 2013
CRaC Committee 06 August 2013 Attachment 4– Heritage Program
Sign of the Kiwi
Building Status: CLOSED DEE: 9.5%NBS
Total Sum Insured: $250,437 Indemnity: $45,135 Insurance Reference: IR1276
Value claimed from Insurer: $ Under Review
Insurer supported costs $ Under Review
Council report approved value $ Under Review
Council approved betterment & maintenance cost $ Under Review
Progress to date: The building has suffered damage and will require significant works to reinstate. DEE assessment completed. Intrusive investigations to confirm suitability of repair solution have been completed.
Current status: An estimate has been submitted to the CCC heritage team to advise the preferred option to be put forward for the CRaC and Council report.
Next Steps: Structural engineer tendering in progress for DEE peer review, building strengthening design and documentation. SOP documentation sought for support of works completed to date and proposed works. Obtain all documentation from City Care
ATTACHMENT 4 TO CLAUSE 4 110 COMMUNITY, RECREATION AND CULTURE COMMITTEE 6. 8. 2013
CRaC Committee 06 August 2013 Attachment 4– Heritage Program
Sign of the Takahe
Building Status: CLOSED DEE: 30%NBS
Total Sum Insured: $5,943,859 Indemnity: $3,479,709 Insurance Reference: IR1284
Value claimed from Insurer: $1.9M
Insurer supported costs $1.9M
Current status:
Building stabilisation and weatherproofing are complete Design documentation is complete Overall budget has been completed A review is currently underway for 100% NBS, and base isolation options SOP has now been received
Next Steps:
Report completed recommending repair options, circulate to Council Submit council report to CraC on 6th August
Signal Mast Cave Rock
Building Status: CLOSED DEE Result: N/A
Total Sum Insured: $0.00 Indemnity: $0.00 Insurance Reference: IR5007
Value claimed from Insurer: $
Insurer supported costs $
Council report approved value $
Council approved betterment & maintenance cost $
Progress to date and current status:
All documentation complete, budget has been completed DEE not applicable on this asset as complete building design required and agreed with BC team. Currently waiting for approval to lodge Building and Resource consents Budgets have been finalised by Insight. ATTACHMENT 4 TO CLAUSE 4 111 COMMUNITY, RECREATION AND CULTURE COMMITTEE 6. 8. 2013
CRaC Committee 06 August 2013 Attachment 4– Heritage Program Options being investigated i.e. removing fence on beach 3-4 fence panels to be removed immediately, and the remaining fence to be secured. SOP has now been received by Insurers Next Steps:
Approval being granted from Council so project can move into consent approval stage. NOTE: Lower fence on beach has been compromised by wave action.
Stoddard Cottage
Building Status: CLOSED DEE Result:
Total Sum Insured: $194,110 Indemnity: $41,300 Insurance Reference: IR1355
Value claimed from Insurer: $ Under Review
Insurer supported costs $ Under Review
Council report approved value $ Under Review
Council approved betterment & maintenance cost $ Under Review
Progress to date and current status: Make safe works have been undertaken- Chimney in Gallery. Dismantling of the fireplace and removal of the remainder of the chimney Jim Herdman has carried out urgent waterproofing repairs of the roof Council have made a decision to proceed with getting an estimate for roof repair, this will be a maintenance issue and is not part of earthquake repairs or make safe (outcome is CCL is working direct with CCC) Intrusive Investigation completed was to ascertain condition of timber framing & presence of any diagonal bracing to restrain lateral loading. It enabled an inspection of the connection between the bottom wall plate & foundation Draft Quantitative report issued by Opus 27th November 2012 currently under review City Care Ltd to complete overall project budget on a per consultant/contractor basis and submit to CCC for approval and release of purchase orders to carry out permanent reinstatement and repair Awaiting direction from CCC to commence conceptual strengthening designs
Next Steps:
Insight Unlimited currently preparing repair estimates Obtain all information from City Care SOP documentation sought for support of works completed to date and proposed works. Meet asset owner to determine strengthening requirements
ATTACHMENT 4 TO CLAUSE 4 112 COMMUNITY, RECREATION AND CULTURE COMMITTEE 6. 8. 2013
CRaC Committee 06 August 2013 Attachment 4– Heritage Program
The Gaiety
Building Status: CLOSED DEE: 24%NBS
Total Sum Insured: $628,250 Indemnity: $149,583 Insurance Reference: IR0577
Value claimed from Insurer: $ Under Review
Insurer supported costs $ Under Review
Council report approved value $ Under Review
Council approved betterment & maintenance Under Review cost $
Progress to date: The building has suffered significant damage. The hall requires repair works that will require detailed design and consents. Further intrusive investigations have been undertaken. The project team focussing on opening for 2013/14 summer. Consideration was given to partially opening the main hall, but the results showed no cost/time advantage in doing this. Revised strengthening concepts and report have recently been issued by engineer. Strengthening estimates for 34%, 67% and 100% have been completed for this building. Recent intrusive investigations and a subsequent report that have been completed for the building’s structure have identified a substantial amount of non-structural repairs to substructure areas and framing structure of building are needed. Engineer has advised that although these repairs are non-structural remediation will still be required to meet overall strengthening to building structure. Current status: These documents are currently being reviewed by the Insurers and we are expecting to receive a statement of position imminently. Next Steps: Structural engineer tendering in progress for DEE peer review, building strengthening design and documentation. Gather all information from City Care to review documentation for value SOP documentation sought for support of works completed to date and proposed works.
ATTACHMENT 4 TO CLAUSE 4 113 COMMUNITY, RECREATION AND CULTURE COMMITTEE 6. 8. 2013
CRaC Committee 06 August 2013 Attachment 4– Heritage Program
Victoria Park Information Centre
Building Status: CLOSED DEE Result: 25% NBS
Total Sum Insured: $470,466 Indemnity: $60,686 Insurance Reference: IR1507
Value claimed from Insurer: $
Insurer supported costs $
Council report approved value $
Council approved betterment & maintenance cost $
Progress to date and current status:
Design and documentation complete All budgets complete SOP requested from Insurer in April 2013 Next Steps:
Waiting Council approval. Waiting for an SOP from Insurer
ATTACHMENT 4 TO CLAUSE 4 114 COMMUNITY, RECREATION AND CULTURE COMMITTEE 6. 8. 2013
CRaC Committee 06 August 2013 Attachment 4– Heritage Program
YHA Rolleston House
Building Status: OPEN DEE Result:
Total Sum Insured: $878,430 Indemnity: $172,858 Insurance Reference: IR1223
Progress to date and current status: Qualitative report issued late July 2011. NBS was 55%. No critical structural weaknesses were identified but further investigations were requested to confirm this Deconstruction of chimneys B and C to first floor level and chimney D to ground level as part of first stage make safe works in 2011. Objective was to make safe and repair all internal EQ damage to allow tenant access to reoccupy. Permanent repairs e.g. Chimney B reconstruction above roof level , etc. to occur later in a controlled fashion after tenant had reoccupied SKM Engineers technical review of Dee assessment highlighted items to be attended to. Decision was made to combine all remaining works under one building and resource consent Building consent and Resource consent for permanent repair was lodged in early July Resource consent was issued late July. Building consent was issued mid-August Works undertaken by CCL Building amendment lodged in early October IUE completed for the ancillary buildings on 13th November. No structural damaged identified for buildings. Recommendations were made but all ancillary buildings currently on hold as instructed by CCC Code of compliance issued by council 15th November Building Handed over on 23rd November 2012
Next Steps:
Project Complete
ATTACHMENT 4 TO CLAUSE 4 115 COMMUNITY, RECREATION AND CULTURE COMMITTEE 6. 8. 2013
CRaC Committee 06 August 2013 Attachment 4– Heritage Program
Botanic Gardens Glasshouses
Building Status: Cunningham - CLOSED Foweraker - CLOSED Fernery – OPEN Garrick and Gilpin - CLOSED Townend - CLOSED
DEE RESULTS: (ALL L5 SEP 2012) Cunningham - 23% NBS Foweraker - 22% NBS Fernery – 50% NBS Garrick and Gilpin - <33% NBS Townend - <33% NBS
Progress to date, current status and next steps:
Cunningham House – DA scope completed by insurer has been agreed with Council on the 17/4/13. Insight is formalising a methodology and repair budget. Further intrusive investigation to be done in one area of the building to be able to complete the DEE pier review. Design work then to be complete late July 2013. Target EQ damage repair works complete by Xmas subject to scope of strengthening works required which is yet to be confirmed.
Foweraker – No EQ damage noted. On site assessment was undertaken 8th May 2013 with advice from Structural Concepts (SC) that the NBS of 22% should be reviewed. The SC calculation is due to Council for engineering review early July. Target date for any strengthening design will be confirmed following this review.
Fernery – No EQ damage noted. Re-opened April 2013. OOS received from Opus for strengthening to 67% and was approved by Council 7 May. Design and cost estimates due to be complete early July 2013 and are on track.
Garrick and Gilpin – Insurers have agreed to complete an EQ scope document similar to that done for Cunningham House – due for completion late June. Structural Concepts report reviewing the NBS % of <33% is due back on the 25/6/13. OOS from Structural Concepts for strengthening to 34% and 67% NBS approved by Council 7th May 2013. Design work due to be completed in July following issue of the first stage of the report from SC on the 25/6/13. Target date for any strengthening design will be confirmed following this review.
Townend - Structural Concepts report reviewing the NBS % of <33% is due back on the 18/6/13. OOS from Structural Concepts for strengthening to 34% and 67% NBS approved by Council 7th May 2013. Design work due to be completed in July following issue of the first stage of the report from SC on the 18/6/13. Target date for any strengthening design will be confirmed following this review. Next Steps: Completion of the stage 1 strengthening designs in July and full designs in August. Seek OOS for cost estimates of the proposed strengthening designs A Council report will be prepared as soon as all key reports are complete and priced, including betterment and maintenance estimates. The target date is August. Resolve insurance position for Garrick/Gilpin and Townend House. (Cunningham House agreed, Fernery and Foweraker deemed no EQ damage) Structural concepts have reviewed DEE reports. Structural concepts and Opus to discuss the peer review.
116 117
COMMUNITY, RECREATION AND CULTURE COMMITTEE 6. 8. 2013
5. SUMNER COMMUNITY CENTRE AND LIBRARY REBUILD
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. The purpose of this report is to recommend that the Community, Recreation and Culture Committee recommend that the Council:
(a) in line with the Facilities Rebuild Plan Council delegations, confirm the rebuild of the Sumner Community Centre and Library 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 available to this project are the insurance proceeds and that the Council will work with the Sumner community to close any funding gap between the rebuild cost and the available insurance proceeds.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
2. As part of the Facilities Rebuild Programme an investigation was undertaken on the long term solution options available for the Library and Community Centre located in Sumner, Christchurch. This is a TOP 30 priority project.
3. This work was undertaken in conjunction with the investigation of earthquake damage and resolution of the insurance position.
4. In light of the above investigation the Sumner Community Centre and Library were both deemed uneconomic to repair and have since been demolished leaving a clear site, part of which area is now a community green and garden space.
5. A site selection process was undertaken involving a pan-Council working party. The site of the now demolished facilities scored highest in the analysis based on a number of weighted attributes. The feedback from public consultation on the Draft Sumner Master Plan also concluded that the local residents want a facility rebuilt on this site. A petition of 1,300 names submitted to the Council last year also called for a rebuild on this site.
6. Once Stage 1 of the rebuild investigation is complete, a Council report will be submitted summarising the outcomes and presenting recommendations on further stages of the rebuild. This will include full cost estimates to rebuild and identification of any funding sources and procurement and delivery models.
FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS
7. The Council has incurred demolition costs and claimed indemnity values to date:
Collective Total sum insured $1.40m - Library indemnity $0.18m - Community Centre indemnity $0.27m - Demolition costs $0.23m ------= Remaining Entitlement $0.72m 118
COMMUNITY, RECREATION AND CULTURE COMMITTEE 6. 8. 2013
5 Cont’d
8. The remaining insurance proceeds from the demolition of both the Library and Community Centre are estimated at $720,000. A Statement of Position for the Community Centre component is in the process of being finalised by our insurance advisers. It is estimated that there will be a funding gap between those insurance proceeds and the cost required to build a new facility.
9. These insurance proceeds will be used to fund the stage 1 investigations. The cost of this investigation exercise is yet to be determined, but subject to the Council’s approval to proceed, the project team will provide a high level cost estimate for stage 1.
10. It should be noted that adopting the recommendation in this report does not mean the Council is accepting a settlement for the asset.
Do the Recommendations of this Report Align with the TYP budgets?
11. Yes. The Facilities Rebuild Programme is included in the Three Year Plan.
LEGAL CONSIDERATIONS
Have you considered the legal implications of the issue under consideration?
12. Legal advice has not been sought to date.
ALIGNMENT WITH TYP AND ACTIVITY MANAGEMENT PLANS
13. Yes, as per paragraph 15.
Do the recommendations of this report support a level of service or project in the TYP?
14. Yes, as per paragraph 15.
ALIGNMENT WITH STRATEGIES
15. The proposed project is consistent with relevant strategies, including The Strengthening Communities Strategy 2007, Community Facilities Implementation Plan, the Libraries 2025 Facilities Plan and the Draft Sumner Master Plan.
Do the recommendations align with the Council’s strategies?
16. Yes, as per paragraph 15.
CONSULTATION FULFILMENT
17. The recommendation is in line with the consultation carried out with the Draft Sumner Village Master Plan. Early stakeholder involvement has occurred already via the Council’s Strengthening Community Advisers, who have been in contact with a number of groups, and once the project is formalised, a stakeholder engagement and consultation plan will be prepared. 119
COMMUNITY, RECREATION AND CULTURE COMMITTEE 6. 8. 2013
5 Cont’d
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
That the Community, Recreation and Culture Committee recommend that the Council:
(a) In line with the Facilities Rebuild Plan Council delegations, confirm the Rebuild of the Sumner Library and Community Centre 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.
(c) Note that adopting the recommendation in this report does not mean Council is accepting an insurance settlement for the assets.
CHAIRPERSON’S RECOMMENDATION
That the Community, Recreation and Culture Committee request that:
(a) Staff provide to the Council as part of this report an outline and timeframe of the project and the process for community engagement/ public participation on the final design and scope.
(b) The Council confirm the rebuild of the Sumner Library, Community Centre, and Museum on the existing site at 14-18 Wakefield Avenue as a joint facilities rebuild project.
(c) The Council note the insurance shortfall and as such allocate up to $10 million dollars from the Betterment and Improvement Allowance towards this joint facilities rebuild project.
(d) The Council note that adopting the recommendation in this report does not mean Council is accepting an insurance settlement for assets.
120 121
COMMUNITY, RECREATION AND CULTURE COMMITTEE 6. 8. 2013
6. DEMOLITION OF GOVERNORS BAY COMMUNITY HALL, TOILETS AND ANCILLARY BUILDINGS
General Manager responsible: General Manager Community Services, DDI 941 8534 Officer responsible: Project Manager Author: Peter Donovan, Project Manager
PURPOSE OF REPORT
1. The purpose of this report is to seek a recommendation from the Community, Recreation and Culture Committee that the Council approve the demolition of the Council-owned Governors Bay Community Hall, toilets and pottery shed located at 1 Cresswell Avenue, Governors Bay.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
2. See Figure 1. The 88 metres squared building is a single storey, unreinforced, concrete masonry structure. The building has a red placard and safety fencing has been put in place.
3. The Governors Bay Community Hall has been severely compromised due to the level of damage resulting from the earthquakes. It is proposed that it should be demolished.
4. Due to the type of construction of the building there is no viable repair method other than to rebuild the facility.
5. The building is insured for a total sum of $125,216. Insurers agreed on 20 June 2013 that they consider the asset to be a total economic loss.
6. The estimated cost to rebuild a like-for-like facility is $290,000. This report seeks approval for demolition only.
7. The Canterbury Earthquake Recovery Authority (CERA) has been asked to obtain three demolition quotes to carry out the demolition work and the 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 $20,000 and $30,000. The approved contractor will be required to meet CERA’s demolition standards.
8. The Council’s agreement is sought for the demolition of the Governors Bay Community Hall and Toilet.
9. Discussion around a replacement facility in this community is ongoing and will need to take into account the level of damage and future of Allandale Community Hall. The insurance position on this building is not yet known and staff are waiting for the outcome of the insurers damage assessment.
10. In the short term, a re-locatable toilet (porta-loo) is currently on the site to meet the needs of the local community. 122
COMMUNITY, RECREATION AND CULTURE COMMITTEE 6. 8. 2013
6 Cont’d
Figure 1 – Governors Bay Community Hall & Toilets, 1 Cresswell Avenue, Governors Bay.
FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS
11. The cost of demolition and the removal of the demolition debris will be met by insurance.
12. To summarise from above, the estimated cost for demolition and site clearance is between $20,000 and $30,000 plus GST.
Do the Recommendations of this Report Align with 2009-19 LTCCP budgets?
13. As the recommendations are a consequence of the earthquake events, this issue is not addressed in the LTCCP.
LEGAL CONSIDERATIONS
14. Consent is not required for demolition. The building has no heritage value.
HAVE YOU CONSIDERED THE LEGAL IMPLICATIONS OF THE ISSUE UNDER CONSIDERATION?
15. Not applicable.
ALIGNMENT WITH TYP 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 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. 123
COMMUNITY, RECREATION AND CULTURE COMMITTEE 6. 8. 2013
6 Cont’d
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
That the Community, Recreation and Culture Committee recommend that the Council agree to the demolition of the Governors Bay Community Hall, Toilets and Ancillary Buildings.
124 125
COMMUNITY, RECREATION AND CULTURE COMMITTEE 6. 8. 2013
7. PROPOSED DEMOLITION OF THE PETANQUE CLUB AND TOILETS LOCATED IN SCOTT PARK
General Manager responsible: General Manager Community Services, DDI 941 8534 Officer responsible: FRP Programme Manager Author: Matt Cummins, Project Manager
PURPOSE OF REPORT
1. The purpose of this report is to seek a recommendation from the Community, Recreation and Culture Committee that the Council approve the demolition of a Council-owned petanque club and public toilet block located in Scott Park, Mt Pleasant (refer to images 1 and 2).
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
2. The proposed demolition is of a Council-owned facility, which includes a petanque club, conjoined public toilet block and petanque courts. The toilet block was used predominantly by people carrying out recreational activities on the estuary such as windsurfing, kite surfing, sailing and kayaking.
3. Refer to images 3, 4 and 5. The building is a single storey structure constructed of unreinforced block on concrete slab with a lightweight roof. As a result of the recent earthquakes and aftershocks the building has sustained significant structural and cosmetic damage with partially collapsed walls, step cracking, large cracks opening up and blown-out windows. As a result, the building has been given a red placard, closed and fenced off.
4. The building and petanque court are uninsured.
5. No detailed engineering evaluation, damage assessment or City Care scope of works has been performed on the building due to the obvious level of damage and uninsured status.
6. Council staff propose demolition of the dangerous building and petanque courts and replacing the public toilet block only at a later date. The petanque club and courts will not be rebuilt as the club previously went bankrupt and handed the facilities back to the Council. The Council’s Greenspace staff have advised that there is no budget to replace the petanque club and courts and have no use for such a facility.
7. Scott Park has been proposed as a significant staging post for the Coastal Pathway and the plan allows for car parking for the pathway at Scott Park. Therefore, the replacement of the toilet block has been proposed to be completed in conjunction with the planned redevelopment of the park and the costal pathway.
8. In the short term, re-locatable toilets will be placed on or adjacent to the site for the Spring and Summer seasons to meet the needs of the local community.
9. The Canterbury Earthquake Recovery Authority (CERA) was engaged to obtain three demolition quotes to carry out the demolition work and removal and disposal of materials from site. The most competitive of the three quotes received was submitted by “Dcon Holdings Ltd” with a tender price of $30,770 plus GST. As a part of Dcon Holdings Ltd’s contract they will be required to meet CERA’s demolition standards.
10. The cost to carry out the demolition of the site will be funded from the Urban Parks Building Maintenance budget allocation.
11. The Council’s agreement is sought for the demolition of the conjoined toilet block and petanque club and petanque courts.
FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS
12. The Urban Parks Building Maintenance budget will cover the cost of the demolition.
13. The quotation for demolition and site clearance is $30,770 plus GST. 126
COMMUNITY, RECREATION AND CULTURE COMMITTEE 6. 8. 2013
7 Cont’d
14. Discussions are still ongoing with the loss adjusting team regarding lodging a claim for the rebuild of the public toilet block from the $750,000 facility for uninsured buildings.
Do the Recommendations of this Report Align with 2013-16 TYP budgets?
15. As the recommendations are a consequence of the earthquake events, this issue is not addressed in the TYP.
ALIGNMENT WITH TYP AND ACTIVITY MANAGEMENT PLANS
Do the Recommendations of this report support a level of services or project in the TYP?
16. The recommendations in this report align with the Activity Management Plans: 13.4.22.2 - damage assessments and demolitions deliver to Council Facilities Rebuild assessments schedule.
ALIGNMENT WITH STRATEGIES
17. Staff will continue to communicate with the planners of the Coastal Pathway Project and Scott Park development, to ensure that the rebuild of the public toilet facilities can be incorporated into the existing development plans.
Consultation Fulfilment
18. Not applicable.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
That the Community, Recreation and Culture Committee recommend that the Council agree to the demolition of the existing petanque club, public toilet block and petanque courts.
IMAGE 1: MAP INDICATING LOCATION OF THE PETANQUE CLUB AND TOILETS
127
COMMUNITY, RECREATION AND CULTURE COMMITTEE 6. 8. 2013
7 Cont’d
IMAGE 2: PETANQUE CLUB AND COURTS
IMAGE 3: PETANQUE CLUB - PARTIALLY COLLAPSED WALL 128
COMMUNITY, RECREATION AND CULTURE COMMITTEE 6. 8. 2013
7 Cont’d
IMAGE 4: PETANQUE CLUB - PARTIALLY COLLAPSED WALL AND LIQUEFACTION
IMAGE 5: WINDOW BLOWN OUT, SIGNIFICANT STEP CRACKING AND CRACKS IN BLOCK WORK 129
COMMUNITY, RECREATION AND CULTURE COMMITTEE 6. 8. 2013
8. PROPOSED DEMOLITION OF THE REMAINDER OF THE ST MARTIN VOLUNTARY LIBRARY
General Manager responsible: General Manager Community Services, DDI 941 8534 Officer responsible: Project Manager Author: Carissa Ptacek, Project Manager
PURPOSE OF REPORT
1. The purpose of this report is to seek a recommendation from the Community, Recreation and Culture Committee for approval by the Council for the demolition of the remainder of the Council-owned voluntary library building in St Martin and agree in principle to ring-fence the insurance money.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
2. See Figure 1. The 265 metres squared building is a single storey, unreinforced, masonry structure. The building has a red placard and safety fencing has been put in place.
3. The St Martin Voluntary Library has been severely compromised as a result of the earthquakes. Approximately 70 per cent of the building was demolished under a Canterbury Earthquake Recovery Authority (CERA) Section 38 notice. The remainder of the facility, approximately 75 metres squared and a height of three metres, is proposed to be demolished due to the damage and differential settlement.
4. CERA was asked to obtain three demolition quotes to carry out the demolition work and removal and disposal of materials from site. The most competitive of the three quotes received was submitted by Blakely Construction Ltd with a tender price of $6,950 plus $300 CERA professional management fee. As part of a Blakely Construction Ltd contract they will be required to meet CERA’s demolition standards.
5. The building is insured for a total sum of $554,760 plus margin. On 7 June 2013 the insurers confirmed they considered the building a total constructive loss.
6. The estimated cost to demolish and reinstate the building is $967,000. Insurance funds mentioned in paragraph 4 could partially fund this reinstatement.
7. The Council’s agreement is sought for the demolition of the remainder of the Voluntary Library in St Martin and to agree in principle to ring-fence the insurance proceeds for a future community facility that includes space for the voluntary library.
Figure 1 – Voluntary Library, St Martin – 3 Wades Avenue
FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS
8. The cost of demolition and the removal of the demolition debris will be met by the Council’s insurance cover and completed using CERA’s demolition procedures.
9. To summarise from above, the quotation for demolition and site clearance is $6,950 plus GST plus $300 CERA professional management fee. 130
COMMUNITY, RECREATION AND CULTURE COMMITTEE 6. 8. 2013
8 Cont’d
Do the Recommendations of this Report Align with 2009-19 LTCCP budgets?
10. As the recommendations are a consequence of the earthquake events, this issue is not addressed in the LTCCP.
LEGAL CONSIDERATIONS
11. Consent is not required for demolition. The building has no heritage status.
Have you considered the legal implications of the issue under consideration?
12. Not applicable.
ALIGNMENT WITH TYP AND ACTIVITY MANAGEMENT PLANS
13. 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 TYP?
14. Not applicable.
ALIGNMENT WITH STRATEGIES
15. 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?
16. Not applicable.
CONSULTATION FULFILMENT
17. Consultation is not required;
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
That the Community, Recreation and Culture Committee recommend 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.
131
COMMUNITY, RECREATION AND CULTURE COMMITTEE 6. 8. 2013
9. HERITAGE REINSTATEMENT PROGRAMME – SIGN OF THE TAKAHE
General Manager responsible: General Manager Community Services, DDI 941-8608 Officer responsible: Asset and Network Planning Unit Manager Author: Maria Adamski, Asset Engineer (Greenspace – Buildings and Heritage)
PURPOSE OF REPORT
1. To seek approval to proceed with the post earthquake permanent repair of the Sign of the Takahe, a Christchurch City Council Group 1 heritage building located at 200 Hackthorne Road.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
2. The heritage significance of the Sign of the Takahe is recognised at the highest level by the Christchurch City Council and New Zealand Historic Places Trust Pouhere Taonga (NZHPT). It is listed in the Christchurch City Plan as a Group 1 heritage item, the protection of which is considered essential and in the NZHPT as a Category 1 Historic Place because of ‘its special or outstanding historical heritage significance or value’. (See Attachment 1).
3. The Gothic revival inspired Sign of the Takahe is a notable Port Hills landmark. It was built as part of Harry Ell’s scheme to build a road with rest houses along the summit of the Port Hills and preserve the last remnants of native bush on the hills. It was the most ambitious of his rest houses. The others were the Sign of the Kiwi, the Sign of the Bellbird and the Sign of the Packhorse.
4. Built between 1918 and 1946, the Sign of the Takahe’s construction was often beset with financial problems. However, work schemes established in the 1930s enabled Ell to use government–funded skilled craftsmen. After Ell’s death in 1934, the sign of the Takahe lay abandoned until 1942 when Christchurch City Council purchased the building to save it from further deterioration. With assistance from former colleagues of Ell’s, including architect J.G. Collins, the building was completed and finally opened in 1949.
5. Before the earthquakes the building was a restaurant and a popular tourist stop.
6. No previous strengthening work has been undertaken on the Sign of the Takahe. The building has been estimated at 50 per cent of the New Building Standard (NBS) prior to the earthquakes.
7 However, after the earthquakes the Detailed Engineering Evaluation identified the building as 30 per cent NBS thus it is considered earthquake prone.
8. The building suffered moderate damage in the September 2010, February 2011 and June 2011 earthquakes. It has been stabilised following the February and June earthquakes and remains fenced off.
9. Damage includes cracking to plaster and stone masonry walls and the loss of several parapet stones and chimneys.
10. The building is insured for $5,943,859. The total strengthening and repair budget to 67 per cent NBS is $3,411,853.
11. Options for permanent repair include strengthening to 100 per cent and 67 per cent NBS and base isolation which is expected to result in greater than 100 per cent NBS.
12. Strengthening to 67 per cent will involve inserting a plywood diaphragm in the first floor and roof, strengthening and repairing chimneys to first floor level, rebedding and pinning all the capping stones on the parapets, pining of the west gable and strengthening the tower. It also includes internal plaster and stone mortar repairs. The 67 per cent design option not only provides a good repair and strengthening solution but minimises the amount of intrusive deconstruction. 132
COMMUNITY, RECREATION AND CULTURE COMMITTEE 6. 8. 2013
9 Cont’d
13. Strengthening to 100 per cent will involve, in addition to the 67 per cent works, installing new foundations, reinforced concrete shear walls and a total rebuild of the chimneys. The works will have a significantly larger impact on heritage fabric and for this reason is not the preferred option.
14. It is not practical to base isolate the building as it is sitting on bedrock and to carry out the necessary work would require removal of the ground floor basement to insert floating floors. A moat would be excavated around the perimeter of the building for new foundation beams to be inserted under every stone wall along with cavities created in the bedrock in which to house the base isolators. To do this would require the stabilisation of the external walls during the installation of the base isolators. The vibrations to make the cavities for the base isolators are likely to cause significant damage to the existing stone work. For these reasons base isolation was discounted as a viable option.
GEOTECH SUMMARY AND ENGINEERING ASSESSMENT
15. A Preliminary Geotechnical Assessment Report carried out in July 2011 concluded that “Based on the walkover assessment undertaken, there does not appear to be any damage to the structure that is related to earthquake-induced deformation of the underlying ground. Accordingly, there are no geotechnical recommendations to be made, and we do not consider that additional geotechnical investigation work will be required.”
16. The Quantitative Assessment completed in December 2012 calculated the building’s strength to be 30 per cent NBS.
17. The proposed repair solution will increase the overall building to a minimum of 67 per cent NBS. This aligns with the Council’s ‘Earthquake-Prone, Dangerous and insanitary Buildings Policy 2010’. This policy states that the new target for structural strengthening is 67 per cent of code.
INSURANCE AND STRENGTHENING COSTS
18. A Loss Adjusting Team (LAT) Statement of Position (SOP) advises “preliminary and provisional budget of $1,940,266 is supported on LAPP’s behalf”. This is subject to a number of general and site specific comments – and insurers ultimate approval once costs are clearly identified. These items are to be worked through.
BETTERMENT
19. The cost of strengthening the buildings to pre quake strength of 50 per cent will be met by the Insurers. The additional cost to bring the strength to 67 per cent will be met by the Council.
20. Routine maintenance works will be carried out on the building at the same time as the repairs. This will include improvements to internal guttering and flashings. Temporary plastic downpipes will be replaced with replicated imitation copper, new putty applied to windows, and exterior walls remortared. This has been estimated at $100,000 and will be funded from the Restricted Assets operational budget.
FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS
21. Stabilisation costs to date total $215,435 and is included in the total costs below.
22. Preliminary budgets for repair are summarised in Table 1.
Table 1 Proposed Building Strength: Total cost Cost to Insurer Cost to Council Base Isolation $ 6,309,585 $ 1,940,266 $ 4,369,319 NBS 100% $ 6,063,535 $ 1,940,266 $ 4,123,269 NBS 67% $ 3,411,853 $ 1,940,266 $ 1,471,587 NBS 50% $ 1,940,266 $ 1,940,266 $ 0 Maintenance $ 100,000 $ 0 $ 100,000
133
COMMUNITY, RECREATION AND CULTURE COMMITTEE 6. 8. 2013
9 Cont’d
23. Table 1 shows that the total cost for the recommended 67 per cent NBS repair is $3,411,853. The remaining $1,471,586 not covered by insurance is recommended to be funded from the Infrastructure and Building Improvement Allowance.
24. There is an annual cost of $18,500 for security fencing, processing of monthly claims and reporting. This is being met by insurance.
BENEFIT OF REPAIR
25. The Sign of the Takahe is a valued community asset and significant landmark. When conserved, strengthened and repaired it will be able to function as a viable commercial activity able to be enjoyed as such by local residents and visitors and as a popular stop for tourists.
26. It will remain as enduring evidence of Harry Ell’s legacy to this city through his determination to create scenic reserves and roadhouses on the Port Hills and build a road along the summit to cater for those who wished to enjoy views over the city, walk and to visit areas of native bush. It is an outstanding example of architect J G Collins’ work in a Neo Gothic style.
27. Christchurch would retain one of its nationally recognised significant historic buildings.
RISK OF DOING NOTHING
28. The Sign of the Takahe would have no economic future.
29. Further earthquake events and aftershocks may cause additional damage and deterioration to the building.
30. This unique landmark building of national heritage significance would be lost to Christchurch which has already seen significant numbers of its historic buildings demolished since the onset of earthquakes in September 2010.
HERITAGE SUMMARY
31. Listed as a Group 1 building in the Christchurch City Plan and registered by the New Zealand Historic Places Trust as a Category I historic place, the highest level of listing by both organisations.
32. In summary the Sign of the Takahe has been assessed as having heritage value beyond the Canterbury region and is primarily of importance and is of interest to the wider national community for its heritage values.
33. It is significant for its association with early conservation advocate and lobbyist Harry Ell and as a central part of his ground-breaking environmental Summit Road scheme; as a symbol of new modes of recreation and leisure in the early twentieth century; as a finely crafted building by prominent city architect J. G. Collins; and as one of the city's identity-defining Neo-Gothic heritage buildings.
Do the Recommendations of this Report Align with 2013-16 TYP budgets?
34. Yes. The purpose of this report is to gain approval to repair the building.
LEGAL CONSIDERATIONS
35. Not applicable.
Have you considered the legal implications of the issue under consideration?
36. As above. 134
COMMUNITY, RECREATION AND CULTURE COMMITTEE 6. 8. 2013
9 Cont’d
ALIGNMENT WITH LTCCP AND ACTIVITY MANAGEMENT PLANS
37. The repair of the Sign of the Takahe is aligned with the LTCCP Community Outcome “An Attractive and Well-designed City”, in particular protecting our heritage for future generations.
Do the recommendations of this report support a level of service or project in the 2013-16 TYP?
38. Not applicable.
ALIGNMENT WITH STRATEGIES
39. Yes. The purpose of this report supports the facilities rebuild strategy and assists with the rebuild of Christchurch.
Do the recommendations align with the Council’s strategies?
40. Yes, refer above.
CONSULTATION FULFILMENT
41. Communication and consultation will be a project work stream.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
That the Community, Recreation and Culture Committee recommend that the Council approve:
(a) The repair and strengthening of the Sign of the Takahe to 67 per cent New Building Standard.
(b) The $1,471,586 insurance shortfall be funded from the Infrastructure and Building Improvement Allowance.
ATTACHMENT 1 TO CLAUSE 9 135 COMMUNITY, RECREATION AND CULTURE COMMITTEE 6. 8. 2013
STATEMENT OF HERITAGE SIGNIFICANCE SIGN OF THE TAKAHE – 200 HACKTHORNE ROAD
PHOTOGRAPH: 2010
The Sign of the Takahe is listed in the Christchurch City Plan as a Group 1 heritage building, and is registered by the NZ Historic Places Trust as a Category 1 historic place.
HISTORICAL AND SOCIAL SIGNIFICANCE
The Sign of the Takahe has historical and social significance for its association with activist Harry Ell, and as a key part of his visionary Summit Road scheme. The great life-long preoccupation of Ell, a politician and tenacious social and environmental campaigner, was the promotion of a summit road from Godley Head to Akaroa, providing public access to all parts of the Port Hills. Resthouses would be distributed along the route, offering refreshments and simple accommodation. The Summit Road Association was founded by Ell in 1909 to foster the objective, and although the ambitious project was incomplete at the time of his death in 1934, he had seen a substantial portion of his scheme to fruition, including the establishment of four resthouses: the Signs of the Kiwi, Bellbird, Packhorse and Takahe. The Sign of the Takahe was planned from the beginning to be the largest and most important of the resthouses. Construction of the building was initiated in 1918, and was sufficiently advanced for the Tram Terminus Resthouse, as it was then known, to open for business in 1920. Argument, financial difficulty, depression and war delayed completion however, and although the City Council had assumed ownership in 1942, it was not until 1948 that the building was finally finished. An official opening took place in 1949. The building continued in use as a restaurant and tearooms until the Canterbury Earthquakes of 2010-2011, when it sustained moderate damage and was closed to the public. Restoration and strengthening plans are being developed.
1 ATTACHMENT 1 TO CLAUSE 9 136 COMMUNITY, RECREATION AND CULTURE COMMITTEE 6. 8. 2013
CULTURAL AND SPIRITUAL SIGNIFICANCE
The Sign of the Takahe has cultural significance for the manner in which it, as the most well- known feature of the Summit Road, commemorates Harry Ell and the thirty years of his life he spent campaigning for his far-sighted scheme. The building and the scheme with which it is associated also represent the emergence in the early twentieth century of new modes of thought, such as environmentalism and habits of leisure and recreation. The ‘healthy body healthy mind’ credo entered fully into popular culture at this time, and in association with the institution of regular holidays, saw larger sectors of the population able and willing to set out in pursuit of fresh air, exercise and new horizons.
ARCHITECTURAL AND AESTHETIC SIGNIFICANCE
The Sign of the Takahe has architectural and aesthetic significance as one of the most high- profile Neo-Gothic buildings in the city, and may be seen as representing the last flowering of the Neo-Gothic tradition in Christchurch. Although Ell exerted considerable influence until his death in 1934, in its present form the building is substantially the work of architect John Goddard Collins. Collins, principal of the firm of Collins and West, was active as an architect through the first half of the twentieth century, and designed commercial, religious and domestic buildings in a variety of styles. Notable buildings by Collins in the gothic style include the Nurses’ Memorial Chapel at Christchurch Hospital, the chapel at Nazareth House and the Christchurch Press building. The architect became actively involved with the stalled Takahe project in 1934, and redesigned what would have been a simple Arts and Crafts building in an elaborate Tudor (i.e. with the segmental arch predominating) Gothic form. A highly ornamental building - both inside and out – was the result. The architectural significance of the building has been amplified by the significant losses sustained by Christchurch’s Neo-Gothic heritage as a consequence of the Canterbury Earthquakes.
TECHNOLOGICAL AND CRAFTSMANSHIP SIGNIFICANCE
The Sign of the Takahe has technological and craftsmanship significance for the quality of its construction and its use of local materials. Once the decision had been made to construct the building as an exemplar of the gothic style, great effort was applied to the selection of appropriate materials, and the execution of detail. The building's stone carving and interior decorative scheme, which features heraldic devices, are particularly noteworthy. The Depression provided a significant boost for the project as Ell (and his successors) were able to engage unemployed artisans under government-funded work schemes. However another corollary of the straitened circumstances of the period was a shortage of materials and tools, which necessitated a creative response. Consequently Kauri ceiling beams were cut from former bridge timbers, whilst ceiling panels were formed from recycled packing cases.
CONTEXTUAL SIGNIFICANCE
The Sign of the Takahe is located at the apex of a large sloping triangular site. The principal facade looks out over the setting, which consists of a wide lawn lined with native plantings and which culminates at a hedge. Beyond the hedge is the natural parkland of Cracroft Reserve. The building also has extensive views of the city. The elevation of the Sign of the Takahe, its large scale, distinctive architectural style and prominent site at the intersection of Dyer's Pass and Hackthorne Roads mean it is an important city landmark, and acts as a gateway to the city. Around the Sign of the Takahe are areas of housing dating mainly from the post-war decades; originally the building was above the urban area at the terminus of the tram. Although the building relates to its site and the Summit Road itself through the use of a variety of stone from the Port Hills, it is of quite a different character to the other Summit Road resthouses, which are much more modest Arts-and-Crafts inspired buildings.
2 ATTACHMENT 1 TO CLAUSE 9 137 COMMUNITY, RECREATION AND CULTURE COMMITTEE 6. 8. 2013
ARCHAEOLOGICAL SIGNIFICANCE
The Sign of the Takahe and its setting are of archaeological significance because they have the potential to provide archaeological evidence relating to past building construction methods and materials, and human activity on the site, possibly including that which occurred prior to 1900.
ASSESSMENT STATEMENT
The Sign of the Takahe is significant for its association with activist Harry Ell and as a central part of his ground-breaking environmental Summit Road scheme; as a symbol of new modes of recreation and leisure in the early twentieth century; as a finely crafted building by prominent city architect J. G. Collins; and as one of the last parts of the city's identity-defining Neo-Gothic heritage to be completed.
REFERENCES:
Christchurch City Council Heritage File
PLEASE NOTE THIS ASSESSMENT IS BASED ON INFORMATION AVAILABLE AT THE TIME OF WRITING. DUE TO THE ONGOING NATURE OF HERITAGE RESEARCH, FUTURE REASSESSMENT OF THIS HERITAGE ITEM MAY BE NECESSARY TO REFLECT ANY CHANGES IN KNOWLEDGE AND UNDERSTANDING OF ITS HERITAGE SIGNIFICANCE.
PLEASE USE IN CONJUNCTION WITH THE CCC HERITAGE FILES.
3 138 139
COMMUNITY, RECREATION AND CULTURE COMMITTEE 6. 8. 2013
10. ARTS UPDATE REPORT
General Manager responsible: General Manager Strategy and Planning, DDI 941-8281 Officer responsible: Urban Design and Regeneration Unit Manager Author: Sarah Amazinnia and Kiri Jarden, Arts Advisers
PURPOSE OF REPORT
1. To update the Community Recreation and Culture Committee regarding the current status of arts planning and projects.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
2. The Joint Agency Group (JAG) is comprised of representatives from the Ministry for Culture and Heritage, Creative New Zealand, Christchurch Earthquake Recovery Authority, Central Christchurch Development Unit and the Christchurch City Council. It meets weekly to progress core transitional arts projects in the central city. A working party drawn from JAG representatives is assessing various models to support capacity building of arts organisations locally.
3. A total budget of $520,000 was allocated for The Creative Industries Support Fund in the 2012/13 Annual Plan. A sum of $518,480 was granted to a diverse range of creative industries in the Central City. The fund continues to receive a wide range of applications.
Table 1: Summary of Applicants to Creative Industries Support Fund 2012 - 2013
APPLICANT PROJECT AMOUNT REQUESTED AMOUNT LEGAL FUNDED ENTITY ArtBox Studio space and retails solutions $30,000 $30,000 for artists on the Boxed Quarter site To contribute to operational on the corner of Madras and St costs for the first year of Asaph Streets. operation The Physics Art gallery and public reading room $57,500 $57,500 Room To contribute to operational costs and capital items, to assist the gallery to re- establish itself in it’s central city premises 241 Chambers Artists studios and gallery $35,995 $35,995 Ltd To contribute to operational and capital costs, enabling the gallery to continue supporting local artists by providing gallery space and subsidised studio space Christchurch Beatbox band rehearsal space at $80,000 $80,000 Music Industry BOXed Quarter For the acoustic fit-out of Trust (CHART) the Beatbox band rehearsal space at Boxed Quarter The New Permanent digital cinema projection $70,000 $70,000 Zealand Film facilities for the New Zealand Film Towards the purchase of a Festival Trust Festival projector for installing at the Isaac Theatre Royal
140
COMMUNITY, RECREATION AND CULTURE COMMITTEE 6. 8. 2013
10 Cont’d
APPLICANT PROJECT AMOUNT REQUESTED AMOUNT LEGAL FUNDED ENTITY Rekindle Ltd An enterprise using wood waste to $14,985 $14,985 make furniture, jewellery, sculpture, Towards operational and and interior fit-outs. Opening a retail capital support / showroom / café collaboration on New Regent Street café. Buro Ltd MakerCrate project: A fully fitted $15,000 $15,000 out makerspace in a 20ft container Towards operational and that provides hire access to capital support computer aided fabrication machines and design technology for artists /designers (furniture, textile, robotics and automation), jewellers and inventors. Open source education and workshops also run in conjunction with the facility. Arts Circus Arts Circus at the Arts Centre. A $80,000 $80,000 Trust Multi disciplinary performance hub To fund project for the arts in the Central City management The Exchange Christchurch (XCHC) $170,000 $120,000 Christchurch Collaborative workshop, office and To subsidise rent Exchange Trust rehearsal space for Studio Christchurch, Free Theatre Christchurch and the Christchurch Centre for Architecture Dance and A charitable trust that promotes the $15,000 $15,000 Physical dance industry in Christchurch Towards the rebranding of Theatre Trust Delivers the annual Body Festival the Dance and Physical (DAPHT) and Dancing Like the Stars Theatre Trust programmes. Sought support for strategic business development and rebranding to expand revenue streams and sponsorship / donor base.
SUMMARY TOTAL REQUESTED TOTAL FUNDED $568,480 $518,480
4. The Council in partnership with SCAPE Public Art has been investigating options for locating the artwork Fanfare since it was gifted to the Council in 2005. Fanfare was created by Christchurch artist Neil Dawson and originally commissioned for New Year celebrations in Sydney Australia. This work to find a location for the sculpture has included consideration of location, impact on the natural environment and ecology, acoustic issues, engineering and braking systems for the moving elements of the work, and consultation with various stakeholders including hapu, Christchurch International Airport, New Zealand Transport Agency and neighbouring businesses and landowners.
5. Solidarity Grid is a creative infrastructure project where street lamps gifted by cities from around the world (including Sister Cities) will be placed in the central city. A collaboration between the Council and SCAPE Public Art, the concept was proposed by German artist Mischa Kuball. Staff are investigating the most appropriate location for these works. 141
COMMUNITY, RECREATION AND CULTURE COMMITTEE 6. 8. 2013
10 Cont’d
6. Staff are in discussion with CPIT regarding the geodome going to CPIT campus to house the Circo Arts Programme for three years.
7. The Repertory Theatre is exploring a range of temporary, semi-permanent and permanent options for their site at 146 Kilmore street. Rebuild Central staff are providing consent and planning advice to Repertory staff and committee members.
8. An invitation was made to selected Canterbury artists to submit proposals for a memorial to be located at the Graham Condon Recreation Centre. Sculptor Sam Mahon was selected by the panel comprising Shirley-Papanui Board chair, Chris Mene, Papanui High School Head of Art, Mark Soltero, Kathy Condon (widow of Graham Condon and Shirley-Papanui Community Board deputy chair) and Nigel Cox, Centre manager. Mr. Mahon’s submission will see a bronze work sited near the entry to the complex, with an anticipated install date prior to the Centre’s second birthday on 7 October 2013.
9. The Christchurch CNZ Creative Communities Scheme is administered by the Council, with two rounds each financial year, the first closing on 24 August. The fund is open to organisations and individuals seeking support for arts projects taking place in the Christchurch metropolitan area. Applicants must meet one of three funding criteria (as set out by CNZ): Broad Community Involvement (opportunities for local communities to participate in arts projects), Diversity (arts and cultural traditions of diverse local communities), and Young People (projects which enable and encourage people under 18 years of age to engage with and actively participate in the arts).
10. The annual Christchurch Cultural Festival takes place from 26 - 30 August at the CBS Arena. Forty schools participate in the festival, performing cultural items, displaying visual and wearable arts. The event is organised by the Christchurch Primary Schools Cultural Festival Trust. Then Council’s Māori Arts Advisor supports development of the Festival.
FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS
11. This report is for information only and there are no financial implications.
Do the Recommendations of this Report Align with 2009-19 LTCCP budgets?
12. As above.
LEGAL CONSIDERATIONS
Have you considered the legal implications of the issue under consideration?
13. This report is for information only and there are no legal implications.
ALIGNMENT WITH LTCCP AND ACTIVITY MANAGEMENT PLANS
14. See below.
Do the recommendations of this report support a level of service or project in the 2009-19 LTCCP?
15. The report aligns with the community outcome: “we value leisure time and recognise that the arts, sports and other recreational activities contribute to our economy, identity, health and wellbeing” in the 2009 – 2019 LTCCP.
ALIGNMENT WITH STRATEGIES
16. The projects and updates outlined align with the current recovery plans.
Do the recommendations align with the Council’s strategies?
17. See above. 142
COMMUNITY, RECREATION AND CULTURE COMMITTEE 6. 8. 2013
10 Cont’d
CONSULTATION FULFILMENT
18. Not required.
STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS
It is recommended that the Community, Recreation and Culture Committee receive this report.
143
COMMUNITY, RECREATION AND CULTURE COMMITTEE 6. 8. 2013
11. HERITAGE GRANT APPROVAL – 10, 12, 13 AND 24 NEW REGENT STREET, CHRISTCHURCH
General Manager responsible: General Manager Strategy and Planning, DDI 941 8281 Officer responsible: Natural Environment and Heritage Unit Manager Author: Brendan Smyth, Heritage and Architecture
PHOTOGRAPH - 10 & 12 NEW REGENT STREET, 13 JUNE 2013.
PURPOSE OF REPORT
1. The purpose of this report is to obtain approval from the Community, Recreation and Culture Committee for a Heritage Incentive Grant for Numbers 10, 12, 13 and 24 New Regent Street, Christchurch.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
2. Numbers 10, 12, 13 and 24 New Regent Street are four of the original mid-street units of the New Regent Street shops. The whole of New Regent Street was designed by the architect Francis Willis and built in 1931 (refer to the Statement of Heritage Significance, Attachment 1).
3. Three of the two-storey units are located on the eastern side of New Regent Street and one on the western. Two have roof level decorated concrete parapets and the other two each have one of the roof level concrete ‘eyelids’. The four façades are all painted in different colours, one each of pale green, pale orange, light blue and pale yellow. The upper walls were originally rendered with coloured decorative plaster and designed in a ‘Spanish Mission’ style more usually associated with Southern California. These parts of the buildings were first painted in the 1960’s and then again in the 1980’s. The shop units have a suspended verandah and below this are the shop fronts with timber framed glazing next to portions of walls covered with the new and original ornate blue tiles. 144
COMMUNITY, RECREATION AND CULTURE COMMITTEE 6. 8. 2013
11 Cont’d
4. The original heritage fabric was significantly damaged in the recent series of earthquakes. As part of the repairs, the structure of the shop units required strengthening through the inclusion of a new steel frame on the street façade and new reinforced concrete block walls with brick veneer on the west façade. The original suspended timber ground floor has been renewed in concrete with a recycled ‘rimu’ tongue and groove floor finish placed on top. All the internal plastered walls and ceilings have been relined with plasterboard. The units have been fully rewired and new plumbing and drainage has been installed. The original stairs are still in place in all of the units. Externally the shop front tiling has been repaired with new and retained tiles, new glazing and a freshly painted plaster façade on the first floor.
5. Although the cost of repairing some of this damage was covered by building insurance some of the work required to re-occupy the buildings was not. This uninsured work is that required to meet the current building code with new fire related provisions and through structural strengthening to raise the buildings to above 34 per cent of the Building Code requirement. The level achieved is closer to 67 per cent.
6. New Regent Street is registered Category 1 with the New Zealand Historic Places Trust Pouhere Taonga (NZHPT). All of the original 1931 shop buildings of New Regent Street, including Numbers 10, 12, 13 and 24 are listed Group 2 in the Christchurch City Council’s City Plan.
7. The work for which the applicant is seeking grant support will ensure the future protection and continuing use of these significant heritage buildings. The application, while retrospective, meets all the criteria for a grant as provided in the Heritage Incentive Grants Policy – Operational Guidelines. However the work has been monitored by the heritage team, as part of the resource consent process.
8. With the completion of the works outlined above, the buildings have met the Building Code requirements and the owner is committed to the reuse and maintenance of the buildings. A cyclical maintenance plan has been prepared for this series of buildings by an architect.
9. The buildings are all owned by Rory and Anna Tam. The buildings have been the subject of previous Heritage Incentive Grants from the Council. This was for $1,472 for each of Units 10, 12 and 24 and $3,905 for Unit 13 for façade repainting and cavity wall tie replacement work just prior to the earthquakes. Although the buildings were recently the subject of Heritage Incentive Grants, the Operational Guidelines allow for additional applications to be made within the normally restricted five year period:
“Essential works necessitated by events such as fire, earthquakes or natural events; additional Grants may be approved within the five year period. (Terms & Conditions of Grant, Section 3, Multiple Grants).”
SCOPE OF WORK
10. The completed repair works are similar in each of the four units apart from fire compliance which is very specific to each unit and largely depends on internal layout. A summary of conservation and maintenance works for all four include:
(a) fire provisions and means of escape upgrade (b) structural strengthening to the building shell (new steel columns and beams) (c) repairs and replacement where necessary of ornate shop front tiles (d) recycled Rimu timber floor.
11. Costs for conservation, code compliance and maintenance works including contractor’s margins of six per cent, are outlined in the table below (all excluding GST): 145
COMMUNITY, RECREATION AND CULTURE COMMITTEE 6. 8. 2013
11 Cont’d
Particulars Costs Unit 10: Fire provisions upgrade; $7,655 Structural upgrade; $2,724 Shop front tiling and Rimu flooring $10,316 Sub Total $20,695 Unit 12: Fire provisions upgrade; $8,043 Structural upgrade; $2,724 Shop front tiling and Rimu flooring $10,316 Sub Total $21,083 Unit 13: Fire provisions upgrade; $8,931 Structural upgrade; $2,724 Shop front tiling and Rimu flooring $10,316 Sub Total $21,971 Unit 24: Fire provisions upgrade; $7,871 Structural upgrade; $2,724 Shop front tiling and Rimu flooring $10,316 Sub Total $20,911 Total of conservation and restoration related work $84,660
HERITAGE INCENTIVE GRANTS POLICY
12. The Operational Guidelines for the Policy provide for a grant of up to 50 per cent of the total heritage related costs for any Christchurch City Plan protected building. However, to be consistent with other Heritage Incentive Grants awarded to owners of buildings in New Regent Street it is recommended that the percentage be 40.
Proposed heritage grant (40% of cost of works) $33,864
FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS
13. 2013/14 Annual Budget for the Heritage Incentive Grant (HIG) fund $763,684 Funds remaining from 2012/13 financial year $416,197 Balance of 13/14 funds $1,179,881 Proposed grant to 381 Montreal Street $112,873 Proposed grant to 26 Park Terrace, St Saviours Church $143,431 Proposed grant to 27-29 New Regent Street $7,068 Proposed grant to 10, 12, 13 & 24 New Regent Street $33,864 Total Available Funds 2013/2014 $882,645
Do the Recommendations of this Report Align with 2009-19 LTCCP budgets?
14. Yes. The Heritage Incentive Grant budget is an annual fund provided for in the 2009-19 LTCCP.
LEGAL CONSIDERATIONS
15. Limited Conservation Covenants are required under the Heritage Conservation Operational Guidelines for properties receiving Heritage Incentive Grants of $15,000 to $149,999 A Full Covenant is required for grants of $150,000 or more. These figures were amended in February 2013 from those previously used for Heritage Incentive Grants. 146
COMMUNITY, RECREATION AND CULTURE COMMITTEE 6. 8. 2013
11 Cont’d
Have you considered the legal implications of the issue under consideration?
16. Yes. Covenants generally are a more comprehensive form of protection of the buildings because they are registered against the property title, ensuring that the Council’s investment is protected. As the grant will be less than $15,000 per New Regent Street shop unit there is no requirement for a conservation covenant on these property titles.
ALIGNMENT WITH LTCCP AND ACTIVITY MANAGEMENT PLANS
17. The Heritage Incentive Grants Scheme is aligned to the Community Outcome ‘An attractive and well-designed City’ (LTCCP 2009-19, page 50). ‘Community Outcome 9. Development’ provides for, among other things, ensuring “our lifestyles and heritage are enhanced by our urban environment” (page 54). One of the success measures is that “Our heritage is protected for future generations” (page 54). “Progress will be measured using these headline indicators number of heritage buildings, sites and objects.” (page 54). Heritage Incentive Grants contribute towards the number of protected heritage buildings, sites and objects, which is the measure under the outcome.
18. Within the ‘Activities and Services’ section of the LTCCP, is ‘City planning and development’ which aims to help improve Christchurch’s urban environment, among other things. One of the activities included in ‘City planning and development’ is ‘Heritage protection’. “A city’s heritage helps to sustain a sense of community identity, provides links to the past, and helps to attract visitors. The Council is committed to protecting the heritage of our city and works with developers, landowners and other stakeholders to conserve heritage buildings, areas and other items” (page 187).
19. ‘Heritage Protection’, requires the Council to “Research and promote the heritage of Christchurch and Banks Peninsula. Work with developers, landowners and other stakeholders to conserve heritage areas, buildings, and other items. Promote development that is sensitive to the character and heritage of the city and existing communities.” (page 192). The Council provides information, advice and funding for city heritage and heritage conservation, and will be expected to continue to do so, as part of its objective to retain heritage items.
Do the recommendations of this report support a level of service or project in the 2009-19 LTCCP?
20. Yes.
ALIGNMENT WITH STRATEGIES
21. Alignment of the requirement for Heritage Incentive Grants and Conservation Covenants stems from the Heritage Conservation Policy which in turn is relevant to:
22. Christchurch Recovery Strategy This Recovery Strategy is the key reference document that guides and coordinates the programmes of work, including Recovery Plans, under the 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. 147
COMMUNITY, RECREATION AND CULTURE COMMITTEE 6. 8. 2013
11 Cont’d
23. Christchurch City Plan 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.
24. Heritage Conservation Policy The Heritage Incentive Grants are provided for under section 8 of the Heritage Conservation Policy. As noted above under the LTCCP heading, 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”.
25. The Heritage Grants Policy is aligned with the International Council on Monuments and Sites (ICOMOS) New Zealand Charter 1993 for the Conservation of Places of Cultural Heritage Value, which the Council has adopted. The concept of places incorporates landscape, buildings, archaeological sites, sacred places, gardens and other objects. ICOMOS considers that countries have a “general responsibility towards humanity” to safeguard their heritage for present and future generations.
26. Greater Christchurch Urban Development Strategy (UDS) 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.
27. New Zealand Urban Design Protocol 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?
28. Yes
CONSULTATION FULFILMENT
29. There is no requirement for community consultation for Heritage Incentive Grants or Covenants.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
That the Community, Recreation and Culture Committee approve a Heritage Incentive Grant of up to $33,864 for conservation and maintenance work for the Group 2 heritage buildings at 10, 12, 13 and 24 New Regent Street, subject to certification of compliance with the above scope of works.
ATTACHMENT 1 TO CLAUSE 11 148 COMMUNITY RECREATION AND CULTURE COMMITTEE 6. 8. 2013
HERITAGE ASSESSMENT – STATEMENT OF SIGNIFICANCE NEW REGENT STREET SHOPS - NEW REGENT STREET
PHOTOS: NEW REGENT STREET – C2010
The New Regent Street shops are listed as a Group 2 Protected Heritage Place in the Christchurch City Plan, and are registered as a Category I Historic Place by the New Zealand Historic Places Trust Pouhere Taonga.
HISTORICAL AND SOCIAL SIGNIFICANCE
New Regent Street has social and historical significance as it was the forerunner of the present day shopping mall. At the time of its construction the concept of an entire street made up of small speciality shops was novel for New Zealand. The building work took place between 1930-32 and was one of the few large scale building projects undertaken in the South Island during the Depression. New Regent Street occupies the site of the old Colosseum, a building designed by Thomas Cane in the 1880s and demolished in 1930. On 1 April 1932 New Regent Street was opened by the Mayor of Christchurch, Mr D.G. Sullivan. Of the 40 shops offered for lease, only three were let owing to the economic depression of the time. To encourage occupancy, New Regent Street Ltd. decided to lease the remainder free of charge until businesses became established, and then at a nominal rent of five shillings a week.
ARCHITECTURAL AND AESTHETIC SIGNIFICANCE
New Regent Street has architectural and aesthetic significance because of the architect Henry Francis Willis (1892-1972) and the actual design of the Street. The 40 shops on individual titles were designed in the Spanish Mission Revival style by H. Francis Willis in 1930. Willis also designed the State Picture Theatre (1934-5), Santa Barbara on Victoria Street and the Repertory Theatre (formerly Radiant Hall, 1929); the latter being similar in style to New Regent Street’s terraces. The contractors were P. Graham and Sons Ltd, who had previously built Christchurch Boys’ High School and the Majestic theatre.
The windows and ornamentation of the first floor establishes the Spanish Mission character and unique appearance of New Regent Street, and there are three upper storey variations. The first contains three round headed/arched windows with profiles recalling classical Palladian style, supported by small columns with spiral motif, above which sits an oval medallion. These facades have an awning extending above the windows and supported by ATTACHMENT 1 TO CLAUSE 11 149 COMMUNITY RECREATION AND CULTURE COMMITTEE 6. 8. 2013
decorative wrought iron brackets. Originally these awnings were covered with Spanish style Cordova roof tiles; they were later removed leaving just the concrete slabs.
Alternating on either side of these properties are two similar styled facades, both with Spanish Mission style parapets of similar elevation and the shaped gables commonly found on Spanish Mission style buildings. The first of these has centrally placed double casement windows with a window box beneath, the Palladian window motif as before, and circular medallions set within the gable. In the second the central window is replaced by French doors leading onto a small balcony and the gable is decorated with a pair of heraldic shields. The central windows of both are surmounted by projecting arched mouldings over semi-circular fan light windows with panes arranged in a sunburst form. Additional ornamentation separates each facade with decorative art deco chevrons and Spanish Mission style barley twist columns.
Originally the large display windows facing the street were surrounded by decorative coloured floral tiles, many of which still remain. Wide plate glass windows beneath the verandah light each shop, and entry is through a glazed door set back from the street beside the entrance to the adjoining shop. This continuous suspended verandah runs the length of the terraces and extends around into Gloucester Street. In 1968 the buildings were repainted in Adam Gold, Etruscan Red and Slate Blue; the existing colour scheme dates from 1994.
TECHNOLOGICAL AND CRAFTSMANSHIP SIGNIFICANCE
The New Regent Street shops have technological and craftsmanship significance due to their design and method of construction. The shops are structurally based on an exposed concrete frame with infill panels of cavity brick, the facades of which have been plastered and painted; extensive steelwork is also used along the entire length of the Street. Weep holes at the base of the cavity were designed to allow water soaking down from the parapets to drain. All underground services were through the rights-of-ways behind the shops. Ventilation, interior lighting and floodlighting were an acclaimed feature of the street at the time of its opening.
CONTEXTUAL SIGNIFICANCE
New Regent Street is contextually significant because of its streetscape value including the uniformity of design, form, colour and scale of all 40 shops. New Regent Street continued to evolve; after World War Two it became a public road, and in 1986 it was made a one-way street. In 1994 the street became a pedestrian mall and the tram line was installed. At this time the cobblestone paving, wrought iron railings, planter beds and period lighting we see in the streetscape of today were introduced.
ARCHAEOLOGICAL SIGNIFICANCE
New Regent Street as a post-1900 site has a degree of archaeological significance because of the potential to provide archaeological evidence relating to past building construction methods and materials, and human activity on this site. It is also known that it was the location of the old Colosseum prior to 1900.
References: CCC Heritage Files
Assessment Completed: November 2010
150 151
COMMUNITY, RECREATION AND CULTURE COMMITTEE 6. 8. 2013
12. HERITAGE GRANT APPROVAL – 27-29 NEW REGENT STREET, CHRISTCHURCH
General Manager responsible: General Manager Strategy and Planning, DDI 941 8281 Officer responsible: Natural Environment and Heritage Unit Manager Author: Brendan Smyth, Heritage and Architecture
PHOTOGRAPH - 27 AND 29 NEW REGENT STREET, 13 JUNE 2013
PURPOSE OF REPORT
1. The purpose of this report is to obtain approval from the Community, Recreation and culture Committee for a Heritage Incentive Grant for Numbers 27-29 New Regent Street, Christchurch.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
2. Numbers 27 and 29 New Regent Street are two of the original mid-street units of the New Regent Street shops. The whole of New Regent Street was designed by the Architect Francis Willis and built in 1931 (refer to the Statement of Heritage Significance, Attachment 1).
3. The two-storey units are located towards the north-western end of New Regent Street; one has a roof level decorated concrete parapet and the other has one of the roof level concrete ‘eyelids’. The façades are painted pale green and pale orange colours. The upper walls were originally rendered with coloured decorative plaster and designed in a ‘Spanish Mission’ style more usually associated with Southern California. These parts of the building were first painted in the 1960’s and then again in the 1980’s. The shop units have a suspended verandah and below this are the shop fronts with timber framed glazing next to portions of walls covered with the new and original ornate blue tiles. 152
COMMUNITY, RECREATION AND CULTURE COMMITTEE 6. 8. 2013
12 Cont’d
4. The original heritage fabric was significantly damaged in the recent series of earthquakes. As part of the repairs, the structure of the shop units required strengthening through the inclusion of a new steel frame on the street façade and new reinforced concrete block walls with brick veneer on the west façade. The original suspended timber ground floor has been renewed in concrete with a recycled ‘rimu’ tongue and groove floor finish placed on top. All the internal plastered walls and ceilings have been re-lined with plasterboard. The units have been fully rewired and new plumbing and drainage installed. The original stair is still in place in unit 29, although with a modified balustrade. The stair in unit 27 had already been removed prior to the earthquake damage. Externally the shop-front tiling has been repaired with new and retained tiles along with new glazing and a freshly painted plaster façade on the first floor.
5. Although the cost of repairing some of this damage was covered by building insurance some of the work required to re-occupy the buildings was not. This uninsured work is that required to meet the current building code through structural strengthening to raise the buildings to above 34 per cent of the Building Code requirement. The level achieved is closer to 67 per cent.
6. New Regent Street is registered Category 1 with the New Zealand Historic Places Trust Pouhere Taonga (NZHPT). All of the original 1931 shop buildings of New Regent Street, including Number 30 are listed Group 2 in the Christchurch City Council’s City Plan.
7. The work for which the applicant is seeking grant support will ensure the future protection and continuing use of these significant heritage buildings. The application, while being retrospective, meets all the criteria for a grant as provided in the Heritage Incentive Grants Policy – Operational Guidelines. However, the work has been monitored by the heritage team as part of the resource consent process.
8. With the completion of the works outlined above, the buildings have met the Building Code requirements and the owner is committed to the re-use and maintenance of the buildings. A cyclical maintenance plan has been prepared for this series of buildings by an architect.
9. The building is owned by the ‘G and D Family Trust’. The building has not been the subject of a previous Heritage Incentive Grant from the Council.
SCOPE OF WORK
10. A summary of conservation and maintenance works include:
(a) cavity wall tie replacement with ‘Helifix’ or similar (b) structural strengthening to building shell (new steel columns and beams) (c) bolting of floors and roof to walls.
11. Costs for conservation, including code compliance and maintenance works are outlined in the table below (all excluding GST):
Particulars Costs Naylor Love Ltd – margins for this portion of the repair $1,000 works Supply and install ‘Helifix’ ties $6,970 Access for ‘Helifix’ work (scaffolding) $855 Supply and fix bolts to roof rafters $720 Supply and fix reinforcement $702 Supply and fix Structural steelwork $5,141 Supply and fix solid block to steel $719 Supply and fix brackets and bolts to first floor $1,564 Total of conservation and restoration related work $17,671
153
COMMUNITY, RECREATION AND CULTURE COMMITTEE 6. 8. 2013
12 Cont’d
HERITAGE INCENTIVE GRANTS POLICY
12. The Operational Guidelines for the Policy provide for a grant of up to 50 per cent of the total heritage related costs for any Christchurch City Plan protected building. However, to be consistent with other Heritage Incentive Grants awarded to owners of buildings in New Regent Street, it is recommended that the percentage be 40.
Proposed heritage grant (40% of cost of works) $7,068
FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS
13. 2013/14 Annual Budget for the Heritage Incentive Grant (HIG) fund $763,684 Funds remaining from 2012/13 financial year $416,197 Balance of 13/14 funds $1,179,881 Proposed grant to 381 Montreal Street $112,873 Proposed grant to 26 Park Terrace, St Saviours Church $143,431 Proposed grant to 27-29 New Regent Street $7,068 Total Available Funds 2013/2014 $916,509
Do the Recommendations of this Report Align with 2009-19 LTCCP budgets?
14. Yes. The Heritage Incentive Grant budget is an annual fund provided for in the 2009-19 LTCCP.
LEGAL CONSIDERATIONS
15. Limited Conservation Covenants are required under the Heritage Conservation Operational Guidelines for properties receiving Heritage Incentive Grants of $15,000 to $149,999. A Full Covenant is required for grants of $150,000 or more. These figures were amended in February 2013 from those previously used for Heritage Incentive Grants.
Have you considered the legal implications of the issue under consideration?
16. Yes. Covenants generally are a more comprehensive form of protection of the buildings because they are registered against the property title, ensuring that the Council’s investment is protected. As the grant will be less than $15,000 there is no requirement for a conservation covenant on this property title.
ALIGNMENT WITH LTCCP AND ACTIVITY MANAGEMENT PLANS
17. The Heritage Incentive Grants Scheme is aligned to the Community Outcome ‘An attractive and well-designed City’ (LTCCP 2009-19, page 50). ‘Community Outcome 9. Development’ provides for, among other things, ensuring “our lifestyles and heritage are enhanced by our urban environment” (page 54). One of the success measures is that “Our heritage is protected for future generations” (page 54). “Progress will be measured using these headline indicators … number of heritage buildings, sites and objects.” (page 54). Heritage Incentive Grants contribute towards the number of protected heritage buildings, sites and objects, which is the measure under the outcome.
18. Within the ‘Activities and Services’ section of the LTCCP, is ‘City planning and development’ which aims to help improve Christchurch’s urban environment, among other things. One of the activities included in ‘City planning and development’ is ‘Heritage protection’. “A city’s heritage helps to sustain a sense of community identity, provides links to the past, and helps to attract visitors. The Council is committed to protecting the heritage of our city and works with developers, landowners and other stakeholders to conserve heritage buildings, areas and other items” (page 187). 154
COMMUNITY, RECREATION AND CULTURE COMMITTEE 6. 8. 2013
12 Cont’d
19. ‘Heritage Protection’, requires the Council to “Research and promote the heritage of Christchurch and Banks Peninsula. Work with developers, landowners and other stakeholders to conserve heritage areas, buildings, and other items. Promote development that is sensitive to the character and heritage of the city and existing communities.” (page 192). The Council provides information, advice and funding for city heritage and heritage conservation, and will be expected to continue to do so, as part of its objective to retain heritage items.
Do the recommendations of this report support a level of service or project in the 2009-19 LTCCP?
20. Yes.
ALIGNMENT WITH STRATEGIES
21. Alignment of the requirement for Heritage Incentive Grants and Conservation Covenants stems from the Heritage Conservation Policy which in turn is relevant to:
22. Christchurch Recovery Strategy This Recovery Strategy is the key reference document that guides and coordinates the programmes of work, including Recovery Plans, under the Canterbury Earthquake Recovery 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.
23. Christchurch City Plan 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.
24. Heritage Conservation Policy The Heritage Incentive Grants are provided for under section 8 of the Heritage Conservation Policy. As noted above under the LTCCP heading, 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”.
25. The Heritage Grants Policy is aligned with the International Council on Monuments and Sites (ICOMOS) New Zealand Charter 1993 for the Conservation of Places of Cultural Heritage Value, which the Council has adopted. The concept of places incorporates landscape, buildings, archaeological sites, sacred places, gardens and other objects. ICOMOS considers that countries have a “general responsibility towards humanity” to safeguard their heritage for present and future generations.
26. Greater Christchurch Urban Development Strategy (UDS) 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.
27. New Zealand Urban Design Protocol 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. 155
COMMUNITY, RECREATION AND CULTURE COMMITTEE 6. 8. 2013
12 Cont‘d
Do the recommendations align with the Council’s strategies?
28. Yes.
CONSULTATION FULFILMENT
29. There is no requirement for community consultation for Heritage Incentive Grants or Covenants.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
That the Community, Recreation and Culture Committee approve a Heritage Incentive Grant of up to $7,068 for conservation and maintenance work for the Group 2 heritage buildings at 27- 29 New Regent Street, subject to certification of compliance with the above scope of works.
ATTACHMENT 1 TO CLAUSE 12 156 COMMUNITY, RECREATION AND CULTURE COMMITTEE 6. 8. 2013
HERITAGE ASSESSMENT – STATEMENT OF SIGNIFICANCE NEW REGENT STREET SHOPS - NEW REGENT STREET
PHOTOS: NEW REGENT STREET – C2010
The New Regent Street shops are listed as a Group 2 Protected Heritage Place in the Christchurch City Plan, and are registered as a Category I Historic Place by the New Zealand Historic Places Trust Pouhere Taonga.
HISTORICAL AND SOCIAL SIGNIFICANCE
New Regent Street has social and historical significance as it was the forerunner of the present day shopping mall. At the time of its construction the concept of an entire street made up of small speciality shops was novel for New Zealand. The building work took place between 1930-32 and was one of the few large scale building projects undertaken in the South Island during the Depression. New Regent Street occupies the site of the old Colosseum, a building designed by Thomas Cane in the 1880s and demolished in 1930. On 1 April 1932 New Regent Street was opened by the Mayor of Christchurch, Mr D.G. Sullivan. Of the 40 shops offered for lease, only three were let owing to the economic depression of the time. To encourage occupancy, New Regent Street Ltd. decided to lease the remainder free of charge until businesses became established, and then at a nominal rent of five shillings a week.
ARCHITECTURAL AND AESTHETIC SIGNIFICANCE
New Regent Street has architectural and aesthetic significance because of the architect Henry Francis Willis (1892-1972) and the actual design of the Street. The 40 shops on individual titles were designed in the Spanish Mission Revival style by H. Francis Willis in 1930. Willis also designed the State Picture Theatre (1934-5), Santa Barbara on Victoria Street and the Repertory Theatre (formerly Radiant Hall, 1929); the latter being similar in style to New Regent Street’s terraces. The contractors were P. Graham and Sons Ltd, who had previously built Christchurch Boys’ High School and the Majestic theatre.
The windows and ornamentation of the first floor establishes the Spanish Mission character and unique appearance of New Regent Street, and there are three upper storey variations. The first contains three round headed/arched windows with profiles recalling classical Palladian style, supported by small columns with spiral motif, above which sits an oval medallion. These facades have an awning extending above the windows and supported by ATTACHMENT 1 TO CLAUSE 12 157 COMMUNITY, RECREATION AND CULTURE COMMITTEE 6. 8. 2013
decorative wrought iron brackets. Originally these awnings were covered with Spanish style Cordova roof tiles; they were later removed leaving just the concrete slabs.
Alternating on either side of these properties are two similar styled facades, both with Spanish Mission style parapets of similar elevation and the shaped gables commonly found on Spanish Mission style buildings. The first of these has centrally placed double casement windows with a window box beneath, the Palladian window motif as before, and circular medallions set within the gable. In the second the central window is replaced by French doors leading onto a small balcony and the gable is decorated with a pair of heraldic shields. The central windows of both are surmounted by projecting arched mouldings over semi-circular fan light windows with panes arranged in a sunburst form. Additional ornamentation separates each facade with decorative art deco chevrons and Spanish Mission style barley twist columns.
Originally the large display windows facing the street were surrounded by decorative coloured floral tiles, many of which still remain. Wide plate glass windows beneath the verandah light each shop, and entry is through a glazed door set back from the street beside the entrance to the adjoining shop. This continuous suspended verandah runs the length of the terraces and extends around into Gloucester Street. In 1968 the buildings were repainted in Adam Gold, Etruscan Red and Slate Blue; the existing colour scheme dates from 1994.
TECHNOLOGICAL AND CRAFTSMANSHIP SIGNIFICANCE
The New Regent Street shops have technological and craftsmanship significance due to their design and method of construction. The shops are structurally based on an exposed concrete frame with infill panels of cavity brick, the facades of which have been plastered and painted; extensive steelwork is also used along the entire length of the Street. Weep holes at the base of the cavity were designed to allow water soaking down from the parapets to drain. All underground services were through the rights-of-ways behind the shops. Ventilation, interior lighting and floodlighting were an acclaimed feature of the street at the time of its opening.
CONTEXTUAL SIGNIFICANCE
New Regent Street is contextually significant because of its streetscape value including the uniformity of design, form, colour and scale of all 40 shops. New Regent Street continued to evolve; after World War Two it became a public road, and in 1986 it was made a one-way street. In 1994 the street became a pedestrian mall and the tram line was installed. At this time the cobblestone paving, wrought iron railings, planter beds and period lighting we see in the streetscape of today were introduced.
ARCHAEOLOGICAL SIGNIFICANCE
New Regent Street as a post-1900 site has a degree of archaeological significance because of the potential to provide archaeological evidence relating to past building construction methods and materials, and human activity on this site. It is also known that it was the location of the old Colosseum prior to 1900.
References: CCC Heritage Files
Assessment Completed: November 2010
158 159
COMMUNITY, RECREATION AND CULTURE COMMITTEE 6. 8. 2013
13. HERITAGE GRANT APPROVAL – 28 NEW REGENT STREET, CHRISTCHURCH
General Manager responsible: General Manager Strategy and Planning, DDI 941 8281 Officer responsible: Natural Environment and Heritage Unit Manager Author: Brendan Smyth, Heritage, Architecture and Urban Design
PURPOSE OF REPORT
1. The purpose of this report is to obtain approval from the Community, Recreation and Culture Committee for a Heritage Incentive Grant for Number 28 New Regent Street, Christchurch.
28 New Regent Street 28 June 2013
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
2. Number 28 New Regent Street is one of the original mid-street units of the New Regent Street shops. The whole of New Regent Street was designed by the architect Francis Willis and built in 1931 (refer to the Statement of Heritage Significance, Attachment 1). 160
COMMUNITY, RECREATION AND CULTURE COMMITTEE 6. 8. 2013
13 Cont’d
3. The two-storey unit is located towards the north-eastern end of New Regent Street and has one of the roof level concrete ‘eyelids’ which would have originally held genuine ‘Spanish’ style clay tiles. These relatively heavy tiles were later removed to prevent them falling into the street below. The façade is currently painted a pale yellow or cream colour. The upper walls were originally rendered with coloured decorative plaster and designed in a ‘Spanish Mission’ style more usually associated with Southern California. These parts of the building were first painted in the 1960’s and then again in the 1980’s. The building has a suspended verandah and below this are the shop fronts with timber framed glazing next to portions of walls covered with the new and original ornate blue tiles.
4. The original heritage fabric was significantly damaged in the recent series of earthquakes. As part of the repairs, the structure of the building required strengthening through the inclusion of a new steel frame on the street façade and a new reinforced concrete block wall with brick veneer on the east façade. The original suspended timber ground floor has been renewed in concrete with a recycled ‘Rimu’ tongue and groove floor finish placed on top. All the internal plastered walls and ceilings have been relined with plasterboard. The unit has been fully rewired and new plumbing and drainage installed. The original stair is still in place, complete with the original balustrade. Externally the shop-front tiling has been repaired with new and retained tiles along with new glazing and a freshly painted plaster façade on the first floor.
5. Although the cost of repairing some of this damage was covered by building insurance some of the work required to re-occupy the building was not. This work is largely required to allow the building to meet the current building code and includes strengthening to raise the building to above 67 per cent of the Building Code, electrical work and the tiling to the shop front. The tiling was not covered by insurance as most of the original tiling had already been removed at some point prior to the earthquakes.
6. New Regent Street is registered Category 1 with the New Zealand Historic Places Trust Pouhere Taonga (NZHPT). All of the original 1931 shop buildings of New Regent Street, including Number 28 are listed Group 2 in the Christchurch City Council’s City Plan.
7. The work for which the applicant is seeking grant support will ensure the future protection and continuing use of this significant heritage building. The application meets all the criteria for a grant as provided in the Heritage Incentive Grants Policy – Operational Guidelines.
8. Subsequent to the works outlined above, the building can be repaired to meet the Building Code requirements and the owner is committed to the reuse and maintenance of the building. A cyclical maintenance plan has been prepared for this series of buildings by an architect.
9. The building is owned by Brian and Elizabeth Hazeldine. The building has been the subject of previous Heritage Incentive Grants, approved by the Committee in September 2010 and in April 2013. The first grant of $1,472 was for façade repainting and cavity wall tie replacement work just prior to the earthquakes. A second grant of $8,578 was approved for further structural strengthening and other works as outlined below (Scope of Work (a) to (f)). In their April application, the applicant made an error and did not include all costs associated with the works required to restore the property. This third application to the Council seeks additional funding to rectify that error. Rather than accept the application in the form lodged, Council officers, given the difficulty in separating out the scope of works from the previous application, have taken the following approach (see the table below) and calculated the scope of works costs as if it was the first and only earthquake related grant. The previously paid grants are then deducted to give the correct total of grant funding for this scope of works. Although the building was recently the subject of Heritage Incentive Grant funding, the Operational Guidelines do allow for additional applications to be made within the normally restricted five year period:
Essential works necessitated by events such as fire, earthquakes or natural events; additional Grants may be approved within the five year period. (Terms and Conditions of Grant, Section 3, Multiple Grants). 161
COMMUNITY, RECREATION AND CULTURE COMMITTEE 6. 8. 2013
13 Cont’d
SCOPE OF WORK
10. A summary of conservation and maintenance works include:
(a) structural strengthening (b) exterior repainting (c) reinstatement of terrazzo threshold (d) replica tiling to shop-front (e) replacement of ‘Rimu’ flooring (f) full electrical refurbishment.
11. Costs for conservation, including code compliance and maintenance works are outlined in the table below (all excluding GST):
Particulars Costs Costs for repairs: Endel Lust Engineers $1,368 Fulton Ross Team Architecture $175 Naylor Love Construction $21,556 Galletley Builders $133,670 Total cost of repairs $156,769
Insurance and non-CCC grant income: Insurance payment $80,000 2011 Grant from NZ Historic Places Trust $2,115 Canterbury Earthquake Heritage Building Fund Grant $2,000 2013 Grant from NZ Historic Places Trust $2,000 Total non-CCC income $86,115
Total of conservation and restoration related work not funded by $70,654 insurance or non-CCC grant payments Potential grant based on this shortfall (40% as in similar recent $28,261 New Regent Street Heritage Incentive Grants) Heritage Incentive Grants already paid out for this Scope of Work: September 2011 CCC Heritage Incentive Grant $1,472 April 2013 CCC Heritage Incentive Grant $8,578 Proposed grant $18,211
HERITAGE INCENTIVE GRANTS POLICY
12. The Operational Guidelines for the Policy provide for a grant of up to 50 per cent of the total heritage related costs for any Christchurch City Plan protected building. However, to be consistent with other Heritage Incentive Grants awarded to owners of buildings in New Regent Street it is recommended that the percentage be 40 per cent.
Proposed heritage grant (40% of cost of works) $18,211
FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS
13. 2013/14 Annual Budget for the Heritage Incentive Grant (HIG) fund $763,684 Funds remaining from 2012/13 financial year $416,197 Balance of 13/14 funds $1,179,881 Proposed grant to 381 Montreal Street $112,873 Proposed grant to 26 Park Terrace, St Saviours Church $143,431 Proposed grant to 27-29 New Regent Street $7,068 Proposed grant to 10, 12, 13 & 24 New Regent Street $33,864 Proposed Grant to 290 Riverlaw Terrace $3,478 Proposed grant to 28 New Regent Street $18,211 Total Available Funds 2013/2014 $860,956 162
COMMUNITY, RECREATION AND CULTURE COMMITTEE 6. 8. 2013
13 Cont’d
Do the Recommendations of this Report Align with 2009-19 LTCCP budgets?
14. Yes. The Heritage Incentive Grant budget is an annual fund provided for in the 2009-19 LTCCP.
LEGAL CONSIDERATIONS
15. Limited Conservation Covenants are required under the Heritage Conservation Operational Guidelines for properties receiving Heritage Incentive Grants of $15,000 to $149,999. A Full Covenant is required for grants of $150,000 or more. These figures were amended in February 2013 from those previously used for Heritage Incentive Grants.
Have you considered the legal implications of the issue under consideration?
16. Yes. Covenants generally are a more comprehensive form of protection of the buildings because they are registered against the property title, ensuring that the Council’s investment is protected. As the grant will be more than $15,000 but less than $150,000 there is a requirement for a ‘Limited Conservation Covenant’ on this property title.
ALIGNMENT WITH LTCCP AND ACTIVITY MANAGEMENT PLANS
17. The Heritage Incentive Grants Scheme is aligned to the Community Outcome ‘An attractive and well-designed City’ (LTCCP 2009-19, page 50). ‘Community Outcome 9. Development’ provides for, among other things, ensuring “our lifestyles and heritage are enhanced by our urban environment” (page 54). One of the success measures is that “Our heritage is protected for future generations” (page 54). “Progress will be measured using these headline indicators … number of heritage buildings, sites and objects.” (page 54). Heritage Incentive Grants contribute towards the number of protected heritage buildings, sites and objects, which is the measure under the outcome.
18. Within the ‘Activities and Services’ section of the LTCCP, is ‘City planning and development’ which aims to help improve Christchurch’s urban environment, among other things. One of the activities included in ‘City planning and development’ is ‘Heritage protection’. “A city’s heritage helps to sustain a sense of community identity, provides links to the past, and helps to attract visitors. The Council is committed to protecting the heritage of our city and works with developers, landowners and other stakeholders to conserve heritage buildings, areas and other items” (page 187).
19. ‘Heritage Protection’, requires the Council to “Research and promote the heritage of Christchurch and Banks Peninsula. Work with developers, landowners and other stakeholders to conserve heritage areas, buildings, and other items. Promote development that is sensitive to the character and heritage of the city and existing communities.” (page 192). The Council provides information, advice and funding for city heritage and heritage conservation, and will be expected to continue to do so, as part of its objective to retain heritage items.
Do the recommendations of this report support a level of service or project in the 2009-19 LTCCP?
20. Yes.
ALIGNMENT WITH STRATEGIES
21. Alignment of the requirement for Heritage Incentive Grants and Conservation Covenants stems from the Heritage Conservation Policy which in turn is relevant to:
22. Christchurch Recovery Strategy This Recovery Strategy is the key reference document that guides and coordinates the programmes of work, including Recovery Plans, under the Canterbury Earthquake Recovery 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. 163
COMMUNITY, RECREATION AND CULTURE COMMITTEE 6. 8. 2013
13 Cont’d
23. Christchurch City Plan 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.
24. Heritage Conservation Policy The Heritage Incentive Grants are provided for under section 8 of the Heritage Conservation Policy. As noted above under the LTCCP heading, 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”.
25. The Heritage Grants Policy is aligned with the International Council on Monuments and Sites (ICOMOS) New Zealand Charter 1993 for the Conservation of Places of Cultural Heritage Value, which the Council has adopted. The concept of places incorporates landscape, buildings, archaeological sites, sacred places, gardens and other objects. ICOMOS considers that countries have a “general responsibility towards humanity” to safeguard their heritage for present and future generations.
26. Greater Christchurch Urban Development Strategy (UDS) 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.
27. New Zealand Urban Design Protocol 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?
28. Yes.
CONSULTATION FULFILMENT
29. There is no requirement for community consultation for Heritage Incentive Grants or Covenants.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
That the Community, Recreation and Culture Committee approve:
(a) A Heritage Incentive Grant of up to $18,211 for conservation and maintenance work for the Group 2 heritage building at 28 New Regent Street, 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. ATTACHMENT 1 TO CLAUSE 13 164 COMMUNITY, RECREATION AND CULTURE COMMITTEE 6. 8. 2013
HERITAGE ASSESSMENT – STATEMENT OF SIGNIFICANCE NEW REGENT STREET SHOPS - NEW REGENT STREET
PHOTOS: NEW REGENT STREET – C2010
The New Regent Street shops are listed as a Group 2 Protected Heritage Place in the Christchurch City Plan, and are registered as a Category I Historic Place by the New Zealand Historic Places Trust Pouhere Taonga.
HISTORICAL AND SOCIAL SIGNIFICANCE
New Regent Street has social and historical significance as it was the forerunner of the present day shopping mall. At the time of its construction the concept of an entire street made up of small speciality shops was novel for New Zealand. The building work took place between 1930-32 and was one of the few large scale building projects undertaken in the South Island during the Depression. New Regent Street occupies the site of the old Colosseum, a building designed by Thomas Cane in the 1880s and demolished in 1930. On 1 April 1932 New Regent Street was opened by the Mayor of Christchurch, Mr D.G. Sullivan. Of the 40 shops offered for lease, only three were let owing to the economic depression of the time. To encourage occupancy, New Regent Street Ltd. decided to lease the remainder free of charge until businesses became established, and then at a nominal rent of five shillings a week.
ARCHITECTURAL AND AESTHETIC SIGNIFICANCE
New Regent Street has architectural and aesthetic significance because of the architect Henry Francis Willis (1892-1972) and the actual design of the Street. The 40 shops on individual titles were designed in the Spanish Mission Revival style by H. Francis Willis in 1930. Willis also designed the State Picture Theatre (1934-5), Santa Barbara on Victoria Street and the Repertory Theatre (formerly Radiant Hall, 1929); the latter being similar in style to New Regent Street’s terraces. The contractors were P. Graham and Sons Ltd, who had previously built Christchurch Boys’ High School and the Majestic theatre.
The windows and ornamentation of the first floor establishes the Spanish Mission character and unique appearance of New Regent Street, and there are three upper storey variations. The first contains three round headed/arched windows with profiles recalling classical Palladian style, supported by small columns with spiral motif, above which sits an oval medallion. These facades have an awning extending above the windows and supported by ATTACHMENT 1 TO CLAUSE 13 165 COMMUNITY, RECREATION AND CULTURE COMMITTEE 6. 8. 2013
decorative wrought iron brackets. Originally these awnings were covered with Spanish style Cordova roof tiles; they were later removed leaving just the concrete slabs.
Alternating on either side of these properties are two similar styled facades, both with Spanish Mission style parapets of similar elevation and the shaped gables commonly found on Spanish Mission style buildings. The first of these has centrally placed double casement windows with a window box beneath, the Palladian window motif as before, and circular medallions set within the gable. In the second the central window is replaced by French doors leading onto a small balcony and the gable is decorated with a pair of heraldic shields. The central windows of both are surmounted by projecting arched mouldings over semi-circular fan light windows with panes arranged in a sunburst form. Additional ornamentation separates each facade with decorative art deco chevrons and Spanish Mission style barley twist columns.
Originally the large display windows facing the street were surrounded by decorative coloured floral tiles, many of which still remain. Wide plate glass windows beneath the verandah light each shop, and entry is through a glazed door set back from the street beside the entrance to the adjoining shop. This continuous suspended verandah runs the length of the terraces and extends around into Gloucester Street. In 1968 the buildings were repainted in Adam Gold, Etruscan Red and Slate Blue; the existing colour scheme dates from 1994.
TECHNOLOGICAL AND CRAFTSMANSHIP SIGNIFICANCE
The New Regent Street shops have technological and craftsmanship significance due to their design and method of construction. The shops are structurally based on an exposed concrete frame with infill panels of cavity brick, the facades of which have been plastered and painted; extensive steelwork is also used along the entire length of the Street. Weep holes at the base of the cavity were designed to allow water soaking down from the parapets to drain. All underground services were through the rights-of-ways behind the shops. Ventilation, interior lighting and floodlighting were an acclaimed feature of the street at the time of its opening.
CONTEXTUAL SIGNIFICANCE
New Regent Street is contextually significant because of its streetscape value including the uniformity of design, form, colour and scale of all 40 shops. New Regent Street continued to evolve; after World War Two it became a public road, and in 1986 it was made a one-way street. In 1994 the street became a pedestrian mall and the tram line was installed. At this time the cobblestone paving, wrought iron railings, planter beds and period lighting we see in the streetscape of today were introduced.
ARCHAEOLOGICAL SIGNIFICANCE
New Regent Street as a post-1900 site has a degree of archaeological significance because of the potential to provide archaeological evidence relating to past building construction methods and materials, and human activity on this site. It is also known that it was the location of the old Colosseum prior to 1900.
References: CCC Heritage Files
Assessment Completed: November 2010
166 167
COMMUNITY, RECREATION AND CULTURE COMMITTEE 6. 8. 2013
14. HERITAGE GRANT APPROVAL – 290 RIVERLAW TERRACE, ST MARTINS, CHRISTCHURCH
General Manager responsible: General Manager Strategy and Planning, DDI 941-8281 Officer responsible: Natural Environment and Heritage Unit Manager Author: Brendan Smyth, Heritage and Architecture
PHOTOGRAPH - ‘SPRINGBANK’ 290 RIVERLAW TERRACE, 15 MARCH 2013
PURPOSE OF REPORT
1. The purpose of this report is to obtain approval for a Heritage Incentive Grant for 290 Riverlaw Terrace, St Martins, Christchurch.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
2. Number 290 Riverlaw Terrace, known as ‘Springbank’, was designed by an unknown architect and built in the 1860’s (refer to the Statement of Heritage Significance, Attachment 1).
3. This two-storey villa is situated near the Heathcote River in the Christchurch suburb of St Martins. The house is built from matai and other native timbers and originally had a slate roof. It is locally significant as an early St Martins villa and because of its association with a former Mayor of Christchurch (Linwood).
4. Springbank has architectural and aesthetic significance as a one and half storey early Colonial Vernacular timber dwelling with gabled roof forms. The design is typical for colonial houses of this period. The house is a villa style with concave return verandah with simple posts and decorative frieze. Some modifications have been made to the house with a boxed bay window addition to the north-west gable and a porch, reflecting the design of the verandah, added to the west facade. The interior of the house features a black timber fire surround with mirrors and painted flowers. An early 20th century bay window has casement windows with leaded fanlights above. The original slate roof has been replaced with corrugated iron. 168
COMMUNITY, RECREATION AND CULTURE COMMITTEE 6. 8. 2013
14 Cont’d
5. The building sustained minor damage in the recent series of earthquakes including the collapse of the two chimneys. Repair work has been covered by insurance. The applicant is seeking support for an electrical upgrade, maintenance work to the spouting and installation of ceiling roses. The electrical work will help to prevent the building from being damaged by fires caused by degraded electrical wiring, a common cause of fires in older timber framed buildings.
6. Number 290 Riverlaw Terrace is registered Category 2 with the New Zealand Historic Places Trust Pouhere Taonga (NZHPT) Registration Number 3730. The building is listed Group 3 in the Christchurch City Council’s City Plan, Volume 3, Part 10, Appendix 1.
7. The work for which the applicant is seeking grant support will ensure the future protection and continuing use of this significant heritage building. The application, while retrospective, meets all the criteria for a grant as provided in the Heritage Incentive Grants Policy – Operational Guidelines.
8. With the completion of the works outlined above, the building has met the Building Code requirements and the owner is committed to the continuing use and maintenance of the building.
9. The building is owned by Robert and Linda Gallavin. The building has been the subject of a previous Heritage Grant from the Council – $6,000 awarded in 1996.
SCOPE OF WORK
10. A summary of conservation and maintenance works include:
(a) spouting replacement (b) new ceiling roses in lounge and entrance hall (c) electrical upgrade including relocation of the main switchboard.
11. Costs for conservation, including code compliance and maintenance works are outlined in the table below (all excluding GST):
Particulars Costs Supply and install spouting including snow straps; $1071 New ceiling roses to lounge and hallway; $393 Electrical work; $5,493 Total of conservation and restoration related work $6,957
HERITAGE INCENTIVE GRANTS POLICY
12. The Operational Guidelines for the Policy provide for a grant of up to 50 per cent of the total heritage related costs for any Christchurch City Plan protected building. It is recommended that the percentage for this grant be the maximum of 50 per cent.
Proposed heritage grant (50% of cost of works) $3,478
FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS
13. 2013/14 Annual Budget for the Heritage Incentive Grant (HIG) fund $763,684 Funds remaining from 2012/13 financial year $416,197 Balance of 13/14 funds $1,179,881 Proposed grant to 381 Montreal Street $112,873 Proposed grant to 26 Park Terrace, St Saviours Church $143,431 Proposed grant to 27-29 New Regent Street $7,068 Proposed grant to 10, 12, 13 & 24 New Regent Street $33,864 Proposed Grant to 290 Riverlaw Terrace $3,478 Total Available Funds 2013/2014 $879,167
169
COMMUNITY, RECREATION AND CULTURE COMMITTEE 6. 8. 2013
14 Cont’d
Do the Recommendations of this Report Align with 2009-19 LTCCP budgets?
14. Yes. The Heritage Incentive Grant budget is an annual fund provided for in the 2009-19 LTCCP.
Do the Recommendations of this Report Align with 2009-19 LTCCP budgets?
14. Yes. The Heritage Incentive Grant budget is an annual fund provided for in the 2009-19 LTCCP.
LEGAL CONSIDERATIONS
15. Limited Conservation Covenants are required under the Heritage Conservation Operational Guidelines for properties receiving Heritage Incentive Grants of $15,000 to $149,999. A Full Covenant is required for grants of $150,000 or more. These figures were amended in February 2013 from those previously used for Heritage Incentive Grants.
Have you considered the legal implications of the issue under consideration?
16. Yes. Covenants generally are a more comprehensive form of protection of the buildings because they are registered against the property title, ensuring that the Council’s investment is protected. As the grant will be less than $15,000 there is no requirement for a conservation covenant on this property title.
ALIGNMENT WITH LTCCP AND ACTIVITY MANAGEMENT PLANS
17. The Heritage Incentive Grants Scheme is aligned to the Community Outcome ‘An attractive and well-designed City’ (LTCCP 2009-19, page 50). ‘Community Outcome 9 Development’ provides for, among other things, ensuring “our lifestyles and heritage are enhanced by our urban environment” (page 54). One of the success measures is that “Our heritage is protected for future generations” (page 54). “Progress will be measured using these headline indicators … number of heritage buildings, sites and objects.” (page 54). Heritage Incentive Grants contribute towards the number of protected heritage buildings, sites and objects, which is the measure under the outcome.
18. Within the ‘Activities and Services’ section of the LTCCP, is ‘City planning and development’ which aims to help improve Christchurch’s urban environment, among other things. One of the activities included in ‘City planning and development’ is ‘Heritage protection’. “A city’s heritage helps to sustain a sense of community identity, provides links to the past, and helps to attract visitors. The Council is committed to protecting the heritage of our city and works with developers, landowners and other stakeholders to conserve heritage buildings, areas and other items” (page 187).
19. ‘Heritage Protection’, requires the Council to “Research and promote the heritage of Christchurch and Banks Peninsula. Work with developers, landowners and other stakeholders to conserve heritage areas, buildings, and other items. Promote development that is sensitive to the character and heritage of the city and existing communities.” (page 192). The Council provides information, advice and funding for city heritage and heritage conservation, and will be expected to continue to do so, as part of its objective to retain heritage items.
Do the recommendations of this report support a level of service or project in the 2009-19 LTCCP?
20. Yes.
ALIGNMENT WITH STRATEGIES
21. Alignment of the requirement for Heritage Incentive Grants and Conservation Covenants stems from the Heritage Conservation Policy which in turn is relevant to: 170
COMMUNITY, RECREATION AND CULTURE COMMITTEE 6. 8. 2013
14 Cont’d
22. Christchurch Recovery Strategy This Recovery Strategy is the key reference document that guides and coordinates the programmes of work, including Recovery Plans, under the Canterbury Earthquake Recovery 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.
23. Christchurch City Plan 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.
24. Heritage Conservation Policy The Heritage Incentive Grants are provided for under section 8 of the Heritage Conservation Policy. As noted above under the LTCCP heading, 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”.
25. The Heritage Grants Policy is aligned with the International Council on Monuments and Sites (ICOMOS) New Zealand Charter 1993 for the Conservation of Places of Cultural Heritage Value, which the Council has adopted. The concept of places incorporates landscape, buildings, archaeological sites, sacred places, gardens and other objects. ICOMOS considers that countries have a “general responsibility towards humanity” to safeguard their heritage for present and future generations.
26. Greater Christchurch Urban Development Strategy (UDS) 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.
27. New Zealand Urban Design Protocol 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?
28. Yes.
CONSULTATION FULFILMENT
29. There is no requirement for community consultation for Heritage Incentive Grants or Covenants.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
That the Community, Recreation and Culture Committee approve a Heritage Incentive Grant of up to $3,478 for conservation and maintenance work for the Group 3 heritage building at 290 Riverlaw Terrace, subject to certification of compliance with the above scope of works. ATTACHMENT 1 TO CLAUSE 14 171 COMMUNITY, RECREATION AND CULTURE COMMITTEE 6. 8. 2013
CHRISTCHURCH CITY PLAN – LISTED HERITAGE ITEM AND SETTING HERITAGE ASSESSMENT – STATEMENT OF SIGNIFICANCE SPRINGBANK – 290 RIVERLAW TERRACE
PHOTOGRAPH 2004
HISTORICAL AND SOCIAL SIGNIFICANCE Historical and social values that demonstrate or are associated with: a particular person, group, organisation, institution, event, phase or activity; the continuity and/or change of a phase or activity; social, historical, traditional, economic, political or other patterns.
Springbank has historical and social significance as an early colonial house built during the 1860s. The land was originally owned by Henry Phillips, one of the first immigrants to arrive in Lyttelton on the Sir George Seymour. Henry sold land in 'St Martins village' to William Nicol Macbeth, an accountant, who then sold 11 acres of land to Isabella Eliza Ayers, wife of Aaron Ayers, in 1883. Aaron Ayers was born in England in 1836, arriving in New Zealand, with his wife in 1860. He was a hairdresser/tobacconist for 20 years before becoming an auctioneer and senior partner in Ayers, Beachamp and Company, an auctioneering firm. Ayers was a City Councillor and Mayor of Linwood from 1885-86. The Ayers sold the property in 1889 to Charles Selby Howell, a saddler known for his interest and involvement in horse racing. Howell lived there for five years, later building a home in Opawa which he named Stroud House. Howell sold Springbank to Maria Trist, wife of John Trist, sail maker. The property passed through the Trist family with John William Trist, saddler, the youngest son, inheriting the property. John Trist remained there until his death in 1959 when Doris Eleanor Ford, nee Trist, succeeded to the property. When Springbank was sold in 1971 the Trist family had owned the property for nearly 80 years. The house has changed hands since with owners including: David Reily, a research psychologist, Christopher Dunckley, a show promoter and Christine Cockle, and Stuart Bryant, a company manager. The current owners, Robert and Linda Gallavin, purchased the property in 1995. ATTACHMENT 1 TO CLAUSE 14 172 COMMUNITY, RECREATION AND CULTURE COMMITTEE 6. 8. 2013
CULTURAL AND SPIRITUAL SIGNIFICANCE Cultural and spiritual values that demonstrate or are associated with the distinctive characteristics of a way of life, philosophy, tradition, religion, or other belief, including: the symbolic or commemorative value of the place; significance to Tangata Whenua; and/or associations with an identifiable group and esteemed by this group for its cultural values.
Springbank has cultural significance as it is characteristic of the way of life for successful settlers during the early colonial period of the city's history. St Martins and Opawa were popular areas in the second half of the 19th century among those who could afford large blocks of land and wanted to live in a rural environment. This style of living emulated that of the landed classes in Britain.
ARCHITECTURAL AND AESTHETIC SIGNIFICANCE Architectural and aesthetic values that demonstrate or are associated with design values, form, scale, colour, texture and material of the place.
Springbank has architectural and aesthetic significance as a one and half storey early Colonial Vernacular timber dwelling with gabled roof forms. The house is typical in its design for colonial houses of this period. Built during the 1860s the house is a villa style with a concave return veranda with simple posts and decorative frieze. Some modifications have been made to the house with a boxed bay window addition to the north-west gable and a porch reflecting the design of the veranda added to the west facade. The interior of the house features a black timber fire-surround with mirrors and painted flowers. An early 20th century bay window has casement windows with leaded fanlights above.
TECHNOLOGICAL AND CRAFTSMANSHIP SIGNIFICANCE Technological and craftsmanship values that demonstrate or are associated with: the nature and use of materials, finishes and/or technological or constructional methods which were innovative, or of notable quality for the period.
Springbank has technological and craftsmanship significance due to its early colonial timber construction. Although generally chaste in its detailing the house does have notable features including the fire surround with mirrors and painted flowers, the leaded fanlights and the timber frieze decoration on the veranda.
CONTEXTUAL SIGNIFICANCE Contextual values that demonstrate or are associated with: a relationship to the environment (constructed and natural) setting, a group, precinct or streetscape; a degree of consistency in terms of scale, form, materials, texture, colour, style and/or detailing in relationship to the environment (constructed and natural), setting, a group, precinct or streetscape; a physical or visible landmark; a contribution to the character of the environment (constructed and natural) setting, a group, precinct or streetscape.
Springbank has contextual significance as an early colonial house built adjacent to the Heathcote River. The property originally encompassed a large block of land between Hills Road (now Wilsons Road) and the river. The suburbs of St Martins and Opawa remained rural in character throughout the 19th century despite residential building occurring on the Port Hills, Cashmere, during the late 19th century. It was during the first four decades of the 20th century that this area became residential in character. Thus Springbank sat for many years in a rural environment. Along with the nearby listed Riverlaw, 1885, further along the river, the builder of Springbank would have been attracted to this area by the large blocks of land available within a rural setting. In 1921 the block was split into two lots, with a residential subdivision of 15 sections occurring in 1936. In 1969 the current section was created with the subdivision of the land to the south of the house. Today the setting consists of the listed building that sits on the southern boundary of the property. The house sits on an elevated site in a mature garden setting. The well planted setting includes a listed southern magnolia on the north-west aspect of the garden. A concrete retaining wall with timber paling fence above ATTACHMENT 1 TO CLAUSE 14 173 COMMUNITY, RECREATION AND CULTURE COMMITTEE 6. 8. 2013
defines the street boundary on the Riverlaw Terrace street frontage. The house has landmark significance due to its age and colonial vernacular style.
ARCHAEOLOGICAL SIGNIFICANCE Archaeological values that demonstrate or are associated with: potential to provide archaeological information through physical evidence; an understanding about social historical, cultural, spiritual, technological or other values or past events, activities, people or phases.
Springbank is of archaeological significance because it has the potential to provide archaeological evidence relating to past building construction methods and materials, and human activity on the site, possibly including that which occurred prior to 1900.
ASSESSMENT STATEMENT
Springbank is of metropolitan significance. The building and setting have been assessed as making an important contribution to the identity, sense of place and history of the Christchurch metropolitan area and are primarily of importance to the city for their heritage values.
Springbank is historically significant as one of the early houses in the suburb of St Martins. For many years after its construction Springbank would have sat in a rural environment until the residential development of the suburb took place during the first four decades of the 20th century. The Springbank property was part of this development, with 15 residential sections being subdivided from the property in 1936. The owners of Springbank have included people who were involved in the social and political life of the city. Aaron Ayers was a City Councillor and Mayor of Linwood during the 1880s. Charles Howell was known for his involvement in horse racing and John Trist was a businessman with a successful sail and canvas shop on the corner of Colombo and Cashel Streets. Springbank has contextual significance as one of the early houses in this area. Houses such as Springbank, and the nearby listed Riverlaw, 1885, further along the river, reflect the large houses that were built in the 19th century in this area, attracted by the large blocks of land that were available in what was a rural setting. The house has architectural significance as a typical example of a Colonial Vernacular timber building which has been well maintained and retains many of its original features. The house has landmark significance in the area due to its age, Colonial style and original mid-19th century character.
REFERENCES:
Wilson, J. (2005) Contextual Historical Overview of Christchurch for Christchurch City Council. The Cyclopaedia of New Zealand. Mr Charles Selby Howell.
PEER REVIEWED: REVIEWER: REPORT UPDATED:
PLEASE NOTE THIS ASSESSMENT IS BASED ON INFORMATION AVAILABLE AT THE TIME OF WRITING. DUE TO THE ONGOING NATURE OF HERITAGE RESEARCH, FUTURE REASSESSMENT OF THIS HERITAGE ITEM MAY BE NECESSARY TO REFLECT ANY CHANGES IN KNOWLEDGE AND UNDERSTANDING OF ITS HERITAGE SIGNIFICANCE.
PLEASE USE IN CONJUNCTION WITH THE CCC HERITAGE FILES.
3 174 175
COMMUNITY, RECREATION AND CULTURE COMMITTEE 6. 8. 2013
15. HERITAGE INCENTIVE GRANTS SIX MONTHLY REPORT
General Manager responsible: General Manager Strategy and Planning, DDI 941 8281 Officer responsible: Natural Environment and Heritage Unit Manager Author: Brendan Smyth, Heritage and Architecture
PURPOSE OF REPORT
1. The purpose of this report is to update the Community, Recreation and Culture Committee on the Heritage Incentive Grants and Covenants approved during the period 1 January 2013 to 30 June 2013. Also, it is to advise the Committee of any covenants that have been removed under the delegated authority of the General Manager, Strategy and Planning.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
2. Table 1 provides a summary of Heritage Incentive Grants and covenants approved during the period 1 January 2013 to 30 June 2013. The table also shows the Heritage Incentive Grant Fund has a total budget of $1,269,183 for the 2012/13 financial year. Six new grants had been approved from the 2012/13 budget by 30 June 2012 although two of these were to St Paul’s Papanui.
Table 1: Heritage incentive grants and transfers approved by committee, 1 July to 31 December and 1 January 2013 to 30 June 2013:
2012/13 Annual Budget for the Heritage Incentive Grant (HIG) fund $763,684 Funds remaining from 2011/12 financial year $505,499 Balance of 12/13 funds $1,269,183 Grants Approved 1 July 2012 to 31 December 2012 Approved grant to 284 – 294 Kilmore Street $48,924 Approved grant to 236 Tuam (McKenzie & Willis) $240,000 Council approved transfer to CEHBF $254,690 Approved grant to 72 Chancellor Street $3,252 Grants Approved 1 January 2013 to 30 June 2013 Approved grant to St Paul’s, Papanui $165,683 Approved grant to St Luke’s Little Akaloa $33,860 Approved grant to 28 New Regent Street $8,578 Approved grant to 8 New Regent Street $12,292 Approved additional grant to St Paul’s Papanui $16,981 Approved grant to 30 New Regent Street $68,726 Total Available Funds to be carried forward into 2013/14 $416,197
3. Statements of Heritage Significance, which have been provided as part of the decision making process for each grant application, are attached for reference (refer Attachments 1, 2 and 3). The New Regent Street Statement is the same for numbers 8, 28 and 30 and the St Paul’s Statement covers both of the grants noted above. A summary of heritage grants allocated between June 2012 and June 2013, and those carried forward from previous years are detailed in Attachment 4.
FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS
4. Heritage Incentive Grants are budgeted for on an annual basis through the Council’s Long Term Plan (LTP). The total Heritage Incentive Grant Fund budget via the Annual Plan 2012/13 is $763,684. The Council on 17 September 2012 confirmed a carry forward of the 2011/12 unspent Heritage Incentive Grants monies resulting in the available current sum of $1,269,183. The total of grants allocated for this year is $852,986 leaving a carry forward of $416,197 into 2013/14. 176
COMMUNITY, RECREATION AND CULTURE COMMITTEE 6. 8. 2013
15 Cont’d
5. We have seen a consistent stream of applications for commercial buildings and churches over the past two years. This level of interest is expected to continue as insurance claims are being settled and building owners undertake repairs. Applications for residential buildings are only just beginning to come in and we expect a high level of interest in the grants over the coming financial year. The average individual grant has increased by approximately 50 per cent between the years 2009 and 2013.
Do the Recommendations of this Report Align with 2009-19 LTCCP budgets?
6. Yes. The Heritage Incentive Grant budget is an annual fund provided for in the 2009-19 LTCCP.
LEGAL CONSIDERATIONS
7. Limited Conservation Covenants are required under the Heritage Conservation Policy for properties receiving Heritage Incentive Grants of $5,000 to $49,999. A Full Conservation Covenant is required for grants of $50,000 or more. Delegated Authority given to the General Manager of Strategy and Planning for the removal of conservation covenants following the demolition of the building as a result of the earthquakes has been used on two occasions in the last six months: 236 Cashel Street, the former St Paul’s Trinity Pacific Church, and 44 Bedford Row, the former Horse Bazaar Building.
Have you considered the legal implications of the issue under consideration?
8. Yes. Covenants are a more comprehensive form of protection for the buildings because they are registered against the property title, ensuring that the Council’s investment is protected. For all grants approved in the period 1 July 2012 to 31 December 2012, covenants have been required as a condition of grant approval where the value of the grant exceed $15,000.
ALIGNMENT WITH LTCCP AND ACTIVITY MANAGEMENT PLANS
9. The Heritage Incentive Grants Scheme is aligned to the Community Outcome ‘An attractive and well-designed City’ (LTCCP 2009-19, page 50). ‘Community Outcome 9. Development’ provides for, among other things, ensuring “our lifestyles and heritage are enhanced by our urban environment” (page 54). One of the success measure is that “Our heritage is protected for future generations” (page 54). “Progress will be measured using these headline indicators … number of heritage buildings, sites and objects.” (page 54). Heritage Incentive Grants contribute towards the number of protected heritage buildings, sites and objects, which is the measure under the outcome.
10. Within the ‘Activities and Services’ section of the LTCCP, is ‘City planning and development’ which aims to help improve Christchurch’s urban environment, among other things. One of the activities included in ‘City planning and development’ is ‘Heritage protection’. “A city’s heritage helps to sustain a sense of community identity, provides links to the past, and helps to attract visitors. The Council is committed to protecting the heritage of our city and works with developers, landowners and other stakeholders to conserve heritage buildings, areas and other items” (page 187).
11. ‘Heritage Protection’, requires the Council to “Research and promote the heritage of Christchurch and Banks Peninsula. Work with developers, landowners and other stakeholders to conserve heritage areas, buildings, and other items. Promote development that is sensitive to the character and heritage of the city and existing communities.” (page 192). The Council provides information, advice and funding for city heritage and heritage conservation, and will be expected to continue to do so, as part of its objective to retain heritage items.
Do the recommendations of this report support a level of service or project in the 2009-19 LTCCP?
12. Yes. 177
COMMUNITY, RECREATION AND CULTURE COMMITTEE 6. 8. 2013
15 Cont’d
ALIGNMENT WITH STRATEGIES
13. Alignment of the requirement for Heritage Incentive Grants and Conservation Covenants stems from the Heritage Conservation Policy which in turn is relevant to:
Greater Christchurch Urban Development Strategy (UDS) Christchurch City Plan and Banks Peninsula District Plan Central City Revitalisation Strategy New Zealand Urban Design Protocol.
Do the recommendations align with the Council’s strategies?
14. Yes.
CONSULTATION FULFILMENT
15. There is no requirement for community consultation for Heritage Incentive Grants or Covenants.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
That the Community, Recreation and Culture Committee receive the report for the period 1 January 2013 to 30 June 2013, and agree to report to Council on 29 August 2013. ATTACHMENT 1 TO CLAUSE 15 178 COMMUNITY RECREATION AND CULTURE COMMITTEE 6. 8. 2013
HERITAGE ASSESSMENT – STATEMENT OF SIGNIFICANCE NEW REGENT STREET SHOPS - NEW REGENT STREET
PHOTOS: NEW REGENT STREET – C2010
The New Regent Street shops are listed as a Group 2 Protected Heritage Place in the Christchurch City Plan, and are registered as a Category I Historic Place by the New Zealand Historic Places Trust Pouhere Taonga.
HISTORICAL AND SOCIAL SIGNIFICANCE
New Regent Street has social and historical significance as it was the forerunner of the present day shopping mall. At the time of its construction the concept of an entire street made up of small speciality shops was novel for New Zealand. The building work took place between 1930-32 and was one of the few large scale building projects undertaken in the South Island during the Depression. New Regent Street occupies the site of the old Colosseum, a building designed by Thomas Cane in the 1880s and demolished in 1930. On 1 April 1932 New Regent Street was opened by the Mayor of Christchurch, Mr D.G. Sullivan. Of the 40 shops offered for lease, only three were let owing to the economic depression of the time. To encourage occupancy, New Regent Street Ltd. decided to lease the remainder free of charge until businesses became established, and then at a nominal rent of five shillings a week.
ARCHITECTURAL AND AESTHETIC SIGNIFICANCE
New Regent Street has architectural and aesthetic significance because of the architect Henry Francis Willis (1892-1972) and the actual design of the Street. The 40 shops on individual titles were designed in the Spanish Mission Revival style by H. Francis Willis in 1930. Willis also designed the State Picture Theatre (1934-5), Santa Barbara on Victoria Street and the Repertory Theatre (formerly Radiant Hall, 1929); the latter being similar in style to New Regent Street’s terraces. The contractors were P. Graham and Sons Ltd, who had previously built Christchurch Boys’ High School and the Majestic theatre.
The windows and ornamentation of the first floor establishes the Spanish Mission character and unique appearance of New Regent Street, and there are three upper storey variations. The first contains three round headed/arched windows with profiles recalling classical Palladian style, supported by small columns with spiral motif, above which sits an oval medallion. These facades have an awning extending above the windows and supported by ATTACHMENT 1 TO CLAUSE 15 179 COMMUNITY RECREATION AND CULTURE COMMITTEE 6. 8. 2013
decorative wrought iron brackets. Originally these awnings were covered with Spanish style Cordova roof tiles; they were later removed leaving just the concrete slabs.
Alternating on either side of these properties are two similar styled facades, both with Spanish Mission style parapets of similar elevation and the shaped gables commonly found on Spanish Mission style buildings. The first of these has centrally placed double casement windows with a window box beneath, the Palladian window motif as before, and circular medallions set within the gable. In the second the central window is replaced by French doors leading onto a small balcony and the gable is decorated with a pair of heraldic shields. The central windows of both are surmounted by projecting arched mouldings over semi-circular fan light windows with panes arranged in a sunburst form. Additional ornamentation separates each facade with decorative art deco chevrons and Spanish Mission style barley twist columns.
Originally the large display windows facing the street were surrounded by decorative coloured floral tiles, many of which still remain. Wide plate glass windows beneath the verandah light each shop, and entry is through a glazed door set back from the street beside the entrance to the adjoining shop. This continuous suspended verandah runs the length of the terraces and extends around into Gloucester Street. In 1968 the buildings were repainted in Adam Gold, Etruscan Red and Slate Blue; the existing colour scheme dates from 1994.
TECHNOLOGICAL AND CRAFTSMANSHIP SIGNIFICANCE
The New Regent Street shops have technological and craftsmanship significance due to their design and method of construction. The shops are structurally based on an exposed concrete frame with infill panels of cavity brick, the facades of which have been plastered and painted; extensive steelwork is also used along the entire length of the Street. Weep holes at the base of the cavity were designed to allow water soaking down from the parapets to drain. All underground services were through the rights-of-ways behind the shops. Ventilation, interior lighting and floodlighting were an acclaimed feature of the street at the time of its opening.
CONTEXTUAL SIGNIFICANCE
New Regent Street is contextually significant because of its streetscape value including the uniformity of design, form, colour and scale of all 40 shops. New Regent Street continued to evolve; after World War Two it became a public road, and in 1986 it was made a one-way street. In 1994 the street became a pedestrian mall and the tram line was installed. At this time the cobblestone paving, wrought iron railings, planter beds and period lighting we see in the streetscape of today were introduced.
ARCHAEOLOGICAL SIGNIFICANCE
New Regent Street as a post-1900 site has a degree of archaeological significance because of the potential to provide archaeological evidence relating to past building construction methods and materials, and human activity on this site. It is also known that it was the location of the old Colosseum prior to 1900.
References: CCC Heritage Files
Assessment Completed: November 2010
ATTACHMENT 2 TO CLAUSE 15 180 COMMUNITY, RECREATION AND CULTURE COMMITTEE 6. 8. 2013
Statement of Significance: St Luke’s Anglican Church, Little Akaloa
Historical and Social Significance
St Luke’s Anglican Church (1906) has historical and social significance as a manifestation of the commitment of the Little Akaloa community to the construction of a dedicated place of worship, and more particularly as a testament to the work of John Henry Menzies, the local farmer who was in large part responsible for the building’s design, construction, decoration and financing.
Cultural and Spiritual Significance
St Luke’s has cultural and spiritual significance as a focus for worship and social interchange in the Little Akaloa community for over a century. The church may also be seen to represent an effort to more firmly ground Pakeha culture and society in Aotearoa through the co-option of aspects of Maori culture.
Architectural and Aesthetic Significance
St Luke’s has architectural and aesthetic significance as an unique local expression of the Arts and Crafts ethos. Essentially a handsome Gothic Revival place of worship, the church is distinguished by its unexpected Maori-inspired interior decoration. The un-likeliness of this melding is further amplified when it is noted that the building was designed and executed by John Menzies, a pakeha, for a wholly pakeha congregation. In this the church is probably without precedent. Although at one level a function of the peculiar talent and interest of Menzies, St Luke’s can also be seen as product of the broader Arts and Crafts movement, with its dictums that a building should be hand-wrought and recognizably a product of its environment. Menzies was unusual ATTACHMENT 2 TO CLAUSE 15 181 COMMUNITY, RECREATION AND CULTURE COMMITTEE 6. 8. 2013
in the extent to which he rejected more conventional expressions of the Arts and Crafts movement, and embraced Maori decorative forms. Other designers were not to attempt anything approaching this until the interwar period.
Technological and Craftsmanship Significance
St Luke’s has technological and craftsmanship significance for its unusual use of concrete as a mode of construction, and for the quality and quantity of John Menzies’ decorative work. This is all the more remarkable as Menzies was a self-taught carver.
Contextual Significance
The most immediate context of St Luke’s is Rehutai, the homestead that Menzies built for his son William in nearby Menzies Bay. This house has a similarly Maori- inspired decorative scheme. Another element of context is the tiny Maori church at the Kaik near Akaroa, which was given an overtly Maori appearance by the local iwi for the Canterbury Centennial in 1940.
ATTACHMENT 3 TO CLAUSE 15 182 COMMUNITY, RECREATION AND CULTURE COMMITTEE 6. 8. 2013
HERITAGE ASSESSMENT – STATEMENT OF SIGNIFICANCE ST PAUL’S ANGLICAN CHURCH – 1 HAREWOOD ROAD
PHOTOGRAPH 2010
HISTORICAL AND SOCIAL SIGNIFICANCE Historical and social values that demonstrate or are associated with: a particular person, group, organisation, institution, event, phase or activity; the continuity and/or change of a phase or activity; social, historical, traditional, economic, political or other patterns.
St Paul's Anglican Church has historical and social significance as the site of possibly the earliest church on the Canterbury Plains (NZHPT 2005 p 4). A first St Paul's Anglican Church was erected in 1852 to provide for Papanui, the first settlement on the plains outside Christchurch. The village grew initially because of the 30 ha Papanui Bush, which provided timber for the new town. This early date illustrates the objective of the Canterbury Association to promptly provide places of worship for its new settlers. The foundation stone of a replacement church was laid by Bishop Harper on 2 February 1876; the new building opened in December 1877. The scale of this church indicates the on-going importance of both the Anglican Church and this location in the late 1870s. The church was consecrated in 1880; to mark the occasion the first peal of bells in Canterbury was installed. St Paul's Anglican Church churchyard is the resting place of a cross-section of local Papanui society, and of a number of notable Cantabrians including politician Robert Heaton Rhodes, VC winner Charles Upham and engineer Edward Dobson.
CULTURAL AND SPIRITUAL SIGNIFICANCE Cultural and spiritual values that demonstrate or are associated with the distinctive characteristics of a way of life, philosophy, tradition, religion, or other belief, including: the symbolic or commemorative value of the place; significance to Tangata Whenua; and/or associations with an identifiable group and esteemed by this group for its cultural values.
St Paul's Anglican Church has cultural and spiritual significance as the site of a centre of Anglican worship for nearly 160 years, and in the present building for 130 years. The early development of a church on the site indicates both the central position of the Anglican Church in directing Canterbury's early religious expression, and the desire of Papanui's early settlers ATTACHMENT 3 TO CLAUSE 15 183 COMMUNITY, RECREATION AND CULTURE COMMITTEE 6. 8. 2013
to nurture their spiritual and communal life. The churchyard and a war memorial enhance the spiritual value of the site. The church continues to be held in high esteem by its parishioners.
ARCHITECTURAL AND AESTHETIC SIGNIFICANCE Architectural and aesthetic values that demonstrate or are associated with design values, form, scale, colour, texture and material of the place.
St Paul's Anglican Church has architectural and aesthetic significance as one of the larger and more prominent Neo-Gothic churches designed by architect Benjamin Mountfort. A talented and individual practitioner of Neo-Gothic, Mountfort established a forty year career as one of New Zealand's leading architects from the late 1850s. As both Provincial Architect and architect to the Anglican Diocese, he executed a large number of both secular and ecclesiastical commissions, including the Canterbury Provincial Government Buildings and Canterbury Museum. Mountfort's many Neo-Gothic churches range widely in size and design, but are always accomplished ecclesiologically-correct compositions. St Paul's Anglican Church illustrates a number of features common to Mountfort's churches, including its Early English style, clear functional articulation, vertical emphasis, lancet windows, and board and batten walls with string courses. The church's belltower was demolished in 1910 and rebuilt in different form in 1912. The building was also extensively renovated in 1926, and in 1986 - when the shingled roof was replaced with decromastic tiles. The church maintains a high degree of integrity.
TECHNOLOGICAL AND CRAFTSMANSHIP SIGNIFICANCE Technological and craftsmanship values that demonstrate or are associated with: the nature and use of materials, finishes and/or technological or constructional methods which were innovative, or of notable quality for the period.
St Paul's Anglican Church has technological and craftsmanship significance as a large timber building, with numerous finely executed gothic details, and a notable open interior revealing the complex structure of the building.
CONTEXTUAL SIGNIFICANCE Contextual values that demonstrate or are associated with: a relationship to the environment (constructed and natural) setting, a group, precinct or streetscape; a degree of consistency in terms of scale, form, materials, texture, colour, style and/or detailing in relationship to the environment (constructed and natural), setting, a group, precinct or streetscape; a physical or visible landmark; a contribution to the character of the environment (constructed and natural) setting, a group, precinct or streetscape.
St Paul's Anglican Church is located in the centre of a large triangular section on the south side of Harewood Road just past the intersection with Papanui Road/Main North Road. The setting consists of an extensive graveyard, which surrounds the church. The grounds also contain a number of large trees, and a church hall. The church and its setting are located on the margins of Papanui's commercial area, which abuts the graveyard on its eastern side. On the western boundary is the main trunk railway line. Because of its size of the church, the height of its spire, the extent of its grounds, and the long open boundary with busy Harewood Road, St Paul's Anglican Church has landmark significance in Papanui.
ARCHAEOLOGICAL SIGNIFICANCE Archaeological values that demonstrate or are associated with: potential to provide archaeological information through physical evidence; an understanding about social historical, cultural, spiritual, technological or other values or past events, activities, people or phases.
St Paul's Anglican Church and its setting are of archaeological significance because they have the potential to provide archaeological evidence relating to past building construction methods and materials, and human activity on the site, including pre-1900. The first church on the site was erected in 1852, and burials in the graveyard began in 1853. ATTACHMENT 3 TO CLAUSE 15 184 COMMUNITY, RECREATION AND CULTURE COMMITTEE 6. 8. 2013
ASSESSMENT STATEMENT
St Paul's Anglican Church is of metropolitan significance. The church has been assessed as making an important contribution to the identity, sense of place and history of the Christchurch metropolitan area and is primarily of importance to the City for its heritage value.
St Paul's Anglican Church is significant as the site of one of the earliest churches in Canterbury; as an illustration of the central place that the Anglican Church held in the planning of the Canterbury Settlement; as a reminder of the early establishment and importance of Papanui; for its extensive and early graveyard; as an accomplished church building by pre-eminent Neo-Gothicist Benjamin Mountfort, and as a landmark in Papanui.
REFERENCES:
NZHPT Registration Proposal (2005) St Paul's Anglican Church and Churchyard
REPORT COMPLETED: AUTHOR: PEER REVIEWED: REVIEWER: REPORT UPDATED: AUTHOR:
PLEASE NOTE THIS ASSESSMENT IS BASED ON INFORMATION AVAILABLE AT THE TIME OF WRITING. DUE TO THE ONGOING NATURE OF HERITAGE RESEARCH, FUTURE REASSESSMENT OF THIS HERITAGE ITEM MAY BE NECESSARY TO REFLECT ANY CHANGES IN KNOWLEDGE AND UNDERSTANDING OF ITS HERITAGE SIGNIFICANCE.
PLEASE USE IN CONJUNCTION WITH THE CCC HERITAGE FILES.
Summary of heritage grants – allocated June 2012 to June 2013 and those carried forward from previous years
Abbreviations and terms used: New Zealand Historic Places Trust NZHPT; Canterbury Earthquakes Heritage Buildings Fund CEHBF; Heritage Incentive Grant HIG; Central City Landmark Heritage CCLH
Part of Duncan’s Buildings 137-139 High Street, Christchurch
Heritage status City Plan Group 3 NZHPT Category II COMMUNITY, RECREATIONANDCULTURECOMMITTEE 6. 8.2013
Grants allocated HIG $41,322 CEHBF $40,000 Council payments made HIG $0
Covenants Limited covenant is required for the HIG but has yet to be signed and registered on the title. ATTACHMENT 4TO CLAUSE 15
Heritage significance These buildings form part of a precinct of heritage buildings that define the historic character of High Street and are highly valued by the public. Progress to date and current status The building was significantly damaged by the earthquakes but has undergone repair and strengthening works. The building adjacent has collapsed and the former party wall has now become an external wall. The 1930’s concrete extension to the back of the building was relatively undamaged and contains all the printing machines associated with the business.
185
St Mary’s Church 2 Trusscotts Road, Heathcote
Heritage status City Plan Group 2 NZHPT Category Not registered
Grants allocated HIG $5,692
COMMUNITY, RECREATIONANDCULTURECOMMITTEE 6. 8.2013 Council payments made HIG $0
Covenants A limited covenant will be required Heritage significance The church is of typical cruciform plan and is essentially a very simple interpretation of colonial timber Gothic church plans. It features slim lancet windows, decorative bargeboards, a gabled roof and chaste detailing externally and internally. Conservation works on the roof occurred c.2001, when the ‘Decramastic’ tiles were replaced with cedar shingles.
Progress to date and current status The work associated with this grant has not been completed but it is envisaged that it will be included in a repair schedule following ATTACHMENT 4TO CLAUSE 15 earthquake damage.
186 ‘Minster House’ 10 Norwich Quay, Lyttelton
Heritage status Banks Peninsula Plan Notable Building NZHPT not registered
Grants allocated HIG May 2012 $20,828
Council payments made COMMUNITY, RECREATIONANDCULTURECOMMITTEE 6. 8.2013 HIG $0
Covenants A Limited Covenant is required for the HIG but has yet to be signed and registered on the title.
Heritage significance A single storey brick walled building, estimated to be well over 100 years old, Minster House is associated with early business interests in Lyttelton providing for seafaring vessels. Alterations to the street frontage in 1987 have given the building a more modern appearance.
ATTACHMENT 4TO CLAUSE 15 Progress to date and current status The building owner is still planning to repair the building but is struggling to find a tenant. Norwich Quay has substantial heavy goods traffic and has lost many of its buildings. The remaining structures are isolated from the rest of the town centre.
187
‘The Loons’ 16 Canterbury Street, Lyttelton
Heritage status Banks Peninsula Plan Notable Building NZHPT not registered
Grants allocated
HIG May 2012 $28,851 COMMUNITY, RECREATIONANDCULTURECOMMITTEE 6. 8.2013
Council payments made HIG $0
Covenants A Limited Covenant is required for the HIG but has yet to be signed and registered on the title. Heritage significance Likely to have been constructed in 1909 this is a single storey building with brick sides and a pitched metal roof originally built as a workshop and retail store. After a series of owners and users the building was purchased by a trio of “watersiders” in 1944. The building has strong associations with the watersiders’ strike of 1951, being used as a meeting venue for locked out workers. In 1954 the building transferred to the Lyttelton Working Men’s Club which operated for fifty years. In 2007 it morphed into ‘The Loons’ a ATTACHMENT 4TO CLAUSE 15 cabaret style performance venue. Progress to date and current status Work has begun on creating the new performance centre but has slowed over the winter months. The new building will have a fly tower over a stage area and new toilets on the lower ground floor. The main façade to Canterbury Street will be rebuilt in a similar form to the existing concrete façade but in lighter weight materials. The building owners have received grants from other sources including the Mayoral Fund.
188
Dwelling 3 Coleridge Terrace Lyttelton
Heritage status Banks Peninsula Plan Notable Building NZHPT Category – Not registered
Grants allocated HIG June 2012 $6,315 COMMUNITY, RECREATIONANDCULTURECOMMITTEE 6. 8.2013
Council payments made HIG $0
Covenants None required with this grant Heritage significance Constructed about 1860 as a single storey cottage with a two storey addition, standing alongside, in 1862. Bay windows were added to the ground floor in the 1880s. The dwelling is surrounded by a stone wall with early forged iron railings and gate. Functioning as a police house in its earlier days the cottage retains a wrought iron police lamp stand on an arch above the gateway. The remains of a stone lockup at to the rear. Coleridge Terrace is an historic street with ties to the Anglican church. Progress to date and current status ATTACHMENT 4TO CLAUSE 15 The house has been fully repaired following earthquake damage but the walls have not as yet been reformed. The stones have been carefully stored on site where possible and will be reused in the reconstruction. New foundations will be required to meet current building codes and the stone will be used as a veneer. The owners also intend to repair the wrought iron decorative railings.
189
Wood’s Mill 14 Wise St, Addington
Heritage status City Plan Group 2 NZHPT Category 2
Grants allocated HIG June 2012 $884,750 COMMUNITY, RECREATIONANDCULTURECOMMITTEE 6. 8.2013 CEHBF Jan 2012 $750,000
Council payments made HIG $0
Covenants A full covenant will be required in order for the applicants to claim these grants.
Heritage significance
Established by the Woods brothers in 1890 the original six bay mill was designed by leading industrial architect J C Maddison and ATTACHMENT 4TO CLAUSE 15 was one of the largest mills in the South Island. The roller mill, producing finer flour than possible with millstones, was powered by steam and serviced by rail. The mill was owned and operated by the Wood family until 1970 when the complex was closed and sold. Progress to date and current status The current owner is attempting to sell the building and a number of developers have looked at the potential for new uses for both the mill and the grain store. Make safe work required by CERA has been completed. An extension of time has been sought and granted by the CEHBF. A request to extend the time for the HIG may also be required.
190
Pomeroys 294 Kilmore Street
Heritage status City Plan Group 2 NZHPT Part of An Historic Area
Grants allocated HIG Sept 2012 $48,924
COMMUNITY, RECREATIONANDCULTURECOMMITTEE 6. 8.2013 Council payments made HIG $0
Covenants A Limited covenant is required for the HIG but has yet to be signed and registered on the title
Heritage significance Built by Joseph Dawson prior to 1881 Pomeroys operates out of the former administration building and barrel storage sheds of Ward’s Brewery. These were once part of a complete set of brewery buildings on Fitzherbert Avenue. The brewery was established
by Archer Croft in 1854 and moved to this site in 1860. John Hamilton Ward bought the business in 1862 and sold it in 1867. Ward’s ATTACHMENT 4TO CLAUSE 15 prize winning brew was popular and this became the largest brewery in New Zealand. The greater part of the complex was built before 1910 and operated until 1955. Progress to date and current status The repair work has been largely completed and the building has reopened.
191
McKenzie & Willis Department Store 179 High & 238 Tuam Streets
Heritage status City Plan Group 2 NZHPT Category 2
Grants allocated HIG Sept 2012 $240,000
CEHBF $1,000,000 COMMUNITY, RECREATIONANDCULTURECOMMITTEE 6. 8.2013
Council payments made HIG $0
Covenants A Full Covenant is required for the HIG but has yet to be signed and registered on the title Heritage significance The former AJ White building is three storeys high, and was designed by the England Brothers Architects for AJ White’s and opened in 1911. The building, acquired by McKenzie & Willis in the 1980’s, has a stone and glass façade that sweeps around the corner of Tuam and High Streets with fully glazed retail frontage along the ground floor. The bulk of the building behind the façade was made of brickwork with timber floors and timber internal columns. The building was part of a group of similarly scaled heritage buildings ATTACHMENT 4TO CLAUSE 15 in this part of the city which included the adjacent Billen’s building on High Street and the Domo Building on Tuam Street. Progress to date and current status The façade has been stabilised with a temporary external steel frame. The back of the building has been largely demolished. Both buildings either side of the building have been demolished.
192
Dwelling 72 Chancellor Street Richmond
Heritage status City Plan Group 4 NZHPT not registered
Grants allocated HIG Nov 2012 $3,252 COMMUNITY, RECREATIONANDCULTURECOMMITTEE 6. 8.2013
Council payments made HIG Jan 2013 $2,503
Covenants None required
Heritage significance Built in 1914, under the Workers’ Dwellings Act 1910, this is one of seven houses in the Chancellor Settlement. It expresses the typical typology and craftsmanship of a villa of this period and has architectural significance as one of Christchurch’s earlier state houses. Progress to date and current status ATTACHMENT 4TO CLAUSE 15 The new corrugated iron roof and associated repairs to the timber structure, following earthquake damage due to a fallen chimney, have been completed.
193
St Luke’s Church Little Akaloa, Banks Peninsula.
Heritage status Banks Peninsula Plan Notable Building NZHPT Category I
Grants allocated HIG March 2013 $33,860 COMMUNITY, RECREATIONANDCULTURECOMMITTEE 6. 8.2013
Council payments made HIG $0
Covenants A limited covenant will be required
Heritage significance Built in 1906 St Luke’s Church was designed, constructed and financed by John Henry Menzies, a local farmer, for a Pakeha congregation. It is a Gothic Revival church distinguished by its unexpected Maori-inspired interior decoration. Progress to date and current status
The repair and strengthening work has largely been completed. ATTACHMENT 4TO CLAUSE 15
194
St Paul’s Church 1 Harewood Rd, Papanui
Heritage status City Plan Group 1 NZHPT Category 2
Grants allocated HIG May 2013 $182,664 COMMUNITY, RECREATIONANDCULTURECOMMITTEE 6. 8.2013
Council payments made HIG $0
Covenants Full conservation covenant required.
Heritage significance The site has been used for Anglican worship since 1852 with the present church being designed by Benjamin Mountford and constructed in 1876/77. St Paul’s is a significant landmark in Papanui and despite some renovations maintains a high degree if architectural integrity. The building is a timber framed neo-gothic structure set in a large surrounding graveyard (burials began in 1853) with a number of large trees. ATTACHMENT 4TO CLAUSE 15 Progress to date and current status Work is underway on the church interior.
195
Retail Unit 28 New Regent Street Heritage status City Plan Group 2 NZHPT Category 1
Grants allocated HIG April 2013 $8,578 CEHBF $2,000
COMMUNITY, RECREATIONANDCULTURECOMMITTEE 6. 8.2013 Council payments made HIG April 2013 $8,578
Covenants Not required.
Heritage significance One of the original mid-street units located at the north-east end of New Regent Street with a roof level concrete ‘eyelid’ and with a pale yellow facade. The Street, formed by two complete buildings on the east and west sides of a mall space, was designed by ATTACHMENT 4TO CLAUSE 15 Francis Willis and built in 1931 in the distinctive Spanish Mission style normally associated with California. It was one of the largest depression era construction projects undertaken in the South Island. Progress to date and current status Works completed include structural strengthening, exterior painting, terrazzo replacement, new rimu flooring and electrical refurbishment.
196
Retail unit 8 New Regent Street
Heritage status City Plan Group 2 NZHPT Category 1
Grants allocated HIG May 2013 $12,292
COMMUNITY, RECREATIONANDCULTURECOMMITTEE 6. 8.2013 Council payments made HIG May 2013 $12,292
Covenants Not required
Heritage significance One of the original mid-street units located at the south-east end of New Regent Street with a roof level concrete ‘eyelid’ and with a pale yellow facade. The Street, formed by two complete buildings on the east and west sides of a mall space, was designed by Francis Willis and built in 1931 in the distinctive Spanish Mission style normally associated with California. It was one of the largest depression era construction projects undertaken in the South Island.
Progress to date and current status ATTACHMENT 4TO CLAUSE 15 Works completed include structural strengthening, exterior painting, terrazzo replacement, new rimu flooring and electrical refurbishment.
197
Retail Unit 30 New Regent Street
Heritage status City Plan Group 2 NZHPT Category 1
Grants allocated HIG June 2013 $68,726
COMMUNITY, RECREATIONANDCULTURECOMMITTEE 6. 8.2013 Council payments made HIG June 2013 $68,726
Covenants Limited conservation covenant with LINZ for registration Heritage significance One of the original mid-street units located towards the north-east end of New Regent Street with roof level decorated concrete parapets and with a pale green facade. The Street, formed by two complete buildings on the east and west sides of a mall space, was designed by Francis Willis and built in 1931 in the distinctive Spanish Mission style normally associated with California. It was one of the largest depression era construction projects undertaken in the South Island. Progress to date and current status ATTACHMENT 4TO CLAUSE 15 Works completed include structural strengthening, exterior painting, terrazzo replacement, replica tiling, new rimu flooring and electrical refurbishment.
198
The Christchurch Club 154 Worcester St
Heritage status City Plan Group 1 NZHPT Category 1
Grants allocated Landmark $1,700,000
COMMUNITY, RECREATIONANDCULTURECOMMITTEE 6. 8.2013 Council payments made Landmark $0
Covenants Full conservation covenant required.
Heritage significance The Christchurch Club is one of the oldest gentlemen’s clubs in the country and has operated on this site for nearly 150 years. Designed by Benjamin Mountfort, based on the Italian palazzo style, the building was constructed in from 1860 to 1862. Prior to the earthquakes there was a two storey timber building with a single storey addition to the south and a three storey tower on the northern ATTACHMENT 4TO CLAUSE 15 elevation. Further additions to the east wing in 1874 to 1875 were designed by Alexander Lean. This section was badly damaged in the February 2011 earthquake and has since been demolished. Progress to date and current status Repair and reconstruction of the Mountfort Wings is planned.
199
The Octagon Former Trinity Congregational Church
Heritage status City Plan Group 1 NZHPT Category 1
Grants allocated Landmark $1,000,000 COMMUNITY, RECREATIONANDCULTURECOMMITTEE 6. 8.2013 CEHBF $225,000
Council payments made Landmark $0
Covenants Full conservation covenant required.
Heritage significance The former Trinity Congregational Church, designed by Benjamin Mountfort, was constructed in 1874 in the Gothic Revival style. It was the first stone church designed by Mountfort to be built in Canterbury. The cruciform design with very short transepts, due to the small inner city site, made the central space octagonal in shape. During the 1960s the Pacific Island Congregational church ATTACHMENT 4TO CLAUSE 15 worshipped here and in 1979 the church combined with St Pauls Presbyterian to become St Pauls-Trinity-Pacific Presbyterian Church. The building was used as a theatre from 1975 and a venue for weddings during the 1990s. Early in the 21st century it became a restaurant. Progress to date and current status Make safe work has been undertaken.
200 Canterbury Earthquake Heritage Buildings Fund Trust – All grants as of 17 March 2013
Building Grant approved (Masonic) Lyttelton Unanimity Lodge $300,000 New City Hotel $142,132,000 The Press Building $5000 McKenzie & Willis $1,000,000 Victoria Black $225,422 plus $5000 legal contingency Ironside House $175,000 Woods Mill $750,000 Billens $750,000 plus $8800 Knox Church $300,000 COMMUNITY, RECREATIONANDCULTURECOMMITTEE 6. 8.2013 Fifield House $15,000 Peterborough $4,000 Canterbury Club $28,720 Orton Bradley Park, Stone Cottage $90,000 plus $10,000 contingency Wards Brewery Site North Kiln $100,000 Eliza’s Manor $37,500 Hereford Chambers $200,000 reduced to $140,000 Trinity Congregational Church $225,000 CJ Arts $40,000 Homebush Woolshed $95,925 Gunyah Country Estate $25,000 Isaac Theatre Royal $233,052 plus $268,000 (donation tagged to this building) Chippenham Lodge $20,000 New Regent Street $76,000 ATTACHMENT 4TO CLAUSE 15 St Barnabas Fendalton Trust $200,000 Cashmere Presbyterian Church $14,000 Malthouse Theatre Trust $12,000
201 202 203
COMMUNITY, RECREATION AND CULTURE COMMITTEE 6. 8. 2013
16. ELLERSLIE INTERNATIONAL FLOWER SHOW
General Manager responsible: Lydia Aydon, General Manager Public Affairs, DDI: 941-8982 Officer responsible: Richard Stokes, Marketing and Events Unit Manager Author: Richard Stokes, Marketing and Events Unit Manager
PURPOSE OF REPORT
1. To inform the Council of the economic impact and performance of the Ellerslie International Flower Show (the Show) during the first five years of its operation in Christchurch and to seek the Council’s direction for the renewal of the Supply of Services Agreement (management contract) for the Show.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
2. The Council purchased the Show in 2007 with an objective to deliver ‘the premier garden festival in New Zealand to proclaim and reinforce Christchurch as the “Garden City”. The event aimed to attract a significant number of visitors, attract a strong national and international profile and create a ‘city-wide’ festival.
3. The Show has been held in Christchurch in 2009, 2010, 2012 and 2013. It was cancelled in 2011 following the 22 February earthquake. The Christchurch environment envisaged when the Show was purchased has been changed dramatically by the earthquakes so it was necessary to evaluate the performance through a different lens.
4. Economic impact research (by IER Pty Ltd) reports that the 2013 Show was responsible for generating total direct spending of more than $8.97 million in Christchurch. Of this, the amount of ‘new money’ brought into the Christchurch economy as a result of staging the Show was $5.5 million.
5. Economic impact research (by IER Pty Ltd) has been conducted on the 2009, 2010 and 2013 Shows. The economic impact for Christchurch, from visitors to the city for the Show, is:
2009 $17.0 million 2010 $12.31 million 2013 $5.5 million.
6. With a conservative estimate of $2 million in 2012, due to the low levels of paid accommodation and restaurants and bars in the city at that time, this totals to $36.81 million economic impact from the four Shows held. This does not include additional value that has not been measured such as media coverage, particularly into Australia where the Show has been profiled on national gardening television shows, nor the downstream business for exhibitors at the Show.
7. The operational cost to the Council of delivering the four Shows is $191,000. After the two Shows delivered prior to the 22 February 2011 earthquake, the Council had an operating surplus of $133,000 but a deficit of $325,000 in operating the 2013 Show has led to the overall negative position of minus $191,000 across the four Shows in Christchurch.
8. The Show operates on a different model to other icon and major events in Christchurch in that it does not receive operational funding from the Council. Council funding to other icon and major events of the Council - NZ Cup and Show Week ($350,000 per festival), NZ Ice Fest ($400,000 per festival), Christchurch Arts Festival ($450,000 per festival) and World Buskers Festival ($230,000 per festival) - is a revenue item in their budgets, accounted for before determining a surplus / deficit. 204
COMMUNITY, RECREATION AND CULTURE COMMITTEE 6. 8. 2013
16 Cont’d
9. The financial performance of the 2013 Show was impacted by the loss of two significant sponsors – Solid Energy and Christchurch International Airport Ltd. Some smaller sponsorships were obtained, but overall there was a decline in sponsorship revenue by just under $100,000. Retail exhibitor sales, after a positive start, stayed at lower levels – continued lower interest from North Island exhibitors, and the effort for many Christchurch based businesses facing other earthquake related issues was too much. Attendance tracked on par with 2012 prior to the Show but the two crucial days for attendance, the Saturday and Sunday, were hit by a significant decline in full price ‘on the day’ purchases following a front page article in ‘The Press’ and follow-up opinion piece critical of the Show’s content. Audience research and feedback supported the view that the Show did not deliver the quantity of exhibition gardens expected and this must be addressed going forward.
10. A plan is in place to address this situation in 2014, with prioritisation of the Show’s budget on providing increased grants to exhibition garden designers. Already the Council has 14 out of a target of 15, 10 metres squared gardens signed for 2014. This means the Council can provide confidence to potential sponsors and attendees about the level of content at the 2014 Show.
11. Following review of the 2013 Show the event management company that has managed the Show over the last five years, Ellerslie Flower Show Management Ltd (EFSM), has implemented changes to its structure to better position the Show for success in post earthquake Christchurch. Christchurch-based Sponsorship Sales and Development Manager positions and a new Retail Sales Manager will be appointed upon signing of the renewal of the management contract with the Council. These positions are within existing budgets of the Show.
12. While these and other changes are expected to significantly increase the level of the content of the Show and improve its financial performance, there remains a risk that the Show will not return to breakeven in 2014.
13. The Council is now at the time for renewal of the Supply of Services (management contract) for the Show, a five plus five year agreement. EFSM has met its obligations for renewal of the contract for a further five year term. Council staff have negotiated variations to the contract to better position the show for delivery in post- earthquake Christchurch.
14. There is provision for cancellation of the Show in any year of this contract – the Council determines, when and where the event will be and can cancel the event for any reason. In such a situation, EFSM would retain a proportional amount of the annual management fee, to the date such a decision is made.
15. Council staff have proposed that a one year contract with EFSM be considered for the delivery of the 2014 Show, with the right of renewal for a five year term moving back a year, to after the delivery of the 2014 Show.
16. This sends a signal to the event management that they must deliver on changes to the operation of the show to address concerns with its performance in 2013. The Council would be one year further on to knowing the pace of the recovery of the visitor industry in Christchurch and its likely impact on the Show’s financial performance. Such a variation to the management contract requires both parties agreement.
17. Under this proposal, Council staff would 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. 205
COMMUNITY, RECREATION AND CULTURE COMMITTEE 6. 8. 2013
16 Cont’d
BACKGROUND
18. In 2007 the Council adopted a new ten-year Events Strategy for Christchurch. In line with a key goal of the strategy - to establish a second ‘icon’ event for the city – the Council purchased the Ellerslie International Flower Show with an objective to deliver ‘the premier garden festival in New Zealand to proclaim and reinforce Christchurch as the “Garden City”. The event aimed to attract a significant number of visitors, attract a strong national and international profile and create a ‘city-wide’ festival.
19. An integral part of the purchase was to contract the existing management company to establish and deliver the Show in Christchurch. This ensured that the Council could transition the Show to Christchurch with established sponsorship relationships, key management personnel with contacts in the gardening industry, and knowledge of running an international standard garden / flower event. A five-plus-five year term contract was entered into with EFSM, with the first Show held in March 2009.
Show Performance
20. During the first five years of the management contract there have been four Shows delivered – two before the earthquakes of 2010/11 and two after. The first Show in 2009 was a highly attended event, with huge interest generated by the move of the Show to Christchurch. Exhibition gardens were plentiful and of a high international standard. In some ways the Show was too popular, which led to some issues with queuing at major exhibits which affected the experience of some Show goers. This contributed to a lower attendance in Year Two, however the second Show also delivered high quality, international standard gardens and in combination with an elimination of the queuing issues from 2009, the Show received positive feedback through research and garden industry comment. After two years of delivering the Show, the Council had reserves of $136,000 (a profit in year one and a loss in year two). With the positive reaction to the 2010 Show the Council was in a position to really establish the reputation of the Show. Leading into the 2011 Show, the Council had good exhibitor support and a belief that it would deliver a high quality event. However, events of 22 February 2011 led to the cancellation of the Show. Instead, the site with its marquee infrastructure in place, housed an emergency shelter on the night of 22 February 2011, providing shelter for hundreds of visitors to Christchurch displaced from their hotel accommodation in central Christchurch.
21. Following the earthquakes, the Council received Government support to establish the Christchurch Events Village as a venue to keep event activity happening in the city. The focus was on delivering all the events the Council could, due to so many other options for recreation or ‘time out’ from everyday life, having been taken away. The 2012 Show was delivered as part of this focus and to send a message to external audiences that the City was still open for business and able to provide experiences worth visiting. Sponsorship support for the Show held up, there was a lower level of retail support with over 40 businesses that had exhibited at the Show in 2010 out of business. Attendance was lower, with the impact of lower levels of visitors coming to Christchurch impacting on overall attendance of 45,000. The reaction to the Show was positive, but it was clear that the effort of exhibiting at the Show was putting pressure on businesses that had many other issues to deal with after earthquakes. The Show managed to achieve a near break even result (a $2,000 loss) within this difficult environment. 206
COMMUNITY, RECREATION AND CULTURE COMMITTEE 6. 8. 2013
16 Cont’d
22. In 2013, the Show lost two significant sponsors – Solid Energy and Christchurch International Airport Ltd. While some smaller sponsors were obtained, the Show was not able to reach the sponsorship levels of 2012. Additionally, the Show experienced a decrease in the number of exhibitors, as there was still a lower level of interest in coming to Christchurch from those in the North Island, and the effort for many Christchurch based businesses was too much. Plans to minimise the impact of this were put in place with activities such as Edible Ellerslie introduced and the inclusion of Weta Workshop content in the main feature garden. Attendance tracked on par with 2012 prior to the Show but the two crucial days for attendance, the Saturday and Sunday, were hit by a significant decline in full price ‘on the day’ ticket sales following a front page article in The Press and an opinion piece critical of the show’s content. Audience research has backed the view that the Show did not deliver the quantity of exhibition gardens expected and this must be addressed going forward.
23. Economic impact research (by IER Pty ltd) has been conducted on the 2009, 2010 and 2013 Shows. The economic impact for Christchurch, from visitors to the city for the Show, is:
$17.0 million $12.31 million $5.5 million.
24. With a conservative estimate of $2 million in 2012, due to the low levels of paid accommodation and restaurants and bars in the city at that time, this totals to $34.81 million economic impact from the four Shows held. This does not include additional value that has not been measured such as media coverage, particularly into Australia where the Show has been profiled on national gardening television shows, nor the downstream business for exhibitors at the Show.
Management and Financial Performance
25. EFSM was contracted to bring their expertise in staging an international flower show to Christchurch. The first two Shows were delivered to high standards, and with a financial surplus of $136,000 across the two events. Behind the scenes, EFSM had established a strong relationship with the Royal Horticultural Society in England and we were looking to the 2011 event being a stepping stone to a formal relationship with them. Relationships with other ‘top five’ international flower shows had been built with a view to sharing content in the future.
26. The staging of the Show post-earthquake has been in a very different environment. EFSM managed to contract Egmont Seeds to a significant presenting rights sponsorship in 2012, for a three year term. This provided the Show with a financial base, within a difficult economic environment in Christchurch, to be delivered in 2012.
27. The response to the 2012 Show was positive, with the Egmont Seeds sponsorship helping to deliver ‘more flowers’. The goodwill from exhibitors, sponsors and supporters helped the Council through to deliver a high quality Show despite tough retail and visitor industry conditions. The Council achieved a near break even position, financially (a $2,000 loss).
28. In 2013 the Show lost two major sponsors - Solid Energy and Christchurch International Airport Ltd. Some small sponsorships for the Show were obtained, but these did not alleviate the shortfall from the loss of the major sponsors.
29. The Show lost over 40 retail exhibitors that were part of the Show prior to 2011. In 2013 initial retail exhibitor sales were tracking well, but a ceiling was reached and in the two months prior to the Show, retail exhibitor sales stalled.
30. Ticket sales leading into the Show were on a par with 2012, but a collapse of gates sales on the two crucial days of the Show - Saturday and Sunday - led to a slightly lower overall attendance, but a significant decline in full price, ‘on the day’ ticket sales. 207
COMMUNITY, RECREATION AND CULTURE COMMITTEE 6. 8. 2013
16 Cont’d
31. The draft financial position for the Show is a deficit of $325,000. With reserves of $134,000 this leaves the Show in a deficit position across the four Shows delivered of $191,000.
32. EFSM is paid an annual management fee which was set at the start of the contract in 2007. This fee covers all management and staff costs for delivery of the event. The annual fee is similar to management fees for events that can be compared in size to the Show. This fee is part of the operational budget for the Show – it is not a separate cost - with Show revenue to cover this fee and all other costs of delivering the Show.
33. The Ellerslie International Flower Show, which has brought $36 million economic impact to the City over four events, does not receive Council funding. Other icon or major events receive funding from the Council. NZ Cup and Show Week ($350,000 per festival), NZ Ice Fest ($400,000 per festival), Christchurch Arts Festival ($450,000 per festival) and World Buskers Festival ($230,000 per festival). This is a revenue item in their budgets, accounted for before determining a surplus / deficit.
Moving Forward
34. The Show was purchased at a time when both the Christchurch Events Strategy and the Christchurch Visitor Strategy were aligned in support of the identity of Christchurch as the Garden City. We are now at a different time, with a City moving into a period of transition and rebuild into a ‘new’ City. The Share an Idea consultation had a strong theme of preserving and enhancing the natural environment of Christchurch and Canterbury which has led to developments such as Te Papa Ōtākaro / Avon River Precinct and the green frame in the plan for our City’s future. Our Botanic Gardens, Hagley Park and other green spaces have helped carry the city through the last two and a half years and the goal for Christchurch to have an ‘icon’ event which reinforces Christchurch as the Garden City, promoting our natural environment, attracting a significant number of visitors, a strong national and international profile and creating a ‘city-wide’ festival appears to be as strong as ever. At issue is how the Show navigates the next few years while the City recovers its position as a visitor destination.
35. Funding and Sponsorship The delivery of the Show has to adjust to the very different environment in Christchurch. Until more accommodation becomes available and more visitors are willing to visit Christchurch, the Show will struggle to increase attendance levels. Sponsorship for all events has become more difficult over the last 12 months and this is likely to be the case as the City moves through transitional years of the rebuild. To attract more sponsorship the Council needs to be operating with positive messaging about the importance of the Show to Christchurch and the Council’s support for it.
36. Budget Priority Costs of delivering the Show have stayed level since 2009.
37. The number of major 10 metres squared exhibition gardens at the Show reduced in 2013, with fewer exhibitors prepared to put the effort required – financial, time and effort - into exhibiting at Ellerslie. This impacted on audience satisfaction with the Show. A lesson from 2013 is to not cut back on delivery of the Show as it risks a snowball effect on revenue targets, if attendance drops. To move forward, the Show must invest more in supporting exhibition gardens, first and foremost. This means a re-organisation of the Show budget. This will eliminate the risk of not delivering the necessary level of exhibition garden content and the associated risk of ‘bad press’ and the resulting impact on ‘on-the-day’ sales. If we achieve this, then we can have the Show in a position to benefit as visitor numbers to Christchurch increase again was accommodation and visitor interest levels increase.
38. The Show budget will be monitored monthly by the governance group, with a full annual review following each completed Show, with a view to the event returning to a financial surplus when accommodation within the City provides for a wider visitor audience for the Show. 208
COMMUNITY, RECREATION AND CULTURE COMMITTEE 6. 8. 2013
16 Cont’d
39. Event Dates The dates for 2014 have been set at 26 February - 2 March 2014. This is one week earlier. In discussions following the Show there has been horticultural industry support to bring it forward a week. Although it is a small change, advice is that it will assist with the quality of plants, plus it will work better for the Christchurch audience, which given the shortage of accommodation, is the main focus.
40. Advisory Group The Council will introduce an Advisory Group into the governance of the event. This would be a horticulture / garden industry group of four people, who would meet with the Council and Ellerslie Flower Show management every two months to provide input and advice for Show planning.
41. Primary Focus on Exhibition Gardens The Council has included in the Variation Agreement that, at the start of annual business planning for the event, it will set the targets for the number of exhibition gardens (10 metres squared minimum size gardens) and the level of grants to exhibitors. This is to be budgeted for in the business plan, before allocation of budget to other areas of the show operation.
42. Increasing Support for the Show in Christchurch and Canterbury Through the Variation Agreement we have instigated that EFSM will employ a Christchurch based Development Manager focussing on relationship/stakeholder manager for the event. This person must fully integrate themselves through the Christchurch horticultural and retail industries.
Management Contract Process
43. The authority to set up the management contract was delegated by the Council to the Chief Executive Officer (CEO). The Council resolution in December 2007 included:
2(e) ‘that the Chief Executive be authorised to establish and put in place the financial and legal structures that he considers appropriate for the establishment and operation of the event.’
44. These legal and financial structures were established through a Supply of Services Agreement between Christchurch City Council and Ellerslie Flower Show Management. This was signed on 30 November 2007 with the term of the agreement being five years, with a right of renewal for a further five year term (after the 2013 Show) through to 31 March 2018.
45. The services to be provided by Ellerslie Flower Show Management under this agreement are the management, organisation and operation of the Ellerslie International Flower show and all matters relating thereto, including, but not limited to:
providing the overall management of the Event including all organisational, logistical, administrative and planning elements, promotion, sales and marketing, fundraising, sponsorship and communication providing all financial services such as book keeping, invoicing, tracking payments, preparing end of year accounts organising the management of volunteers: being accessible to them, understanding and responsive to their needs and recognising their role as key stakeholders of the event retaining, continuing to offer, and where possible, improve such of the Event components as existed immediately prior to the commencement of this Agreement any other matter of thing that the company may reasonably require.
46. A base management fee was set, with an annual adjustment in line with the Consumer Price Index. This fee is part of the Show budget - it is not an additional cost to the Council. 209
COMMUNITY, RECREATION AND CULTURE COMMITTEE 6. 8. 2013
16 Cont’d
47. This right of renewal for a further five years is upon the terms that:
the supplier has not been in breach of its obligations under this agreement the supplier has given the Council written notice to renew the term of this agreement at least three calendar months before the end of the initial term the Council is satisfied (in its sole and absolute discretion) that it wishes to continue to operate or conduct the Event.
48. EFSM (the supplier) met its requirement to provide written notice to renew the term of the agreement prior to three months before the end of the term. At no stage during the prior five year term has the Council communicated concern about the performance of Ellerslie Flower Show Management and during that time the Council staff have worked closely with the Ellerslie Flower Show Management team. With EFSM having met its obligations to have the right of renewal for a further five year term, Council staff have been negotiating variations to the Agreement to better position the management of the Show to be successful in a ‘post- earthquake’ Christchurch that is very different from when the initial agreement was signed in 2007.
49. The contract states that variations can be made to the Supply of Services Agreement if both parties agree. The Council has now reached a position with staff and EFSM in agreement on proposed changes to the initial agreement which will better position the Show to be delivered successfully through the upcoming transitional years for Christchurch.
50. The variations agreed to are:
Introducing a KPI for audience satisfaction with the Show. This is set at 80 per cent in 2014 and reviewed annually as part of business planning. Clarify that Christchurch City Council will consider audience satisfaction, level of exhibition garden content and financial performance of the Show on an annual basis, in determining direction for the Show. The level of grants for exhibition gardens, for inclusion in the event budget, shall be determined by the Council, in consultation with the event manager. This is to ensure exhibition gardens are prioritised for delivery to ensure the show delivers a set level of major exhibition gardens. Clarifying that key personnel shall not be redeployed or replaced from their position in supplying the management services. Including a Christchurch based staff member in the Ellerslie Flower Show management team in a community engagement / relationship role to build support for the Show in Christchurch and Canterbury. This is to be accommodated within the current management fee. Changing the budget reporting format to one that provides the governance committee with an improved view of the costs and revenue from different parts of the Show. Moving the period for draft final accounts to be provided to Christchurch City Council after each show to two months. Agreeing that at the end of the contract period Christchurch City Council may discuss the provision of management services going forward with Ellerslie Flower Show management, but Christchurch City Council is under no obligation to enter into any further agreement.
51. A Variation Agreement has been developed by the Council’s Legal Services Team. Under the delegation from the Council to the CEO, at time of purchase of the Show, to ‘establish and put in place the financial and legal structures that he considers appropriate for the establishment and operation of the event’, the Variation Agreement and renewal of the Supply of Services Agreement for a five year term through to 2018 is ready for sign off by the CEO. However, given the timing of considering this matter it has been referred to the Council.
52. The proposal of a one year agreement for the management contract has been put to EFSM for consideration. Such a variation would require the agreement of both parties. 210
COMMUNITY, RECREATION AND CULTURE COMMITTEE 6. 8. 2013
16 Cont’d
FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS
53. The management fee for the Supply of Services Agreement is part of the Show budget. It is not an additional cost to the Council.
54. There is a risk of a budget overrun for the 2014 Show of up to $250,000 which will be reduced through increased sponsorship, retail exhibitor sales and ticket sales. Costs of delivery of the Show are being examined to identify if there are ways of delivering the Show at a lower cost without detracting from the audience experience.
DO THE RECOMMENDATIONS OF THIS REPORT ALIGN WITH 2013-15 TYP BUDGETS?
55. Yes. The Ellerslie International Flower Show does not receive funding from the Council. As owner of the event, the Council retains any surplus from operations or covers any loss from operations.
HAVE YOU CONSIDERED THE LEGAL IMPLICATIONS OF THE ISSUE UNDER CONSIDERATION?
56. Yes. The Council’s Legal Services Team has developed the Variation Agreement to the Supply of Services Agreement (management contract) for a further five year term.
57. Any further variations proposed following this report will be implemented through the Council’s Legal Services Team. Any variations must be agreed to by both parties to the Agreement.
ALIGNMENT WITH TYP AND ACTIVITY MANAGEMENT PLANS
58. Events and Festivals Activity Management Plan:
Promoting Christchurch, coordinating the events calendar and producing, coordinating and funding a range of events and festivals ensures consistently high visitor numbers to the City and enhances the perception of Christchurch as an attractive place to live and invest in.
Do the recommendations align with the Council’s strategies?
59. Christchurch Events Strategy 2007-17.
60. Events Strategy Goal 1 is ‘Events attract visitors and strengthen the distinctive identities and lifestyle qualities of Christchurch.’
61. Icon events provide enjoyable experiences for the locals, provide a vibrant product offer to strengthen the identity of the Garden City for use in promotion of the City to visitor markets and attract significant economic benefit to the City. Events help to promote the City’s distinctive features as a visitor destination.
62. Events Strategy criteria – icon events:
unique to Christchurch economic Driver - $10 million plus in direct expenditure to local economy attracts at least 10,000 visitor days to the city reinforces the city’s visitor marketing brand identity has significant international and national media profile aim for one per season with focus on shoulder and off season periods.
CONSULTATION FULFILMENT
63. No public consultation. 211
COMMUNITY, RECREATION AND CULTURE COMMITTEE 6. 8. 2013
16 Cont’d
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
That the Community Recreation and Culture Committee recommend that the Council approve 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. 212 213
COMMUNITY, RECREATION AND CULTURE COMMITTEE 6. 8. 2013
CLAUSE 17 REPORT BY THE CHAIRPERSON OF THE COMMUNITY RECREATION AND CULTURE COMMITTEE
6 AUGUST 2013
1. ARTS CENTRE TRUST BOARD PROPOSED CHANGES
PURPOSE OF REPORT
1. To seek a formal Council response to the Arts Centre Trust Boards request for feedback on its Governance review and associated proposed changes.
SUMMARY
2. The Arts Centre Trust Board Chairperson wrote to the Mayor on 27 November 2012 requesting feedback on the proposed changes.
3. I, the Chair of the Community, Recreation and Culture Committee, have requested advice over the past three months from Senior Management, the Mayor, the Chief Executive Officer (CEO), and the CEO Subcommittee on how to get a collective Council response to this proposal without success.
4. As such there is a need to put a Chairperson’s Report on this agenda to get the matter resolved.
5. The Arts Centre is making outstanding progress on its earthquake repair programme.
6. It is important that the Council provides feedback on the proposed changes in order to enable the Arts Centre Trust Board certainty over future governance arrangements.
CHAIRPERSON’S RECOMMENDATION
That the Community Recreation and Culture Committee recommend 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). (ii) Any questions from the Community, Recreation and Culture Committee on this matter. (iii) Any other relevant legal issues. ATTACHMENT 1 TO CLAUSE 17 214 COMMUNITY, RECREATION AND CULTURE COMMITTEE 6. 8. 2013
The Christchurch Arts Centre: A Review of Governance Structure Issues
Prepared for the Ministry for Culture and Heritage
May 2012
www.boardworksinternational.com
ATTACHMENT 1 TO CLAUSE 17 215 COMMUNITY, RECREATION AND CULTURE COMMITTEE 6. 8. 2013 Christchurch Arts Centre Governance Structure Report
Contents
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 4
INTRODUCTION 6
1.1 Terms of reference and approach 6
1.2 Acknowledgements 7
1.3 Disclaimer 7
2. THE PURPOSE OF THE ARTS CENTRE 8
3. CHALLENGES FACING THE ARTS CENTRE OF CHRISTCHURCH TRUST BOARD 10
3.1 Buildings-related 10
3.2 Funding-related 10
3.3 Use –related 11
3.4 Stakeholder-related 11
3.5 Conclusion 13
4. ADDRESSING THE ARTS CENTRE’S GOVERNANCE CHALLENGES 14
4.1 The existing Arts Centre governance model 14
4.2 Historical changes in Trustee composition 15
4.3 Issues in terms of the current governance arrangements 16
4.4 Conclusion 20
5. GENERAL CONSIDERATIONS IN RELATION TO GOOD GOVERNANCE DESIGN 21
5.1 What is governance? 21
5.2 Good governance and why it is important 21
5.3 Governance constitutional issues 23
5.4 The role of a governing board 24
BoardWorks International May 2012 ATTACHMENT 1 TO CLAUSE 17 216 COMMUNITY, RECREATION AND CULTURE COMMITTEE 6. 8. 2013 Christchurch Arts Centre 3 Governance Structure Review
5.5 Board member/trustee duties and expectations 25
5.6 Conflicts of interest 25
5.7 Board leadership 26
5.8 The partnership relationship between the board and the chief executive 27
6. RELEVANCE AND APPLICABILITY TO THE ARTS CENTRE OF ALTERNATIVE GOVERNANCE MODELS 28
6.1 Objectives in changing the current governance structure 28
6.2 Alternative governance structures 29
6.3 Recommendation 34
7. LEGAL STATUS 35
7.1 Charitable trust 35
7.2 Incorporated society 36
7.3 Company with charitable objects 36
7.4 Special statute 37
7.5 Public ownership 38
7.6 Considerations in selecting an ideal legal framework for the Arts Centre 40
APPENDIX 1: CONSULTATIONS 41
BoardWorks International May 2012 ATTACHMENT 1 TO CLAUSE 17 217 COMMUNITY, RECREATION AND CULTURE COMMITTEE 6. 8. 2013 Christchurch Arts Centre 4 Governance Structure Review
Executive Summary
This review has been undertaken to evaluate the governance issues faced by the Arts Centre and to examine possible options to enhance the governance structure and to strengthen decision- making at the Arts Centre. The review process has involved extensive consultation within the Arts Centre organisation and with key external stakeholders.
This process has highlighted widespread dissatisfaction with the current governance framework and its ability to deal effectively with the challenges facing the organisation. Shortcomings were apparent prior to the Christchurch earthquakes but have been highlighted since the Arts Centre buildings were seriously damaged by successive major earth quakes since September 2010.
There has been a history of tension between the twin objects of the Trust Deed that established the Arts Centre in 1978 and the interpretation placed on those objects by successive boards and management and various other interested parties. This review concludes that the twin objectives - preservation of the architectural and heritage values of the site; and provision of a vibrant cultural centre for the accommodation of creative endeavour and the enjoyment of residents and visitors – are not mutually exclusive alternatives. The challenge for the Trust Board is to maintain a balance it is entitled to use its best judgement to achieve and maintain that balance.
The challenges facing the Trust Board are of four main types:
Buildings-related (e.g. stabilizing and restoring key buildings and heritage facilities). Funding-related (e.g. obtaining remediation funding and re-establishing a cash flow from the use of the site). Use-related (e.g. determining how best to repopulate the site and the use to which it should be put). Stakeholder-related (e.g. putting on a better footing relationships between the Arts Centre and key stakeholders which over a period of time have become somewhat fraught).
The report concludes that the present governance arrangements do not equip the Arts Centre to deal successfully with these challenges. Change is needed to strengthen the capability and effectiveness of the governance arrangements particularly in respect to the composition of the board. The inclusion of stakeholders directly on the Board is questioned and alternatives to direct representation are suggested that would be better for both the Board and the stakeholder organisations. Of particular concern are perceived and actual conflicts of interest inherent in the present board composition. These create uncertainty and internal tension and appear also to have detracted from an ideal relationship between board and chief executive.
The primary objectives of any changes to the governance structure should include the following:
to consolidate the various changes made to the trust deed over the years and to ensure it reflects the original intentions of the trust;
BoardWorks International May 2012 ATTACHMENT 1 TO CLAUSE 17 218 COMMUNITY, RECREATION AND CULTURE COMMITTEE 6. 8. 2013 Christchurch Arts Centre 5 Governance Structure Review
to enable the board to more readily adapt its membership to the needs and current circumstances of the arts centre; to reduce the theoretical size of the board (13) to make the governance process more manageable and less fragmented; to improve the connection of the arts centre to its key stakeholders, recognising the public interest in the arts centre; to improve the accountability of the board and its individual members for their performance as trustees/board members (including the clarification of their ‘prudent person’ responsibilities and their responsibility to the trust ahead of personal or constituency interests); to enable trustees to be remunerated to ensure an increased pool of potential board members and to provide an added source of accountability; and to clarify the role and authority of different appointing authorities.
Two options were put forward to achieve these objectives: one an ‘enhanced status quo’ option and the other featuring a skills based board and improved stakeholder accountability. The second of these options is recommended. It has a smaller board with members appointed for their relevant individual skills and experience. This is the type of arrangement considered most likely to assist the board to fulfill its fiduciary responsibilities and to successfully address the challenges facing the organisation. Improved stakeholder engagement comes from placing the ‘representation‘ function into a new, complementary ‘stakeholder representative group’. This group would also have a monitoring and ‘electoral college’ function.
The final section describes a range of possible legal foundations for the proposed governance improvements. In addition, a more radical ‘ownership’ option is included which offers the opportunity to absorb the Arts Centre into a larger, publicly owned entity such as the Historic Places Trust.
BoardWorks International May 2012 ATTACHMENT 1 TO CLAUSE 17 219 COMMUNITY, RECREATION AND CULTURE COMMITTEE 6. 8. 2013 Christchurch Arts Centre 6 Governance Structure Review
Introduction
1.1 Terms of reference and approach
For some time the Arts Centre of Christchurch Trust Board (‘the Trust Board’) has wanted to review the Trust’s governance arrangements:
to ensure the long-term protection of the objects of the Trust; to obtain the appropriate level of local, national and international recognition and financial support; to consolidate the historical amendments to the Trust Deed and to remove any inconsistencies; to modernise the terms of the Trust to ensure the appropriate mechanisms for good governance; and to protect the charitable status of the Trust.
The Board made some progress on this internally. The option of transferring the Trust into some form of statutory entity via a Local Act was considered attractive, particularly as a means of securing more secure funding, and this was raised with the Hon. Chris Finlayson, Minister of Arts, Culture and Heritage. He offered the resources of the Ministry for Culture and Heritage to review the wider aspects of the governance of the Arts Centre before the direction of change (particularly if it involved legislation) was agreed to.
The Ministry, in consultation with the Trust Board, commissioned Graeme Nahkies, Director of governance consultancy BoardWorks International (‘the author’) to undertake a review to clarify the issues and to examine a range of options. In particular, the Ministry sought a written report that included:
a summary of governance issues faced by the Arts Centre; possible options to reform the governance to strengthen decision-making at the Arts Centre, their strengths and weaknesses; and a preferred option for the Ministry to consider and details about the strengths and weaknesses of this option.
As a basis for this report the author has:
reviewed relevant documentation provided by the Trust Board and other interested parties; interviewed current and past members of the Arts Centre Trust Board; interviewed the Director of the Arts Centre; and interviewed a range of key stakeholders (see Appendix 1) received and incorporated feedback on a draft report from both the Trust Board and the Ministry for Culture and Heritage.
BoardWorks International May 2012 ATTACHMENT 1 TO CLAUSE 17 220 COMMUNITY, RECREATION AND CULTURE COMMITTEE 6. 8. 2013 Christchurch Arts Centre 7 Governance Structure Review
The sequence of inquiry followed by the author which is reflected in the structure of this report is:
the clarification of the Arts Centre’s purpose; identification of the challenges in governing the Arts Centre to fulfil that purpose; consideration of possible improvements to the governance arrangements to increase the chances of success; and consideration of the issues applicable to possible changes in legal framework.
1.2 Acknowledgements
The completion of this report would not have been possible without the support, commitment and participation of, in particular, the present trustees, a number of past trustees, and the Arts Centre Chief Executive and other staff. Other key external stakeholders have also been willing and constructive contributors to the review. Their openness and input to the process has been greatly appreciated.
1.3 Disclaimer
The author has used all reasonable endeavors to ensure that the information in this report is as accurate as possible as at the date of the substantive completion of this report (27 February 2012). The views, opinions, findings and conclusions or recommendations expressed in this report are based on verbal information provided by the review participants and the author’s review of documentation supplied to him. They do not necessarily reflect the views of either the Christchurch Arts Centre Trust or the Ministry for Culture and Heritage.
The report addresses a number of matters relating to the functionality and accountability of the governance structure of the Arts Centre. Such changes as might be made in relation to the evaluation and recommendations of this report must, however, find their ultimate expression in legal documentation. It should be noted that this report has not been formed on the basis of legal advice and is not, and does not purport to be, legal advice.
BoardWorks International May 2012 ATTACHMENT 1 TO CLAUSE 17 221 COMMUNITY, RECREATION AND CULTURE COMMITTEE 6. 8. 2013 Christchurch Arts Centre 8 Governance Structure Review
2. The Purpose of the Arts Centre
The Arts Centre of Christchurch Trust Board was incorporated as a Board (under the Charitable Trusts Act 1957) by way of the initial trust deed dated 31 December 1978. The trust deed has been modified on numerous occasions since then, most recently in July 2008.
The charitable trust was established “to provide a cultural centre for the people of Christchurch and elsewhere in New Zealand on the site formerly occupied by the University of Canterbury, and for the preservation of the architectural character and integrity of the historic stone buildings presently on that site.”
The purpose of the Arts Centre is contained in the Trust Deed. This description of the trusts has been modified over the years. As of July 2008 the trusts are stated as follows:1
To be beneficial to the community by:
(a) Holding and developing the Arts Centre site and buildings in trust as a unique and outstanding cultural centre for use by the people of Christchurch and visitors to the region; (b) Fostering, promoting and facilitating interest and involvement in art, culture, creativity, the creative industries and education; (c) Providing accommodation for the purposes stated in the foregoing paragraphs (a) and (b); (d) Promoting, conserving and maintaining the heritage integrity of the land and buildings of the Arts Centre and to that end adopting and from time to time amending or varying a Conservation Plan in accordance with accepted conservation principles and in terms of approved by the Board; (e) Developing and maintaining a sustainable and financially viable organisation with the means to carry out the purposes here listed; (f) Acquiring by gift, purchase or otherwise any real or personal property whatsoever and wheresoever to be held by it upon and subject to the trusts herein declared; (d) Doing all such lawful things as are incidental or conducive to the attainment of any of the above objects.
Legal advice to the Trust Board is that a special duty or obligation was placed on the Trust Board by the original trust deed (1978) to the extent that it is obliged to retain ownership of the Arts Centre land so that the facilities are available to the people of Christchurch and other visitors for cultural purposes and to ensure that the heritage integrity of the site is retained and maintained.
Many organisations suffer from what has been termed ‘mission creep’. Put another way, organisations have a tendency to stray from their original purpose. There have been claims that variations to the Trust Deed over time have directly altered and detracted from the declared
1 Trust Deed, Schedule 1
BoardWorks International May 2012 ATTACHMENT 1 TO CLAUSE 17 222 COMMUNITY, RECREATION AND CULTURE COMMITTEE 6. 8. 2013 Christchurch Arts Centre 9 Governance Structure Review objects and were ultra viries the Board's powers. However, both legal advice to the Trust Board and the opinion of the Attorney General (in relation to an application by Save Our Arts Centre Society Inc. (SOAC)2 ) have rejected such claims.
During the extensive consultation process which formed the backdrop to this report, informants were asked for their perceptions of the purpose of the Arts Centre. In their responses they consistently highlighted two principal outcomes as being desirable:
preservation of the architectural and heritage values of the site; and provision of a vibrant cultural centre for the accommodation of creative endeavour and the enjoyment of residents and visitors.
Both of these outcomes are consistent with the Trust Deed in its original and in its current form.
In general those consulted do not see (nor does the author) these two outcomes as mutually exclusive alternatives in which the pursuit of one might, inherently, be to the detriment of the other. It is not a case of ‘either (a cultural centre)/or (a historic precinct)’ but ‘both’. These aims are mutually interdependent and synergistic.
However, in preserving the architectural and heritage value of the site the Trust Board is expected to take prudent steps to ensure the arts Centre is economically sustainable. In this there is a sequential relationship – no buildings/no cultural centre. This sequence has become even more stark post-earthquake. The Trust Board has had, from the beginning, to grapple with the issue of generating sufficient revenue to enable the buildings to be restored, protected and kept in a good condition. The mix of creative enterprises on the site has seldom, if ever, generated sufficient income for the Trust Board for it to be able to do the work on the buildings – particularly earthquake strengthening – it has considered necessary.
The challenge for the Trust Board always is to maintain a balance – a precinct in which heritage values are maintained and buildings are safe and sound and occupied in a manner that is both true to the ‘cultural’ object of the Trust and economically sustainable. The Trust Board is entitled to use its best judgement to achieve and maintain that balance.
2 Report of the Attorney-General, 1 February 2010.
BoardWorks International May 2012 ATTACHMENT 1 TO CLAUSE 17 223 COMMUNITY, RECREATION AND CULTURE COMMITTEE 6. 8. 2013 Christchurch Arts Centre 10 Governance Structure Review
3. Challenges Facing The Arts Centre Of Christchurch Trust Board
Among those consulted there is also widespread agreement on the type of challenges facing the governors of the Arts Centre. These challenges have become even more stark and pressing following the earthquakes and can be summarised as follows.
3.1 Buildings-related
Stabilising and repairing key buildings and heritage facilities (to a higher standard of structural stability) is arguably the Trust Board’s highest priority for the foreseeable future.
(Source: Arts Centre web-site)
3.2 Funding-related
Funding the recovery goes hand-in-hand with the board’s first challenge. It involves a number of distinct actions including:
negotiation of pay-out on the Trust Board’s insurance policies; securing the Art’s Centre’s ‘share’ of special purpose earthquake recovery funds; securing additional remediation and development funding if required; securing and maintaining adequate future insurance cover; re-establishing a revenue stream based on re-tenanting of the Art Centre’s property; and developing and implementing a sustainable funding model. In this regard, given disruption to the site, it is too soon to say what level of funding is capable of being internally generated compared to what might be sought – and obtained - from other sources including central and local government.
BoardWorks International May 2012 ATTACHMENT 1 TO CLAUSE 17 224 COMMUNITY, RECREATION AND CULTURE COMMITTEE 6. 8. 2013 Christchurch Arts Centre 11 Governance Structure Review
3.3 Use –related
The Trust Board has the task (and opportunity) to determine how best to use and repopulate the site. Historically there has been contention about many different aspects of the use of the site to fulfil the ‘cultural centre’ aspect of the Trust Deed. The force majeure nature of the earthquakes has seen the previous tenancies terminated and all but one tenant leave the site.
For various reasons – not the least being the time it will take to make the site safe and functional - many of the pre-earthquake users are unlikely to return to the site. For example, some have been forced to find other premises to continue trading (e.g. The Court Theatre). Other businesses are unlikely to be restarted due to the age and circumstances of their proprietors. While unfortunate, the earthquakes have created something of a ‘silver lining’ for the Trust Board. Many of the previous tenancies were ad hoc arrangements featuring terms and conditions that, in aggregate if not in the particular, created significant property and relationship management issues. As was described by one informant, it had resulted in a generally ‘low rent’ use of a ‘high rent’ site. Those arrangements have ended. The Trust Board has a ‘clean sheet’.
Matters that must increasingly occupy the Trust Board and its management include:
the creation of a coherent and transparent ‘Master Plan’ for the future use and development of the site (including the development of previously underutilised parts of the site and ‘new’ sites if some of the former buildings cannot be saved); the restoration of the Arts Centre’s role as a tourist facility - a key element in the post- earthquake economic recovery of Christchurch; defining what, in the second decade of the 21st century and beyond, is an appropriate interpretation of the requirement to use the site for ‘cultural’ purposes; establishing and securing a sustainable and economic cash flow on a basis that secures the property rights of the Trust Board as well as the rights (and obligations) of future tenants; and ensuring that the tenancies and the facilities are mutually compatible.3
3.4 Stakeholder-related
Shortly before the on-set of the earthquakes the Trust Board had encountered other potentially disruptive circumstances related to the controversy surrounding the proposal to create the University of Canterbury National Music Conservatorium on a part of the site then being used as a car park.
The University’s proposal – supported by the City Council and the Trust Board - was for a building (pictured on the next page) that would, from the University’s perspective:
replace the University’s existing inadequate music facilities to support growth of current music programmes and allow for the development of new programmes;
3 For example, it became progressively more apparent in recent years that the needs of a vibrant professional theatre (The Court) could not be met on the site without compromising the Arts Centre’s heritage values.
BoardWorks International May 2012 ATTACHMENT 1 TO CLAUSE 17 225 COMMUNITY, RECREATION AND CULTURE COMMITTEE 6. 8. 2013 Christchurch Arts Centre 12 Governance Structure Review
fulfill the University’s intention to have a visible and beneficial presence in the city; enliven the cultural life of the University and the city, and provide a tangible interface between the two; be of architectural merit such that it can act as a much-needed base and point of identity for the University in the city; meet the University's strategic goal of forming close links with the local community; and provide a venue for the University’s wider engagement with the city.4
From the Trust Board’s perspective the development of the Music Conservatorium would be have been a significant step forward in improving the economic base for the Arts Centre.
Historically, new public building proposals in Christchurch have been accompanied by hot, divisive and often highly personalised debate. The Music Conservatorium proposal seems to have been no exception. In the event the proposal was rejected on comparatively narrow town planning grounds reflecting concerns about the bulk of the proposed building and its impact on adjoining properties. It was significant that the Commissioners’ decision did not bring into question the suitability of the site for the proposed use.
A number of those interviewed shared their direct experience or observation that, while the proposal was under consideration, the Trust Board and its Management became the target of concerted criticism and calumny. In relation, for example, to the termination (and possible re- establishment) of tenancies post-earthquake, Trust Board members and senior management have continued to experience vitriolic and, in some cases, highly personalised criticism. Some critics have attempted to style the Trust Board as a sort of ‘secret society’ whose judgement about the best interests of the Arts Centre and its stakeholders cannot be relied upon.
As a consequence, it seems that there has been some loss of stakeholder and possibly public trust and confidence in the governance and management of the Arts Centre. There does appear to be some justification for concerns that the Trust Board has not communicated as effectively to stakeholders as it needs to. There is a challenge for the Trust Board to, in particular, actively address the need to:
4 University of Canterbury http://www.music.canterbury.ac.nz/conservatorium/building.shtml
BoardWorks International May 2012 ATTACHMENT 1 TO CLAUSE 17 226 COMMUNITY, RECREATION AND CULTURE COMMITTEE 6. 8. 2013 Christchurch Arts Centre 13 Governance Structure Review
improve communication with, and education of, the general public (e.g. about the ownership and ‘business model’ of the Arts Centre - numerous informants suggested there is a common public belief that it is owned by the City Council); bring greater transparency in decision making; depoliticise the membership of the Board and tenancy relationships; and to increase public involvement and confidence in planning for the future use of the site.
3.5 Conclusion
If these are the challenges facing the governance of the Arts Centre, the question must be asked whether the present governance arrangements create and sustain the capability to deal with these successfully. The short answer to this question is ‘no’. Some of these challenges – particularly in relation to stakeholder relationships - are closely related to the current governance structure and the processes that flow from it. Other challenges are of such a specific nature and so far removed from the matters that concerned the Trust Board pre-earthquakes that the status quo is not an option. Change is needed to strengthen the capability and effectiveness of the governance arrangements.
BoardWorks International May 2012 ATTACHMENT 1 TO CLAUSE 17 227 COMMUNITY, RECREATION AND CULTURE COMMITTEE 6. 8. 2013 Christchurch Arts Centre 14 Governance Structure Review
4. Addressing the Arts Centre’s Governance Challenges
In relation to the current governance arrangements, the various parties consulted who have a direct interest in the future well-being of the Arts Centre are united in their view that the status quo is not an option. For different reasons there is considerable dissatisfaction with the current governance model. The experience of recent years has convinced most people that the present arrangements fall well short of what is needed to deliver a good governance and good stewardship of the Arts Centre. The present arrangements do not appear to be up to meeting the challenges described in the previous section of this report.
4.1 The existing Arts Centre governance model
As currently constituted by the Trust Deed, the governance structure has the following characteristics.
4.1.1 Size There is to be a board of not fewer than 10 or more than 13 members.
4.1.2 Composition Currently, membership of the board is nominally made up as follows:
One City Councillor appointed by the Christchurch City Council; 5 Two persons appointed by the Council of the University of Canterbury, such appointees to be present or past members of that Council or the academic staff of the University; One person appointed by the Canterbury District Committee of the New Zealand Historic Places Trust from among its present or past members; One person appointed by the Christchurch Civic trust from among its members; One person appointed by the Tangata Whenua of Canterbury to have a concern for the fostering of Maori art and culture; No fewer than four nor more than seven persons appointed by the board, at least one of whom is a tenant (or a duly authorised representative of a tenant being a company or other incorporated body)6 of premises in the Arts Centre or the Cranmer Centre.
The Board is also required to appoint a person (a qualified chartered accountant) to hold office as its Secretary/Treasurer, to keep minutes and accounts and report to the Board.
5 The most recent City Council appointed trustee (an elected Council member) withdrew because of perceived conflicts of interest during the University music conservatorium debate and has not been replaced. 6 The Trust Board does not appear to be in compliance with this tenant-related provision and may not have been for some time. This is understood to relate to the difficulty of reconciling the fundamental conflict of business interest between tenant and landlord.
BoardWorks International May 2012 ATTACHMENT 1 TO CLAUSE 17 228 COMMUNITY, RECREATION AND CULTURE COMMITTEE 6. 8. 2013 Christchurch Arts Centre 15 Governance Structure Review
4.1.3 Tenure Every board member is to be appointed for a term of not less than one year nor more than three years – as determined by the appointing body. At the end of their terms members are eligible for reappointment up to a maximum of nine years (whether served consecutively or not).
Trustees are disqualified from continuing to serve for all the usual reasons applying to other governing bodies (bankruptcy, conviction for dishonesty, mental disorder, etc). Members are deemed to have ceased to hold office if absent from office for three consecutive meetings without leave of absence.
4.1.4 Staff The Board is required to appoint a Director to manage its affairs.
4.1.5 The Powers of the Trust Board The Board has the following powers:7
a) To acquire further property by way of gift or otherwise and sell the same; b) To let or lease any land or buildings on such terms and conditions as the board may think fit; c) To construct, alter, pull down and re-erect, improve, conserve, maintain and generally provide any buildings required for the general purposes of the board and provide those buildings with such services and other amenities as are thought desirable; d) To employ such staff upon such terms and conditions as the Board shall think fit; e) To borrow money for all or any of its purposes whether by way of unsecured advance or by mortgage, debenture or any form of security or acknowledgement of debt whatsoever whether or not the same creates any charge upon the property of the Board and otherwise upon such terms or conditions as the Board may in its absolute discretion deem fit; f) To accept subscriptions or donations from any person or corporation; g) To do all things as may from time to time appear necessary or desirable to the Board to give effect to and attain the objects of the Trust.
These powers appear to give the Trust Board sufficient scope to fulfill the objects of the Trust and to respond to the challenges listed earlier.
4.2 Historical changes in Trustee composition
The various modifications made to the Trust Deed as it relates to membership of the Trust Board, since 1978, appear to reflect a pattern of evolution in the governance structure to meet the changing needs of the Arts Centre and to reflect changes in stakeholder organisations. For example, the size of the Board has been able to be both larger (up to 15 members) and smaller (as few as 7 members). There have been changes in the bodies with nominating rights (e.g. Canterbury Regional Council, Friends of the Arts Centre Inc.). The actual nominating rights have also changed – increasing or reducing (e.g. at one time Christchurch City Council could appoint 2
7 As set out in Schedule 3 of the Trust Deed.
BoardWorks International May 2012 ATTACHMENT 1 TO CLAUSE 17 229 COMMUNITY, RECREATION AND CULTURE COMMITTEE 6. 8. 2013 Christchurch Arts Centre 16 Governance Structure Review members) or made less prescriptive (originally both the Mayor of Christchurch and the Chancellor of the University were ex-officio members).
The following table illustrates the pattern of change in the composition of the Trust Board over the years.
Trust deed changes 1978 1989 1993 2003 Board size 7-12 10-14 10-15 10-13 Board membership: The Mayor of Christchurch (ex-officio) 1 The Chancellor of the University (ex-officio) 1 Elected by the Arts Centre Association 4 3 1 Appointed by the Council(s) 1 2 2 1 Appointed by the Regional Council 1 Appointed by the University of Canterbury 1 2 2 2 Appointed by the NZ Historic Places Trust 1 1 1 1 Appointed by the Tangata Whenua 1 1 1 Appointed by the Civic Trust 1 1 1 Appointed by the Arts Centre board (i.e. co-opted) 3 3 1-6 4-7
What is most noticeable from these changes is the progressive reduction in the number of 'community' appointees. No current appointment is drawn directly from the wider community of citizens let alone from those with interests reflecting art, craft, music, theatre, cultural and community activities.
4.3 Issues in terms of the current governance arrangements
The need for further change in governance arrangements was apparent prior to the onset of the Christchurch earthquakes. The challenges posed by the earthquake recovery process have given further impetus and direction to the changes needed. The possible direction of such changes is discussed under the following headings.
4.3.1 Board size As greater focus has come on the performance of governing boards (a world-wide trend), and as performance expectations have increased, the size of boards across many different types of organisations has been reducing. In relation to these trends the current size of the Board (between 10 and 13 members) is larger than the norm. However, this is inevitable, given the quasi-representative nature of the current structure. Were the membership of the board altered to become a ‘skills-based’ rather than a ‘representative’ board, the size of the board could be reduced.
Typically, the benefits of a smaller board of around, say, 7 or 8 (or even fewer) lie in the opportunity for a different group dynamic more likely to result in coherence and cohesion. Larger boards tend to fragment in a range of ways. For example:
They more easily become factionalised. There is more likelihood of domination (or distraction) by loud and/or influential minorities. This is sometimes institutionalised in
BoardWorks International May 2012 ATTACHMENT 1 TO CLAUSE 17 230 COMMUNITY, RECREATION AND CULTURE COMMITTEE 6. 8. 2013 Christchurch Arts Centre 17 Governance Structure Review
the board’s committee structure. For example, an ‘executive committee’ is often justified in the name of ‘efficiency’ but it creates the risk of marginalising other board members and excludes them from important decisions even though their liability as trustees does not reduce. Workload/responsibility is unevenly shared. It is easier for some members to ‘coast’ (or even, effectively, to opt out) when they are less visible or their impact is diluted. The sense of individual accountability is diminished. The larger the board the more likely that individuals will feel a reduced sense of personal responsibility.
Larger boards also require more formalised and highly structured processes. The nature of the board meeting dialogue is necessarily more formal and constrained and less free flowing when, numerically, there are reduced opportunities to engage in the board’s dialogue. The development of a board’s ‘collective consciousness’ around important matters takes far longer, if indeed it can be achieved at all. ‘Ownership’ of important board decisions is likely to be weaker.
4.3.2 Board composition The current Arts Centre model is a mix of trustees appointed by stakeholder organisations and others appointed by the Board. The composition of the Board was last altered in 2003.
Such ‘mixed member’ models have some advantages – particularly over wholly representative organisational governance models - and are well established in many fields. They work best, however, when the mix is of elected and appointed directors and the elected board members represent, for example, the members of an incorporated society as a whole rather than sub-sets of them (e.g. geographical or membership category divisions).
In both fully and partly ‘representative’ models there is often confusion and tension around primary loyalty. Among their various fiduciary duties board members have a duty of care and a duty of loyalty to exercise their best (and independent) judgement in favour of the entity they are governing. Placing the entity’s interests first in this way may create an actual or perceived conflict with other loyalties – for example, to an elector constituency or to a nominating/appointing body. In many cases such conflicts of interest are easily addressed via good process; in other cases, continued membership of the board may be untenable.
In the worst situations boards become dysfunctional; no more than a collection of warring advocates for parochial interests. Invariably boardroom battles escalate into the public domain. Reputation and stakeholder confidence in the board, if not the organisation, is diminished. Trust between interested parties is reduced. If important decisions can be made at all they reflect a ‘lowest common denominator’. In the absence of coherent and cohesive board leadership, staff are obliged (and enabled) to fill the vacuum. They are then unfairly criticised for being the dominating influence on organisational decision making.
A number of those interviewed suggested that elements of these shortcomings are present in the current Arts Centre governance structure.
There are various claims commonly made in support of the representation model that, on closer scrutiny, are invalid in most organisational governance environments. Any change to the Arts Centre’s governance arrangements should address these issues. For example:
BoardWorks International May 2012 ATTACHMENT 1 TO CLAUSE 17 231 COMMUNITY, RECREATION AND CULTURE COMMITTEE 6. 8. 2013 Christchurch Arts Centre 18 Governance Structure Review
Direct representation enhances communication between the entity and the stakeholder group. In reality it cannot be assumed that an appointed board member will be an effective conduit for the flow of information between the Arts Centre and his/her appointing authority. That depends very much on the proactivity and capability of the individual. Some people are likely to be very effective in articulating and connecting the interests of the two entities; others will be neither inclined nor capable of doing so. Indeed, asking individual Trustees to play this role may be in direct conflict with their fiduciary duties. Consequently, there is likely to be variability in the quality of communication via board members in the Arts Centre situation. It means that some stakeholder bodies will be better informed than others. There is no substitute for direct, formal communication between the Arts Centre and its stakeholder bodies.
Direct representation better informs decision making. A variation on the first point. It cannot be assumed that stakeholder appointees on the Board will contribute their stakeholder organisation’s perspective such that the Trust Board is better informed than would otherwise be. It is unrealistic and unfair to expect one person to reflect the interests of the very diverse group that they nominally represent (e.g. Arts Centre tenants). In respect of nominating institutions like the City Council or the University there are other constraints. As a City Councillor, for example, a Trustee can only inform the Trust Board about established council policy or agreed positions. This input can be obtained by other means. A City Councillor can be informally ‘informative’ (e.g. about general council sentiment, about the way it handles certain matters, etc) but this is, by comparison, personal knowledge, opinion or speculation. This does not mean that a Council representative may not be a highly effective Trustee but this is more likely to be a consequence of their personal attributes than of the position they hold. Boards with a representative membership are often less well informed about their stakeholders’ knowledge and interests than they would be if they designed and implemented a direct consultation process.
Direct board representation strengthens the support of the stakeholder organisation for the entity. This assumption is seldom stated as explicitly as this but appears to be one that is shared by a number of those consulted. To have the local authority or central government represented on the Trust Board is seen as a means of creating an enduring obligation to provide, for example, financial underwriting to the Arts Centre. In so far as the Christchurch City Council is concerned, this is more likely to deter than encourage its direct participation on the Trust Board.8 A requirement of any funding body like the Council is to act evenhandedly. If the funding body (e.g. Council) is represented on the board of the supplicant organisation (e.g. Arts Centre) this is likely to inhibit rather than facilitate the sort of financial underwriting that many seek for the Arts Centre. The governed organisation may be even worse off as a consequence of a funder’s desire not to be seen to be favouring it over other organisations that do not have direct board representation.
8 As noted earlier, the City Council has effectively withdrawn its nominee to avoid possible conflicts of interest. This concern could be considerably diminished if the Council was to nominate a Trustee other than an elected Council member or a staff member (as is the case in other similar bodies like, for example, the Auckland Museum of Transport and Technology).
BoardWorks International May 2012 ATTACHMENT 1 TO CLAUSE 17 232 COMMUNITY, RECREATION AND CULTURE COMMITTEE 6. 8. 2013 Christchurch Arts Centre 19 Governance Structure Review
Direct representation is sometimes also advocated in respect of enhancing accountability. By this notion, the stakeholder organisations are proxies for the ‘owners’ of the organisation even if these are ‘moral’ rather than ‘proprietary’ owners. 9 They, therefore, require their own representatives or nominees on the board in order to establish and reinforce this ownership accountability. With the exception perhaps of ex officio roles for the Mayor of Christchurch and the Chancellor of the University, the initial trustees of the Arts Centre were not identified by their association with de facto owner organisations. ‘Founding Trustees’ were, in effect, a group of worthy citizens rather than delegates or nominees of particular interest groups.
Interest groups at the time of the Arts Centre’s formation seem to have been seen as ‘agents’ rather than ‘owners’. This can be inferred from the delegation provisions of the initial Trust Deed. The Board was empowered to delegate any of its powers and duties not only to a committee of the Board but to “…any organisation including a society representative of tenants of the Arts Centre or supportive of the aims of the Board…”
Depending on an appointed Trustee’s influence, the advantage of board membership lies rather more with the appointing body than with the governed entity. The appointing body is likely to feel that it has someone inside the boardroom with the potential to influence matters in its preferred direction.
There are other matters with respect to the current appointment arrangements that should be questioned as part of any review.
What is the justification for the University having the right to appoint two Trustees? Given that the University’s interests in the site could now be said to relate primarily to retention of certain tenancy rights, should it have appointing privileges at all? Given that the City Council has withdrawn its appointee because of inherent conflicts of interest it is effectively blocking appointment to one position on the Board. This should not continue. It can be resolved by removing the Council’s appointing right or by removing the prescription that the Council appoints a City Councillor. The structure of the Historic Places Trust is changing and once its amending legislation is passed it will no longer be appropriate for the appointing body to be the Canterbury Branch Committee (which will go out of existence). Is the Civic Trust the most appropriate body to represent wider public interests on the Trust Board? The provision for one of the co-opted members to be a tenant (or a duly authorised representative of a tenant being a company or other incorporated body) of premises in the Arts Centre or the Cranmer Centre (now destroyed by the earthquakes) is inappropriate. Tenants have a business (customer) relationship with the Arts Centre and a Trustee wearing that ‘hat’ has a fundamental conflict of interest.
9 The concept of moral ownership has particular relevance for the Arts Centre as it does to most other Trust structures. It is applicable to those people for whom the organisation exists. They invest it with its reason for being.
BoardWorks International May 2012 ATTACHMENT 1 TO CLAUSE 17 233 COMMUNITY, RECREATION AND CULTURE COMMITTEE 6. 8. 2013 Christchurch Arts Centre 20 Governance Structure Review
4.4 Conclusion
As a general principle, to provide effective governance of the Arts Centre, the Board needs to be able to empathise with stakeholder views without being captured by them. It needs a capacity for its members to think independently whilst continually seeking to form a holistic and integrated view. It should have a helicopter perspective – sitting above the organisation, understanding how all the pieces of it fit together. It should have the skills sets that are most likely to come via a deliberate selection process designed to strengthen the board’s collective capabilities rather than one that leaves the board’s make-up in the hands of disparate appointing bodies with diverse and not necessarily aligned motives.
Consequently, it is a primary conclusion of this report that the continued usefulness of including stakeholders directly on the Board must be seriously questioned. There are alternatives to direct representation that would be better for both the Board and the stakeholder organisations.
While not as critical, the size of the Board should also be reassessed and, ideally reduced.
BoardWorks International May 2012 ATTACHMENT 1 TO CLAUSE 17 234 COMMUNITY, RECREATION AND CULTURE COMMITTEE 6. 8. 2013 Christchurch Arts Centre 21 Governance Structure Review
5. General Considerations In Relation To Good Governance Design
To link the earlier analysis of governance challenges facing the Arts Centre and the apparent shortcomings in the current governance structure, this section reviews a wide range of generic governance design considerations. These are considerations which should be kept in mind when final choices are being made.
5.1 What is governance?
Over the last 20 years there has been a growing recognition, often occasioned by organisational failure, of the importance of good governance in companies and other organisations. Through the initiatives of a multitude of ad hoc task forces, regulatory and governmental bodies, professional associations and judicial reviews, there have arisen many published definitions of governance. The following are illustrative of the common themes of most such definitions. While two of these refer to company structures their relevance is more generally applicable.
Good governance is the effective separation, management and execution of the relationships, duties, obligations and accountabilities of an entity, such that the entity is best able to fulfill its purpose.10
…a set of relationships between a company’s management, its board, its shareholders and other stakeholders. Corporate governance also provides the structure through which the objectives of the company are set, and the means of attaining those objectives and monitoring performance are determined.11
…the system by which companies are directed and managed. It influences how the objectives of the company are set and achieved, how risk is monitored and assessed, and how performance is optimised. Good corporate governance structures encourage companies to create value (through entrepreneurism, innovation, development and exploration) and provide accountability and control systems commensurate with the risks involved.12
5.2 Good governance and why it is important
Good governance enhances organisational performance, increases stakeholder and community confidence and trust and underpins organisational learning and adaptive management. Good governance is reflected in the exercise of power in the making of decisions in a principled and
10 Institute of Directors in New Zealand (2007) The Four Pillars of Effective Board Governance: Principles of Best Practice for New Zealand Directors, p.3 11 OECD (1999) Ad Hoc Task Force on Corporate Governance, p.2. 12 Australian Stock Exchange (2003). Principles of Good Corporate Governance and Best Practice Recommendations. p2.
BoardWorks International May 2012 ATTACHMENT 1 TO CLAUSE 17 235 COMMUNITY, RECREATION AND CULTURE COMMITTEE 6. 8. 2013 Christchurch Arts Centre 22 Governance Structure Review coherent manner. The following table is an indication of a range of applicable principles and the different dimensions of their application.13
Principles of good Illustrative dimensions of the principles governance
Legitimacy Authority to make decisions on behalf of others conferred by transparent mandate Earned through stakeholder acceptance of authority Adequate power to make scale-appropriate decisions (subsidiarity) Acceptance of integrity and commitment
Transparency Visibility of decision-making Clarity of reasoning and communication Ready availability of information about performance
Accountability Allocating and accepting responsibility for decisions and actions Demonstrating how obligations are met as the basis for organisational learning and adaptive management and, externally, for maintaining stakeholder confidence Multi-directional (upwards, downwards and sideways)
Fairness Diverse opportunities to participate in decision-making and action Inclusive and respectful of a range of values Deliberative and consistent with an absence of personal or institutional bias Sharing of costs, risks and benefits of actions and trade-offs
Interconnectedness Relationships between decision-making bodies at multi levels Cross-scale, cross-level decision-making and action Agreement on, and coordination of, common purpose Active and dynamic collaboration and partnership
Capability Skills and leadership to meet responsibilities and be responsive Quantum, flows and continuity of investment to efficiently and effectively deliver agreed outcomes Knowledge for evidence based decision-making Processes, systems, plans and tools suited to responsibilities
Adaptability Networks across and between scales and levels as feedback loops Inbuilt responsiveness to changing internal and external signals Systematic reflection on individual, institutional and system performance and improvement Anticipation and management of opportunities and risks Incorporation of monitoring, evaluation, purposeful learning, alternative futures and innovation into decision-making.
13 Adapted from an original formulation by Davidson et al 2006, Governance Principles for Regional NRM, UTAS, Hobart.
BoardWorks International May 2012 ATTACHMENT 1 TO CLAUSE 17 236 COMMUNITY, RECREATION AND CULTURE COMMITTEE 6. 8. 2013 Christchurch Arts Centre 23 Governance Structure Review
Many of these principles relate directly to criticism leveled at the current governance arrangements and Board performance by those both inside and outside the Arts Centre. They are a helpful basis to assess the current governance arrangements and to suggest and evaluate possible future changes.
5.3 Governance constitutional issues
The governance structure of an organisation is typically spelt out in its constitution or some equivalent document. Typically, an organisation’s constitution is a legally binding contract and is an expression of the rights of ‘owners’ in respect to the legal entity.
Ownership is an important concept in any governance arrangement. A well designed constitution makes clear the means by which the owners (members, shareholders, etc) exercise ultimate control of the legal entity by controlling the composition of the board, the organisation’s purpose and its governing rules. In addition to stating the organisation’s objects and powers, most constitutions also codify a number of administrative procedures such as those that govern General Meetings of Members. A constitution also defines the size and role of the board, the directors’ tenure and places limits on the delegation of power and authority to the directors. Simultaneously a constitution assigns to the board sufficient freedom for the directors and management to successfully ‘run’ the operational entity; the board ‘at a distance’ and management ‘close-up’ while the board remains accountable back to the owners for organisational performance.
The issue of ‘ownership’ is particularly important in relation to the Arts Centre. In many respects, trustees are significantly more autonomous than directors of any other type of enterprise. For example, trustees are typically not accountable to owners in the classic corporate governance sense described above. The effect of incorporation under the Charitable Trusts Act 1957 is that Arts Centre trustees collectively take on a corporate personality and act as a separate corporate entity or trust board as opposed to a group of individual trustees. The trust board once incorporated under the Charitable Trusts Act may do any act which a body corporate may legally do. The Trust Board therefore is the owner of the Arts Centre and this is reflected in the fact that all the titles for the Arts Centre properly record the registered proprietor as The Art Centre of Christchurch Trust Board. Apart from the obligation to remain true to the original Trusts and the usual fiduciary duties of trustees, the Board has no direct accountability to any other parties.14
The accountability arrangements for the Arts Centre are even less clear than in the generic form referred to above. This is because some Trustees are appointees of other bodies and over time some have, reputedly, demonstrated a stronger sense of accountability to their nominating body than to the Arts Centre Trust to which their duty as a trustee is owed.
14 Legal advice to the Trust Board has indicated that there is no other relevant documentation in existence that would in any way qualify this conclusion (e.g. a Deed of Gift between the University and the Trust Board).
BoardWorks International May 2012 ATTACHMENT 1 TO CLAUSE 17 237 COMMUNITY, RECREATION AND CULTURE COMMITTEE 6. 8. 2013 Christchurch Arts Centre 24 Governance Structure Review
5.4 The role of a governing board
Board members are charged with a number of legal duties which, together with commonly agreed responsibilities, define a board’s role. In essence a governing board:
provides oversight of the operational organisation, ensuring that it meets its legal obligations and performs to the standards and criteria that underpin its purpose, plans, policies and directions; employs a chief executive and manages all matters relating to that person’s employment, including setting performance expectations and remuneration and, if required, after evaluating performance, terminating the contract of employment; establishes (albeit in partnership with senior management) the organisation’s future or strategic direction as the basis for all further operational planning; and serves the owners’ (or members’ or beneficiaries’) interests by ensuring that organisational performance results in individual and collective benefit and organisational continuity and success.
While a board has the primary responsible for setting organisational direction, for making major decisions and for providing day-to-day oversight of the organisation’s performance, management’s job is to support the board and work within a strategic, policy and decision- making delegation framework created and handed down by the board. What this means is that the board must do its job first. While this review has not extended to a close examination of internal governance systems, practices and processes, it would appear that some important aspects of the Arts Centre's internal governance infrastructure have not been well developed.15 In other organisations this can usually be taken as a sign either that the board’s membership lacks certain important governance related capabilities or that those capabilities exist but the board is simply not doing its job.
The other major input to the governance process, besides management, is from the organisation’s stakeholders. Because the board is always acting on behalf of the organisation’s owners (whether proprietary or ‘moral’) it has a moral duty to remain up-to-date with the concerns and expectations of owners and other stakeholders and to ensure that these receive proper consideration at both board and management level. The board also has a moral obligation to keep all members and relevant stakeholders informed about current and future organisational matters of concern to them. Stakeholders potentially provide invaluable input to the governance of the organisation. The information and ‘wisdom’ of stakeholders is a valuable commodity which directors need to appreciate and seek out.
A number of organisations in New Zealand have designed governance structures specifically to clarify and to some degree separate the board’s governance role from the political or representational role. Perhaps the most visible example is Fonterra with its Shareholders Council but it is a model that has also been used successfully in local government. For example, prior to the formation of the Auckland Council, the board of the regional water authority, Watercare, was overseen by a ‘shareholder representative group’. The SRG, formed from representatives of each of the local authorities which jointly owned Watercare, acted as both the
15 Examples offered to the author included shortcomings in the Chief Executive performance management system and in the board's overall policy framework.
BoardWorks International May 2012 ATTACHMENT 1 TO CLAUSE 17 238 COMMUNITY, RECREATION AND CULTURE COMMITTEE 6. 8. 2013 Christchurch Arts Centre 25 Governance Structure Review shareholder/stakeholder interface monitoring the performance of Watercare, and as an ‘electoral college’ making appointments to the board and reviewing board and director performance.
5.5 Board member/trustee duties and expectations
Both legally and as part of generally accepted governance best practice, Arts Centre trustees have a range of duties and expectations. For example:
a duty of care and diligence (or care, skill and attention). Under the Trustee Act 1956, for example, a trustee must exercise the care, diligence and skill that a prudent person of business would in managing the affairs of others. Within this it is fundamental that trustees must fulfill the obligation of controlling and protecting the assets of a trust – insuring them and making sure that the trust’s assets are physically protected. a duty of loyalty and good faith - acting for the benefit of the entity as a whole (i.e. impartially as regards to different beneficiaries); a duty to act for a proper purpose; and a duty to prevent conflicts of interest.
Expressed in various ways these duties and expectations are increasingly included in ‘black letter’ law (e.g. Crown Entities Act 2004) and reinforced by the courts as is currently occurring in relation to the numerous actions being taken against finance company directors. It follows that Arts Centre trustees must have the competence to discharge the obligations that attach to the active and prudent governance and management of the Arts Trust’s assets and activities.
5.6 Conflicts of interest
Many of those consulted referred to concerns about conflicts of interest. Indeed, a perceived irresolvable conflict of interest led to the withdrawal of the City Council nominee on the Arts Centre board. It is the reason why this position continues to be vacant.
A conflict of interest exists where:
…a reasonably informed objective observer would infer from the circumstances that the director’s judgment is likely to be influenced to the detriment of the company’s best interests.16
The broad duty to prevent conflicts of interest includes a trustee’s duty to disclose any other interests and a duty not to improperly use his or her position or information gained by dint of that position. Best practice governance would suggest that Arts Centre trustees must be concerned with what is in the best interests of the Arts Centre overall. It is often difficult for board members who owe their election or appointment to another body or group to understand
16 Institute of Directors (2007) The Four Pillars of Effective Board Governance: Principles of Best Practice for New Zealand Directors, p.35.
BoardWorks International May 2012 ATTACHMENT 1 TO CLAUSE 17 239 COMMUNITY, RECREATION AND CULTURE COMMITTEE 6. 8. 2013 Christchurch Arts Centre 26 Governance Structure Review and accept that they do not come to the table with an obligation or expectation that they would advocate or act on behalf of that body or group.
The current composition of the Trust Board has some obvious in-built conflicts of interest. While, apparently, University nominees have been ‘free agents’ this has not necessarily been the case with other ‘appointed trustees’. Even of the Board appointed (co-opted) trustees one must be a tenant (or duly authorised representative of a tenant). It would be surprising, for example, that a tenants’ ‘representative’ would not be expected by their fellow tenants to advocate strongly for the business interests of tenants.
Potentially, therefore, as many as 7 (6 appointees plus a co-opted tenant) out of the minimum 10 trustees will be closely linked to (and possibly under pressure from) a constituency of some sort. Even allowing that each of these trustees has a genuine intention to act in the best interest of the Arts Centre as a whole, from an outside perspective there will always be the appearance of a conflict.
A consistent conclusion of reviews of this nature - across many different sectors - is that all members of governing boards should be able to exercise their judgement free of undue influence from interests of a financial, personal or representational nature. They should be able to think and act independently in the best interests of the entity governed. In the case of trustee responsibilities this includes acting in the best interests of the trust’s assets. As Edmund Burke said (in 1774), even when a board member is a ‘representative’…
“Your representative owes you, not his industry only, but his judgement; and he betrays, instead of serving you, if he sacrifices it to your opinion.”
In any governance setting ‘independence’ must be carefully defined. In relation to the Arts Centre independence should not be taken to mean unconnected to those interests directly related to the purpose of the Arts Centre (heritage protection, arts and culture, creative industries, education, etc). It would be highly unlikely that the quality of board needed by the Arts Centre could (or should) be recruited that met this criterion. A more appropriate definition of independence would be ‘the absence of conflicting duties or loyalties’.
5.7 Board leadership
Leadership of the board by its chair is a vital factor - perhaps THE most vital factor - in the success of any governing board. The chair effectively determines the standards of governance that will be applied and sets the tone for board conduct. That individual’s knowledge, skills and experience play a big part in determining the effectiveness of the group. Reflecting modern thinking about governance best practice, the chair is usually elected by the directors from among their number as is the case in the Arts Centre. This generally offers the best chance that a person with the right skills and standing will assume the board leadership.
Whether there is a role for a deputy chair is a matter about which there are divergent opinions. Some argue that there is no meaningful role for a deputy chair; that any director should be able to take over the role of chair in an emergency. They argue that, for the most part, a deputy chair
BoardWorks International May 2012 ATTACHMENT 1 TO CLAUSE 17 240 COMMUNITY, RECREATION AND CULTURE COMMITTEE 6. 8. 2013 Christchurch Arts Centre 27 Governance Structure Review does little or nothing beyond the role of an ordinary director. Others argue that the deputy should be able to take over the chair role at a moments’ notice and thus needs to be equally ‘on top of’ critical board matters. There is more agreement that the role of deputy should not be an automatic route to the chairmanship; that a good deputy will not necessarily make a good chair.
5.8 The partnership relationship between the board and the chief executive
Because of a governing board’s ultimate responsibility for organisational well-being there is no clear formula for distinguishing between board work and management work. Except in relatively rare cases, often prescribed in legislation, all management functions are delegated from the board. One of the keys to effective corporate governance is clarity and agreement about the separate roles, functions and accountabilities of the board and the chief executive. In any organisation of substance, the role of a board is to ensure that the organisation is well managed, not to do the managing itself. When suitably qualified and experienced personnel are appointed to manage the organisation, a board is able to step back and attend to its own special duties and functions, leaving the day-to-day operational direction and management of the organisation to those with appropriate expertise.
Boards that manage this interface to the greatest effect have commonly codified the separate but interdependent governance and management roles in the form of a board charter (defining the board’s role and accountabilities) and a statement of executive delegations (defining the chief executive’s delegated authorities and accountabilities).
When there is clarity around the two roles, a productive and complementary working partnership can be formed that enables board and management to each benefit from the expertise of the other without either overlaps (conflicts) or gaps (omissions) in the assignment of decision-making rights. Effective board/chief executive partnerships feature neither overactive ‘micromanagement’ by the board nor its passive under-engagement.
There must be mutual trust and respect between the board and the chief executive. As typically the principal link between the board and the chief executive the role and effectiveness of the chairperson is critical. This is another reason why directors (and particularly the chair) should be chosen for their competence rather than who they represent.
One of the most common causes of board/chief executive relationship breakdown relates to the handling of information. Understandably, boards progressively become suspicious and distrusting of chief executives who they think are not keeping them well informed. On the other hand, chief executives who have reason to believe that they cannot trust their boards with sensitive information will be disinclined to offer that information. To the extent that there are symptoms of this problem within the Trust Board this is likely to reflect the problem of uncertain roles and responsibilities and conflicting loyalties referred to previously.
BoardWorks International May 2012 ATTACHMENT 1 TO CLAUSE 17 241 COMMUNITY, RECREATION AND CULTURE COMMITTEE 6. 8. 2013 Christchurch Arts Centre 28 Governance Structure Review
6. Relevance and Applicability to the Arts Centre of Alternative Governance Models
As was indicated in a previous section, it would be unwise to persist with the status quo. This section examines a range of alternative models that may be thought of as realistic options to address these challenges.
These are offered as alternative ways of improving governance effectiveness and efficiency while at the same time facilitating the participation, and accountability to, diverse stakeholder interests within the overall governance process.
The distinction is made between the design of the governance structure (composition of the board etc) and the legal form chosen to embed that structure (trust, company, statutory body etc). In this section the focus is on the governance structure.
6.1 Objectives in changing the current governance structure
The primary objectives in making changes to the existing governance arrangements would appear to include the following.
To consolidate the various changes made to the Trust Deed over the years and to ensure it reflects the original intentions of the Trust; To enable the board to more readily adapt its membership to the needs and current circumstances of the Arts Centre; To reduce the theoretical size of the board (13) to make the governance process more manageable and less fragmented; To improve the connection of the Arts Centre to its key stakeholders, recognising the public interest in the Arts Centre; To improve the accountability of the Board and its individual members for their performance as Trustees/Board members (including the clarification of their ‘prudent person’ responsibilities and their responsibility to the Trust ahead of personal or constituency interests); To enable Trustees to be remunerated to ensure an increased pool of potential Board members and to provide an added source of accountability; To clarify the role and authority of different appointing authorities;
The challenges facing the Arts Centre are well understood and agreed across a broad range of stakeholders. If it is assumed that some change is necessary it must be considered whether these objectives can best be achieved by further amendments to the current Trust Deed or by some completely new legal structure.
BoardWorks International May 2012 ATTACHMENT 1 TO CLAUSE 17 242 COMMUNITY, RECREATION AND CULTURE COMMITTEE 6. 8. 2013 Christchurch Arts Centre 29 Governance Structure Review
6.2 Alternative governance structures
Based on the governance challenges, governance performance issues and governance design considerations traversed earlier in this report, two primary alternatives are considered. These are improvements to the current arrangements – which is primarily a ‘representative’ board - and a completely new set of governance arrangements built around a ‘skills-based’ board.
6.2.1 Option 1: an enhanced status quo
If the preference is to stick with something approximating the present type of governance arrangements it would still be desirable to make the following changes:
Reduce the size of the board to a maximum of 9 trustees - for the sake of efficiency and effectiveness. Allow (and expect) appointing bodies to select trustees/board members on the basis of their competence and suitability to meet board-identified skill gaps rather than their office (e.g. currently the Christchurch City Council appointee must be a city councillor). Update the current list of appointing bodies (e.g. to reflect pending changes to the structure of the Historic Places Trust, and to be more specific about the iwi appointing body). Change the balance of the board to create a majority of independent or ‘non-affiliated’ trustees in order to moderate the conflicts of loyalty which currently exist. This would likely mean a structure with a board composed of:
o one City Council appointee; o one University of Canterbury appointee; o one Historic Places Trust appointee; o one tangata whenua appointee; and o five appointees made by the board based on skills and experience not affiliation.
A more radical alternative in respect of board nomination rights which is similar to the Museum Of Transport And Technology (Auckland) would consist of, say:
five members appointed by the Christchurch City Council (or, as an alternative, the Minister of Arts, Culture, and Heritage); and four members appointed by an appropriate body with membership open to the public like the former Christchurch Arts Centre Association Inc.
Consistent with the MOTAT arrangements, all members of the board, irrespective of the appointing authority, would be required to have the skills, experience and professional judgement necessary for the carrying out of the Arts Centre's functions and the fulfilment of its objects. Similarly, elected and appointed members of the City Council and senior executives of the Council would be excluded from appointment. Board members would be required to act at all times in the interests of the Arts Centre rather than in the interests of the body appointing them.
BoardWorks International May 2012 ATTACHMENT 1 TO CLAUSE 17 243 COMMUNITY, RECREATION AND CULTURE COMMITTEE 6. 8. 2013 Christchurch Arts Centre 30 Governance Structure Review
Ideally, provision would also be made for Trustees to be remunerated at a level consistent with comparable public sector organisations. The argument for trustee remuneration is easily made:
appointments to similar public entities are commonly remunerated; some trustees are paid by their appointing bodies (e.g. the City Council representative) and others are not; the time expected of trustees and the responsibility they shoulder is onerous; the Arts Centre needs high calibre trustees who have many alternative calls on their time; and for the sake of accountability, the Arts Centre needs trustees to serve on a professional rather than a voluntary basis.
Structural changes on their own would not be sufficient to achieve the objectives outlined in Section 6.1. It would be desirable to also prescribe certain processes to ensure that the Trust, which is a private body, was required to respond more proactively to public interests.
This could be done by requiring the Trust Board, among other things, to:
publish and consult with the public in relation to its strategic plan and on what has been referred to in the past as a Master Plan for the Arts Centre site; and publish an annual report and convene an annual general meeting open to the public.
These types of public accountability processes are explained more fully in the next option.
6.2.2 Option 2: a skills-based board with improved stakeholder accountability
A key element of the current governance structure is the right of certain stakeholder groups to appoint members of the board. By inference, they are ‘representatives’. As have many other organisations, the Arts Centre has found this problematic over the years. Persistent problems have included:
An inability to ensure that appointing bodies make appointments that meet the Board’s needs; and A conflict of loyalty between appointed Trustees’ fiduciary obligations to the Arts Centre as an entity and their perceived accountability to their appointing body.
The Trust Board should seriously consider a new set of arrangements with two features in particular:
A smaller, ‘skills-based’ board. In the short-term it would primarily focused on the recovery of the Arts Centre property from earthquake damage and its protection against future damage. In the short term the board needs skill sets particularly related to the recovery and stabilisation of the buildings and their heritage values. In the medium to long term those skill sets will need to be diversified to also reflect the re-tenanting and re-establishment of the Arts Centre as a cultural, historical and creative centre for Christchurch.
BoardWorks International May 2012 ATTACHMENT 1 TO CLAUSE 17 244 COMMUNITY, RECREATION AND CULTURE COMMITTEE 6. 8. 2013 Christchurch Arts Centre 31 Governance Structure Review
An improved connection between the Arts Centre and the various public interests in its purpose and performance.
These features could be achieved in the following manner.
Governance-related structures:
The establishment of a governing board with the following characteristics: 5-7 members appointed for their relevant skill sets and experience and ability to contribute to the effective governance of a specialist business albeit with charitable objects. These members should be independent of stakeholder bodies.17 3 year terms, renewable depending on individual performance and the needs of the board, to a maximum of 3 terms (9 years). Remuneration at the level of comparable public sector entities. A Chair – and if considered necessary, a Deputy Chair – elected by the board on an annual basis. The ability to appoint committees to support the board’s work – including non-board members.
The board would be appointed by, and its performance – and that of the Arts Centre generally - monitored by a ‘stakeholder representative group’ (SRG). In other words, the SRG would be both an ‘electoral college’ and an accountability and consultative body. As noted in a previous section, there are well proven precedents for this type of approach. This model would recognise the importance of maintaining a stakeholder voice in the affairs of the Arts Centre while removing the inherent limitations and, at times, the dysfunctionality, of trying to combine both skills-based and representative elements in the board composition.
The SRG would have the following characteristics:
It would consist of 8 members representing a wide cross section of interests in the wellbeing and operation of the Arts Centre. Initially – and reflecting the transition from the current arrangements - it could be made up of one appointee each of:
1. The University of Canterbury – reflecting the origins of the Arts Centre; 2. The Christchurch City Council – reflecting the interests of the people of the city; 3. The Historic Places Trust – reflecting the interests of the New Zealand Government and the people of New Zealand in the heritage dimensions of the Arts Centre; 4. The Tangata Whenua of Canterbury – reflecting the interests of iwi in the culture and heritage of Christchurch; 5. Christchurch Civic Trust – reflecting the community’s interests in the importance of good planning and urban design and prudent heritage conservation;
17 The concept of ‘independence’ in this context means the absence of conflicting loyalties’ to, for example, particular stakeholder bodies. By this measure employees or office holders of stakeholder bodies would be excluded from appointment regardless of, say, relevant professional skill sets.
BoardWorks International May 2012 ATTACHMENT 1 TO CLAUSE 17 245 COMMUNITY, RECREATION AND CULTURE COMMITTEE 6. 8. 2013 Christchurch Arts Centre 32 Governance Structure Review
6. Tourism Canterbury – reflecting the importance of the Arts Centre to the tourism sector in Canterbury; 7. A suitable organisation ‘Friends’ type organisation – such an organisation should be formed/reformed to reflect particular public interests in the Arts Centre and to contribute to the economic sustainability of the Arts Centre by carrying out various fund raising; and
The eighth member of the SRG would be an ‘independent’18 chairperson chosen for relevant professional expertise in corporate/institutional governance. This person would be appointed by the other 7 members. Filling the role with an independent will be important to ensure that, notwithstanding the representative nature of the SRG, there is a professional and high integrity electoral college and performance review function carried out that complements and supports the Arts Centre board.
While the SRG may not need to be a body corporate some formality is nevertheless desirable around ‘rules of engagement’, membership, convenorship, administration etc. Further legal advice is required on this point. It may be both possible and desirable, for example, to include a mechanism to appoint and maintain the SRG within the primary Trust Deed avoiding the need for a separate legal entity to be created.
Ideally, appointees to the SRG would serve for sufficient time to develop a good overview of the board’s needs and its performance but would also be refreshed from to time to time. Initial appointments should be for three years then staggered terms (of no more than 3 years) from that point on to start to generate some refreshment of the SRG’s membership. Over time the membership of this group also needs to be able to change to reflect changes in the Canterbury community and its evolving social and economic circumstances. There is a theoretical risk of collusion among the initial membership to maintain the status quo. It is worth considering, therefore, whether the determination of the bodies to be represented on the SRG from time to time could be made by the Minister for Arts, Culture and Heritage.
Governance related processes
Planning The board would be required to publish (after consultation with the SRG and the public) a strategic plan setting out its long-term (20 years) intentions for:
the protection, presentation, and management of the surviving (post earthquake) neo- Gothic stone buildings and other important heritage components on the Arts Centre site; the management of the Arts Centre as a sustainable operating entity with a focus on the facilitation of cultural and creative activities (which might not all be housed on the original Arts Centre site); and the management and possible further development of other parts of the current Arts Centre property and possible additional property acquisition commensurate with the original intent of the Trust.
18 Independent in this context means an absence of direct affiliation to the various stakeholder bodies.
BoardWorks International May 2012 ATTACHMENT 1 TO CLAUSE 17 246 COMMUNITY, RECREATION AND CULTURE COMMITTEE 6. 8. 2013 Christchurch Arts Centre 33 Governance Structure Review
The board would be expected to review and republish that long term plan no less often than every 5 years.
The need to prepare and publish and an annual ‘Statement of Intent’ is similar to the requirement placed on many other publicly owned enterprises. The board would also be required to prepare and consult with the SRG on an annual plan to give effect to the delivery of the near term aspects of the strategic plan. It would be required to report every 6 months to the SRG on the progress of implementing that plan. Because of its level of detail and potential commercial sensitivity, the annual plan would not be a public document although in the interest of accountability and communication the Arts Centre board should be encouraged to publish a summary of its plans for the year.
As noted earlier in the report there is no substitute for direct communication between a board and an organisation’s key stakeholders. The SRG would not be a substitute for bilateral relationships between the board and individual stakeholder organisations on matters of mutual interest.
Performance management As a properly remunerated and accountable governing board the Arts Centre Board would also be required to undertake an annual evaluation of board and director effectiveness and link this to an active succession planning process. Ideally, the evaluation process would be professionally conducted by an appropriately qualified third party chosen in conjunction with the SRG. The outcome of this process would reported in a suitable manner to the SRG and be a vital input to the SRG’s electoral college (ie board appointment) process.
Succession planning and recruitment The SRG would be entitled to take whatever steps it felt appropriate to identify suitable candidates to replace outgoing members of the board. As a minimum, however, board positions should be publicly notified and applications sought from suitably qualified individuals.
Governance related costs
The cost of governance-related processes (e.g. publication of strategic plans and the like, board evaluation, etc) and the remuneration of the board members would be met out of the general funds of the Arts Centre. It is likely that, in the short term, nett costs would increase. In the medium term, however, the expected improved performance of the Arts Centre would more than offset the higher overhead of a more ‘professional’ board.
Costs incurred individually by members of the SRG would be met by their respective nominating agencies. If there were other costs (e.g. if an independent chair was to be paid) unless otherwise agreed, these would be shared among the seven nominating organisations.19 No doubt SRG members would also be supported by their own institutions in undertaking the SRG’s monitoring role. Costs here would lie as they fall.
19 It is not unusual in such arrangements for there to be an ‘administering’ body – one of the nominating authorities – that would take responsibility for making payments and recovering costs on an agreed basis from the other participants. This may be complemented by the SRG having its own budgeting process.
BoardWorks International May 2012 ATTACHMENT 1 TO CLAUSE 17 247 COMMUNITY, RECREATION AND CULTURE COMMITTEE 6. 8. 2013 Christchurch Arts Centre 34 Governance Structure Review
6.3 Recommendation
A change to the status quo is essential. Option One would be a significant step forward but it is strongly recommended that the Trust pursue the implementation of Option 2. Option 2 is significantly better suited to addressing the various issues and opportunities identified in this report and to meeting the objectives set out in Section 6.1. In particular it is significantly better suited to meeting the following objectives (the other objectives could also be achieved by Option 1):
to enable the board to more readily adapt its membership to the needs and current circumstances of the Arts Centre; to reduce the size of the board; to improve the connection of the Arts Centre to its key stakeholders, recognising the public interest in the Arts Centre; to improve the accountability of the Board and its individual members for their performance as Trustees/Board members (including the clarification of their ‘prudent person’ responsibilities and their responsibility to the Trust ahead of personal or constituency interests); and to clarify the authority of different appointing authorities.
It may take some time to put this new structure in place. Nothing should detract from the urgency of creating an Arts Centre board membership that is ‘fit for purpose’ in meeting the post-earthquake challenges. If there is agreement in principle about the type of structural change the ideal would be that organisations with existing appointing rights would exercising these jointly in favour of an agreed skills matrix. The current Trust Deed essentially constrains appointing bodies to appoint from within their own ranks. A change to the Trust Deed to free them to make appointments of suitably qualified individuals regardless of organisational membership may be an acceptable as well as appropriate short-term measure. This would also be consistent with both Option One and Two.
BoardWorks International May 2012 ATTACHMENT 1 TO CLAUSE 17 248 COMMUNITY, RECREATION AND CULTURE COMMITTEE 6. 8. 2013 Christchurch Arts Centre 35 Governance Structure Review
7. Legal Status
In this final section attention is paid to possible alternative legal frameworks to give effect to the preferred structure.
7.1 Charitable trust
As note earlier in the report, the Arts Centre of Christchurch Trust Board is incorporated as a trust board pursuant to the terms of the Charitable Trusts Act 1957. This has the effect of the Trustees collectively taking on a corporate personality and acting as a separate corporate entity or trust board as opposed to a group of individual trustees. The Trust Board may do any act which a body corporate may legally do.
The original 1978 Trust Deed obliges the Trust Board to retain ownership of the Arts Centre land so that the facilities are available to the people of Christchurch (and elsewhere) for cultural purposes and to ensure that the heritage integrity of the land and buildings is retained This is a fundamentally charitable purpose.
The Trust Board has received some criticism that it is an undemocratic organisation but it is legally a private entity. It is quite different to an incorporated society where membership is open to the public (or sections of the public) and members of the society have a right to be a part of, or vote on, questions relating to the conduct of the society’s affairs. Also, information held by the Trust Board is not governed by any legislation relating to the release of official information and is not, therefore, required to respond to requests for information whether of a commercial or otherwise confidential nature or not.
The terms of the Trust can be varied by resolution of the Trust Board. At least six supplemental deeds or their equivalent have been authorised since the founding Trust Deed in 1978. There is no restriction on this power other than that the alterations or additions shall not detract from or alter the exclusively charitable objects of the trust. Various legal actions have validated the trust board's power to make such changes and it has and affirmed that it has not strayed from or compromised the original intent of the trust.
The Trust Board may build new buildings and/or demolish old buildings on the site provided its power is exercised in accord with the charitable purposes of the trust. Any such demolition and or new building must comply with the need to promote, conserve and maintain the heritage integrity of the land and buildings of the Arts Centre. The Trust Board may also sell property but not property which comprises the very raison d'être of the trust.
Power to intervene in the affairs of the Trust (e.g. if certain parties consider that the Trust Board is acting in a manner inconsistent with the purpose of the trust) is vested in the High Court. The High Court also has jurisdiction to review decisions made by charitable trusts. However, the extent to which the Trust Board's decisions might be successfully reviewed will be dependent to a large degree on the extent to which the action in question is of a public law character. Certain features of the Trust (e.g. its board composition, its purpose and the ownership and location of
BoardWorks International May 2012 ATTACHMENT 1 TO CLAUSE 17 249 COMMUNITY, RECREATION AND CULTURE COMMITTEE 6. 8. 2013 Christchurch Arts Centre 36 Governance Structure Review its physical assets) might suggest that the Trust Board is, in fact, exercising a quasi public function.
Retaining the trust structure has some attractions. The Trust is somewhat of a known quantity and experience has shown that the Trust Deed can be amended when appropriate. The degree of autonomy that the Trust has in this is attractive in comparison with alternatives such as a statutory entity. There are deficiencies in the current structure of the Trust Board from a governance perspective and there has also been criticism about transparency and accountability. With the support of the various appointing bodies, however, it may not be difficult to change/improve some of these features.
While a statutory framework might facilitate a greater public sector financial commitment the loss of the Trust Board’s private status could compromise other sources of funding. As a rule community based and private philanthropists are reluctant to fund ‘government’ entities.
Its status as a charitable trust for taxation purposes is quite clear.
7.2 Incorporated society
Conceptually it would be possible to envisage the Arts Centre set up as an incorporated society. However, an incorporated society would not so easily embrace the concepts in Option Two (such as, for example, the stakeholder representative group). Another consideration is that the explicit standards of accountability of the boards or committees of incorporated societies are currently below those inherent in other governance arrangements. This deficiency has recently been reviewed by the Law Commission and may change (improve) in the future.
There are examples of similar bodies (e.g. MOTAT) which had their origins in incorporated societies that later proved to be less than suited to the task.
7.3 Company with charitable objects
Another option which may be worth considering but which would require further legal advice is the establishment of a company structure under the Companies Act 1993. A company with charitable objects is able to meet the requirements of the Charities Act 2005 that surplus funds must be applied to charitable purposes within New Zealand as are specified in the Charities Act 2005 and which comprise:
the relief of poverty; the advancement of education; and any other matter beneficial to the community
The principal reason for considering such a structure would be the opportunity to create an ownership structure in which the shareholders would be a selection of stakeholder groups. The Companies Act 1993 also contains a clear expression of the fiduciary duties required of directors of a company.
BoardWorks International May 2012 ATTACHMENT 1 TO CLAUSE 17 250 COMMUNITY, RECREATION AND CULTURE COMMITTEE 6. 8. 2013 Christchurch Arts Centre 37 Governance Structure Review
Taken overall, however, this type of structure would not seem to have a particular advantage over other options, including the status quo.
7.4 Special statute
During the consultative process people have pointed to the statutory basis for comparable organisations such as the Canterbury Museum and the Museum of Transport and Technology (MOTAT) in Auckland. A primary feature (and attraction) of those statutory arrangements is that they provide for the compulsory levying of local authorities in the entity's catchment area for funding support.
Christchurch City Council representatives advised that this is not an attractive option from their perspective. The Council is the custodian of numerous valuable heritage properties (e.g. the Provincial Chambers) that have been badly damaged by earthquakes and its primary financial obligation must be to the recovery of those properties. It was also suggested that the Council's current obligations in relation to the Canterbury Museum would not make a comparable initiative in relation to the Arts Centre attractive. Apart from the Canterbury Museum there is no history of other local authorities in the region providing direct support for the Arts Centre. They would also, therefore, be unlikely to wish to take on extra funding obligations at this time. It should be noted, however, that this assumption has not been tested as part of this exercise.
Should the Trust Board wish to pursue this option there are a number of pathways.
1. A Government Bill. This would be an act of Parliament to re-establish the Arts Centre promoted by the government of the day. As such it would have to compete with the government and the legislative priorities and is unlikely to attract any agency.
2. A Member's Bill. Bills that affect public policy but are not part of the Government’s legislative programme can be introduced by Members of Parliament other than Ministers. However, there is, typically, limited time in the legislative programme to consider such bills. Consequently, there is a ballot for their introduction. The political reality is that most Members’ bills do not get passed. This option really is a lottery!
3. A Local Bill. Local bills are promoted by local authorities and deal with matters confined to a particular locality usually to allow a function not authorised by the general law to be undertaken. The local Member of Parliament is likely to be the member in charge of a local bill. A fee is payable by the promoter in recognition of the costs associated with processing the bill.
4. A Private Bill. Private bills provide for a particular interest or benefit in the form of an exemption from the general law for an individual or group of people. The promoter of a private bill asks a Member of Parliament to take charge of the bill as it progresses through the House. A small fee is also payable for a private bill. Private bills are comparatively infrequent.
BoardWorks International May 2012 ATTACHMENT 1 TO CLAUSE 17 251 COMMUNITY, RECREATION AND CULTURE COMMITTEE 6. 8. 2013 Christchurch Arts Centre 38 Governance Structure Review
None of these options appears to be a particularly attractive choice. Should changes be needed later on, the need to go through a further legislative process to get these approved is even less attractive (and even less likely to succeed).20
In other respects, the construction of a suitable statutory framework would provide a good opportunity to redesign, from the ground up, the governance structure and processes of the Arts Centre to address issues identified in this report, including a transition from a representative to a skills-based board. This appears to have been the case with the conversion to statutory form of MOTAT in 2000. MOTAT was previously under the ownership and stewardship of an incorporated society. The adoption of the statutory framework was intended to provide MOTAT with a new skills-based governance structure and a basis for secure funding by all local authorities in the Auckland region. Previously local government funding for MOTAT had been on a ‘grace and favour’ basis as, indeed, is the case with local government funding for the Arts Centre. The museum was also primarily dependent on Auckland City Council which was seen as inequitable in the light of its visitors and users coming from across the whole Auckland region. While funding objectives may have been achieved it is understood MOTAT still suffers from aspects of a representative culture stemming from the right of the Museum of Transport and Technology Society to appoint 4 members of the board.
From a public perspective the attraction of the Arts Centre becoming a statutory body would be in more explicit accountability to the public and greater transparency. It is possible, for example, that the Arts Centre would become subject to ombudsman and official information related legislative accountabilities.
To the extent that this option appears to be primarily attractive as a means of obtaining secure local government funding which is unlikely to attract local authority support, this option does not have any particular appeal over the retention of the current Trust Board structure.
7.5 Public ownership
This report has thus far assumed that the Arts Centre would continue to be directed and controlled by a single purpose entity such as the current Trust Board. Its recommendations have focused on the challenges facing such a standalone body. However, there is one other option that should be considered. The challenges facing the Arts Centre may now be of such magnitude and importance that a return to public ownership - within an entity with a wider scope - should be considered.
Crown ownership
With the earthquake related loss of other heritage and architecturally significant buildings the Arts Centre has become even more important to the post-earthquake recovery (including the economic recovery) of Christchurch. To oversee that recovery the Government has created a
20 It has been suggested that a 'best of both worlds' option might be to legislate for the core elements of the organisation and include the balance (e.g. the governance arrangements) to a trust deed appended to the enactment. Further advice would be required on the feasibility of this option and its practicability.
BoardWorks International May 2012 ATTACHMENT 1 TO CLAUSE 17 252 COMMUNITY, RECREATION AND CULTURE COMMITTEE 6. 8. 2013 Christchurch Arts Centre 39 Governance Structure Review special purpose Crown entity (CERA). Ownership of the Arts Centre would not seem central to the purpose of an earthquake recovery authority but there are other options.
Since its formation the Arts Centre has had a substantive heritage preservation purpose. The most obvious Crown entity, therefore, to assume ownership, or at least custodianship, of the Arts Centre, is the Historic Places Trust. The HPT already has a close interest in the Arts Centre through its right of nomination to the Trust board. The HPT has a portfolio of historically significant buildings throughout the country and has the governance and professional capability to both own and operate the buildings in accordance with the terms of the Trust. As a Crown entity it would also, presumably, have the legal capacity to assume the current assets and liabilities of the Trust Board.
This option has not been discussed with the HPT which is in a process of transition from being a membership body to a more ‘pure’ Crown entity. However, the HPT has a history of working closely with local communities to achieve heritage objectives. The HPT has also addressed the same challenge facing the Trust board - of providing public access and generating more revenue from the properties in its care while respecting and enhancing their heritage and architectural values.
It is also possible to conceive of a Crown ownership option that is focused solely on the Arts Centre but that would also require a Crown entity to be created by legislation for that purpose. There is unlikely to be great appetite for such a creation. Its comparatively small scale and geographic specificity would be relatively unattractive and the precedent established may prove problematic to future administrations.
That is not to say, however, that the Arts Centre could not fit comfortably within a larger entity created separately from the HPT to bring similar sets of buildings together under the same administrative ‘roof’. The present HPT has advocacy, regulatory and property management functions that do not always sit easily alongside each other. It may be attractive in the future to separate those functions into different organisational structures.
Local authority ownership
If an ‘ownership’ option is to be considered another obvious alternative is ownership by an appropriate local authority. This could be either the Christchurch City Council or the Canterbury Regional Council. The City Council has a current right to nominate to the Trust Board; the Regional Council has had it in the past (when the Council was first formed in 1989).
If, however, one of the reasons for a change was to give the Arts Centre a ‘home’ that would offer greater certainty about both post earthquake restoration and future sustainability, neither option would seem particularly attractive in the present environment. Current government policy seems set on a course of scaling back the cost (and thereby the scope) of local government activities. Adding an asset of this nature and size to a current local authority balance sheet would not seem attractive in this context. Nor might the public’s expectations for how such a group of properties should be managed and used in future, appeal to local authority leaders challenged to deal effectively with responsibilities they already have.
BoardWorks International May 2012 ATTACHMENT 1 TO CLAUSE 17 253 COMMUNITY, RECREATION AND CULTURE COMMITTEE 6. 8. 2013 Christchurch Arts Centre 40 Governance Structure Review
7.6 Considerations in selecting an ideal legal framework for the Arts Centre
Once decisions are made in principle on the preferred governance structural arrangements further attention should be paid to the options for the most appropriate legal framework. The following considerations should be taken into acount.
Clarity of purpose. The arrangements should take into account that the Arts Centre needs to be governed in a more public manner befitting what is rather more a ‘public’ than a ‘private’ purpose. Also that the Arts Centre is primarily a ‘regional’ facility but has a national and perhaps even an international dimension. Sufficient empowerment for the entity to be able to achieve its purpose. The ability/facility to exercise its judgement free of direction from other parties but with the integrity and validity of its actions reviewable in a public law sense. The ability to make changes, undertake developments etc. which do not compromise the original purpose of the Trust. Preservation of its charitable and non-taxable status. It is a non-profit entity whose revenue (including ‘commercial’ revenue) is put to a charitable purpose. The structure must facilitate the receipt of financial support from central and local government as well as from other sources. There should be clarity of accountability o The board must run the entity in the ‘public interest’ o It must be accountable for the highest standards of governance performance (fiduciary duties) o It must be accountable and ‘transparent’ to ‘the public’ for its stewardship overall and in regards to certain processes (e.g. planning, fund raising and expenditure). The commensurate ability to remunerate the governors of the entity to reinforce expectations of performance and accountability. The purpose of the Arts Centre should be inviolate but the structures and processes of governance need to be sufficiently flexible that they can evolve over time. The board needs to be able to determine its own internal processes. The ability to ensure that arrangements in relation to stakeholder involvement can be easily updated to reflect the changing institutional landscape.
BoardWorks International May 2012 ATTACHMENT 1 TO CLAUSE 17 254 COMMUNITY, RECREATION AND CULTURE COMMITTEE 6. 8. 2013 Christchurch Arts Centre 41 Governance Structure Review
Appendix 1: Consultations
The following individuals or groups have been interviewed as part of this review
Existing Trustees:
Cindy Robinson, Chair Deane Simmons, Deputy Chair Garry Jeffrey Martin Hadlee Gillian Heald Jen Crawford Margaret Austin Sir Tipene O’Regan Paula Rigby Michael Rondel
Past trustees:
Deborah McCormick John Simpson, former chairman Derek Anderson
Chief Executive:
Ken Franklin
Plus representatives of:
Canterbury University Christchurch City Council Historic Places Trust (national and local) Civic Trust Tourism Canterbury Save Our Arts Centre (SOAC) The Court Theatre The Canterbury Earthquake Recovery Authority (CERA) The Trust Board's legal advisers, Simpson Grierson (Auckland)
BoardWorks International May 2012 ATTACHMENT 2 TO CLAUSE 17 255 COMMUNITY, RECREATION AND CULTURE COMMITTEE 6. 8. 2013
1 ATTACHMENT 2 TO CLAUSE 17 256 COMMUNITY, RECREATION AND CULTURE COMMITTEE 6. 8. 2013
2 ATTACHMENT 3 TO CLAUSE 17 257 COMMUNITY, RECREATION AND CULTURE COMMITTEE 6. 8. 2013
Governance Review - Board Recommendations - October 2012
Establishment of a new Arts Centre Trust Board based on the following key principles:
1. A skills-based Board, with skills and attributes that are in line with the objects of the Trust Deed but also with sufficient flexibility to adjust the skill-set as required during the restoration phase.
2. A reduction in the overall size of the Board, to between 7-9 trustees.
3. Trustee appointments for a term of 3 years, renewable for a further 3 years.
4. Trustees would be expected to undertake specific governance responsibilities from time to time depending on skill-set.
5. Provision for Ministerial appointment of a trustee to the Board, to recognise the national significance of the Arts Centre as a heritage asset.
6. Remuneration of Chair, as well as trustees on a meeting attendance basis, with remuneration to be set by an independent advisor.
7. Board to elect Chair on an annual basis.
8. Identification and recognition of Stakeholders with the following roles: a. A conduit to effective communication and oversight into the Board's activities. b. A consultative role in the appointment process of new trustees, with the ability to nominate prospective trustees for consideration. c. Broad local representation which may include tertiary institutions, local authorities, local iwi/hapu, New Zealand Historic Places Trust and Canterbury Heritage Trust, Christchurch Civic Trust, Canterbury Employers Chamber of Commerce – Canterbury and Christchurch Tourism, Arts Voice, Youth organisations and an Arts Centre Association.
9. Establishment of an Appointments Committee, comprising 2 trustees (including the Chair) and 2 suitably qualified independent persons, with following appointment process: a. Board to notify all Stakeholders of any upcoming vacancies. b. All Stakeholders have the ability to submit up to 2 nominations for consideration by the Appointments Committee (with an indication of the skills of the candidate and the agreement of the candidate to the nomination). c. Appointments Committee to prepare a short list, conduct the interviews and recommend appointment to the Board. d. Board to appoint new trustee(s) and communicate outcome to Stakeholders and the wider community.
The Board's preferred option for implementing a revised governance structure is through legislation to codify the objects of the Trust Deed. Such legislation will reflect the autonomy of the Board and its enhanced accountability. The Board also recognises the potential to consider the identity and branding of the site going forward.
The Board considers that ownership of the land and buildings should be vested independently in trust and governed by the Board, but with an amendment to clause 11 of the Trust Deed to enable the site to be vested in the Crown in the event that the Trust is unable to fulfil its obligations.
JMC-861644-5-25-V4 ATTACHMENT 3 TO CLAUSE 17 258 COMMUNITY, RECREATION AND CULTURE COMMITTEE 6. 8. 2013
As part of the revised governance structure, it is anticipated that the Board would be responsible for:
Developing and communicating the long term Vision for the Arts Centre, Board Charter to reflect the nature of the governance structure, Strategic Plan, policy development, monitoring and evaluating against the Annual Plan.
Setting and evaluating the KPIs for the Chief Executive.
Appointing new trustees (as per the above process).
Effectively communicating policy direction and key strategic decisions to the community, based on principles of transparency and accountability (including publishing Strategic Plan and Annual Report, AGM to be held in public etc.).
JMC-861644-5-25-V4 259
COMMUNITY, RECREATION AND CULTURE COMMITTEE 6. 8. 2013
20. HERITAGE UPDATE INCLUDING MAJESTIC THEATRE AND MCLEANS MANSION
Verbal update from staff.
260 261
COMMUNITY, RECREATION AND CULTURE COMMITTEE 6. 8. 2013
18. RESOLUTION TO EXCLUDE THE PUBLIC
Attached. 262 263
6. 8. 2013
COMMUNITY, RECREATION AND CULTURE COMMITTEE
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 19.
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:
GENERAL SUBJECT OF EACH REASON FOR PASSING THIS GROUND(S) UNDER SECTION MATTER TO BE CONSIDERED RESOLUTION IN RELATION TO 48(1) FOR THE PASSING OF EACH MATTER THIS RESOLUTION
PART A 19. CROSSDALE COURTS, 7 – 9 ) GOOD REASON TO SECTION 48(1)(a) CURLETTS ROAD, UPPER ) WITHHOLD EXISTS RICCARTON ) UNDER SECTION 7
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 REASON UNDER ACT SECTION PLAIN ENGLISH REASON WHEN REPORT CAN BE RELEASED
19. Privacy of Natural 7(2)(a) Information on financial Persons position of residents
Prejudice of Commercial 7(2)(b)ii Commercially sensitive Position information
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.”