RICCARTON/WIGRAM COMMUNITY BOARD

12 DECEMBER 1995

A meeting of the Riccarton/Wigram Community Board

was held at Sockburn Service Centre

on Tuesday 12 December 1995 at 6.00pm

PRESENT Mr D Buist (Chairperson)

Mr G Berry, Mrs H Broughton, Mrs M Corbett,
Mr I Ganda, Mrs L Keast, Mr M Kunnen, Mr M Mora and Mr B Shearing. 1. APOLOGY Nil Mr G Berry retired at 7.30pm and was present for discussion on all clauses and part of clause 3. PART A - MATTERS REQUIRING A COUNCIL DECISION

Nil PART B - ITEMS DEALT WITH BY THE BOARD AND

REPORTED FOR INFORMATION ONLY

2. MATTERS ARISING FROM 4 DECEMBER 1995 MEETING At the 4 December meeting the Community Board was attended by persons who had been granted speaking rights on various matters. By resolution the Board held over further consideration of these matters for on-site inspections and referral to today's meeting. 2.1 FERRIER PARK PINE TREE - APPLICATION TO REMOVE

A petition has been received from Mr Peter Kircher and ten others which addresses the sole pine tree located in the south east corner of Ferrier Park, Nortons Road. The prayer of the petition reads: "We feel that this tree has got too large in this corner of the park. Since this area has now been developed for residential purposes this tree is causing problems with pine needles in house guttering, shading of houses during winter and during high winds broken branches are likely to cause property damage." In his letter to the Community Manager, Mr Kircher writes: "I enclose a copy of a petition from residents of the south east corner of Ferrier Park requesting the removal of the sole pine tree. This has been forwarded to the Mayor, Vicki Buck, who in reply has suggested that we refer to your office in respect to the removal. It is with some concern that this petition is forwarded for your consideration as although the tree has been attractive in the park in years past, it is now in excess of fifty years old. Whilst it is an evergreen, the tree continually loses its pine needles and other "rubbish" which makes the clearing of these from gutters, gardens and lawns an ongoing problem. In recent high winds a reasonably large branch was snapped and was a danger to those using the park. The nuisance of this, together with the relative shading from the sun, does not enhance the "quiet enjoyment" of our properties. The park is attractive with the other trees and shrubs, but is spoiled with an old and common type of tree, which is not appreciated by residents in the vicinity or other "users". I trust that your Board will give the petition your favourable consideration and approve its removal at an early date. Should you wish to discuss the matter, I may be contacted as above." Mr Kircher was invited to address the members on his petition. He advised that he was under the understanding that when he purchased the property the particular pine tree was going to be removed but he did concede that this advice was not given by the Council. Mr Kircher believed that the tree could be a danger, especially in high winds, and he also reinforced some of the comments made within his petition. The Board was in receipt of an extensive report from the Area Parks Officer. "Background

Following approaches to the first term of the Community Board in 1991, the Riccarton/Wigram Community Boar, after careful consideration of the facts, agreed to remove seven pine trees from Ferrier Park. These trees were removed as they had been pruned poorly and had lost their natural form and was not able to be "repaired" by pruning. At the time of consideration one lone remaining pine tree was retained as it was seen as a good specimen of Pinus radiata. This tree had not been topped and it was agreed that it should stay. In 1993 the large property at 37 Avonhead Road was developed and permission was sought to erect five units on this site. The Parks Unit made a submission seeking to restrict the development to four units, or if five were allowed that a covenant be placed on the titles of the three rear units which would protect the Council from any request to remove the Ferrier Park trees. The applicant's counsel submitted that the Property Law Act 1952 was the correct forum to address the issue of this pine tree, not the consent hearing panel. Under this legislation the Act provides for property owners to apply to the court for an order that the tree on an adjoining property be removed or topped if it can be proved that the tree is unduly interfering with that person's enjoyment of their property. The critical term in the decision making process is "significant nuisance" preventing the "quiet enjoyment " of the applicant's property". The Parks Unit submission was seen as inappropriate by the panel who considered "that the Property Law Amendment Act was the legislation which should be used should a problem arise as a result of the location of the tree on Ferrier Park in relation to the units on the application site". Application to Remove

Mr Peter Kircher of Unit 5, 37 Avonhead Road, has made approaches to have this tree removed. Initially they were declined and this has resulted in a letter and petition being sent to the Mayor, now put before the Riccarton/Wigram Community Board for your consideration. The Pine Tree

This tree is still a good specimen. Residents claim that its presence spoils the park as it is an old and common type of tree. Their main problem is stated that this tree continually loses pine needles and other "rubbish" which makes the clearing of leaves from gutters, gardens and lawns an ongoing problem. A small to medium sized branch broke off in recent high winds and shading does not "enhance the quiet enjoyment of our properties". The tree does not currently encroach over any property boundary. It is stated as being over 50 years old but this is not "old" in terms of life expectancy. A good pine can see out 100 years plus. All trees drop leaves or needles and twigs etc, and storm damage is not uncommon in trees in parks. Certainly this branch break is not seen as a reason to cut the tree down. The shading may be a significant factor, the duration of which would be required to be measured to be considered. The Parks Unit's Perspective

The Parks Unit does not support the removal of this tree. As section sizes become smaller with increasing infill housing, parks are becoming a sanctuary for larger trees. This is even stated in the Proposed City Plan. The Parks Unit argues that retention is in the interests of the wider community that makes up the catchment area of this reserve. Also, that the maintenance of an aesthetically pleasing environment and the desirability of protecting public reserves containing trees. There have been statements that scruffy old pine trees have no place in parks. Beauty is certainly the eye of the beholder. The tree is currently home to a large number of birds, with many nests evident within its canopy providing a delight to those park users whose interests lie in the broader context of the ecosystem in our parks. Living next to a park has its pluses and minuses. The impact of a pine tree is seen as a small price to pay for the benefit of having a good neighbour, namely the Parks Unit, provide a wealth of open space at your front door." The Area Parks Officer recommended that the petition seeking the removal of the Ferrier Park pine tree be declined by the Riccarton/Wigram Community Board." Following consideration of the report and the presentation made to the Board by Mr Kircher, the Board resolved to undertake an on-site inspection of the Ferrier Park site and that this matter would be held over for consideration to this meeting. General discussion on the petitioner's request and the on-site inspection followed. Members were not able to support the request to remove the pine tree. The Board resolved that the petition to remove the sole pine tree, situated in the south-east corner of Ferrier Park, be declined.

2.2 HARAKEKE STREET/RICCARTON SERVICE LANE - PROPOSED TRAFFIC MANAGEMENT At the 4 December meeting of the Community Board a spokesperson for the local residents group (Mr Murray Greig of the Special Development Zone 7 residents group) addressed the Board on the proposal by the Area Traffic Engineer with respect to the Harakeke Street, Riccarton service lane proposed traffic management works. Mr Greig advised the committee that for nearly ten years the residents group had been concerned with the impact onto Harakeke Street of the service lane and the need to have a clear division between the residential and commercial boundaries within this area. Mr Greig commented on the two options being promoted by the Area Traffic Engineer. Option 1 showed the traffic restraint being set on the northern side of the service lane but situated where the new Jane Deans Close residential subdivision access road entered Harakeke Street. Option 2 had been drawn up following resident consultation, again on the northern side of the service lane but situated between the lane and the access road. Mr Greig asked the Board to support Option 2 work and whilst he did acknowledge that there would be some loss of on-street parking, this work was seen to be more in keeping with what was originally intended by the Local Area Traffic Management Plan for this area. Mr Greig answered questions from members also. The Board was in receipt of a report from the Area Traffic Engineer. "Background

In October of this year the Traffic Unit distributed a publicity pamphlet to the local community outlining the intention to construct a cobblestone traffic threshold in Harakeke Street just north of the Riccarton Service Lane. This threshold would complete the traffic management works in Harakeke Street outlined in the Special Development Zone 7 LATM (Local Area Traffic Management Plan) adopted by the previous community Board earlier this year. Consultation

In this instance I attended a meeting with local residents to discuss the proposal in more detail. Concerns were raised by the residents association that the plan as advertised was not in accordance with the LATM with respect to location or degree of severity. I concur with this comment. The reason for departing from the LATM in this instance was as a consequence of a proceeding subdivision incorporating a new road that will intersect with Harakeke Street slightly further north of the Service Lane. It was felt that a harsh traffic restraint and a new intersection in very close proximity could not be accomplished without compromising geometric design and safety standards. The plan as advertised sought to amalgamate the traffic restraint and the new intersection. The outcome is a less severe traffic restraint but one which safely accommodates all traffic manoeuvres at the new intersection. An Alternative Design

As a consequence of the meeting with residents I undertook a review of previously considered options and also considered some new options. Option 2 as illustrated stood out as the most viable alternative which was more in accordance with the severity depicted by a "6" or "very strong restraint" in the LATM. Option 2 accommodates the new intersection with a slight compromise in traffic safety involving visibility, which can be overcome by low level planting or grass berm in the area marked "A" on the illustrated plan. This alternative has been viewed and supported by those residents attending the meeting. It was considered prudent to give those residents directly affected by the alternative design a chance to inspect the proposal and consider the impact on their respective properties. The proposal directly affects numbers 5 to 7 and number 8 Harakeke Street. Numbers 5 to 7 are used as an elderly persons home "Harakeke Home" and number 8 is a large residence split into three flats. Both property owners are concerned at the effects of the alternative option on the level of kerbside parking. The alternative option denies all parking in front of each address. Both owners would prefer the existing option as advertised. In my opinion both the views of the residents association and the views of those property owners directly affected need to be given careful consideration. Summary of advantages and disadvantages of each option were given. Conclusion

The issues are finely balanced because both options have some strong advantages. From a technical perspective, in my opinion the safety of road users is the primary consideration. The preservation of the residential character of Harakeke Street by reducing the volume of through traffic is still an important objective. However, this should be achieved without significantly compromising safety. In this instance I do not think it is possible to construct a severe traffic restraint without some loss of safety. However, the safety of any traffic restraint is largely dependent of the behaviour of the motorist negotiating the restraint. As mentioned earlier, by keeping landscaping to a low level the safety of the alternative option (option 2) can be optimised. However it would not be as safe as the original option (option 1). The Area Traffic Engineer recommended to the Board that it proceed with the Option 1 work." When this matter was considered by the Board the concerns of the residents and their expectations were noted and there was discussion on the need to provide what was perhaps originally intended (that being to have a "very strong" restraint north of the Service Lane) but had now been superseded with the development of the proposed residential subdivision. The Board resolved to accept Option 2 as the preferred option and that this be circulated for comment. The Board agreed to undertake an on-site inspection of the Harakeke Street traffic management works and that this matter would be held over for consideration to the Special Board meeting scheduled for Tuesday 12 December 1995. The resolution was laid on the table. An on-site inspection was held prior to the meeting, attended by Mr Greig and residents of the area. Whilst on-site members saw the various traffic manoeuvres that motorists undertook to `overcome' the Riccarton Road/Harakeke Street median, and their continued use of Harakeke Street. The Board, in discussion, agreed to rescind their (4 December) tabled resolution which favoured `Option 2'. The Board resolved that a one-way slow point road hump, in association with a half-street width planting strip be placed immediately north of the Riccarton Service Lane be approved, subject to favourable consultation with those residences immediately affected (being Nos 4, 7 and 8 Harakeke Street) and the SDZ 7 Committee.

2.3 SHANDS CRESCENT RESERVE PLAY EQUIPMENT PETITION

Speaking rights had been granted to Ms Justine Mouat in respect to the placing of play equipment in the now disused pond on the Shands Crescent reserve. The previous term of the Community Board had agreed to allocate monies from its Project Fund to enable the installation of play equipment to be erected on the disused pond and physical work actually had commenced in the recent weeks. Ms Mouat was in attendance to seek a postponement of this work and she had provided some information and also collected signatures on a petition which read as follows: "The residents of Shands Crescent and surrounding areas are opposed to the placement of children's play equipment and the creating of a play area in the unused pool in Shands Reserve on the grounds of children's safety and the destruction of a beautiful peaceful environment which is the special character of this park." In her presentation to the Board Ms Mouat commented on various matters including safety, environment, and also offered solutions to this area and suggested that the nearby Paeroa Reserve would be a much better alternative for the following reasons: * Good visibility from many houses in a caring community

* An area that 2-12 year olds already play in

* Location of Plunket Group

* Safer environment being located further from roads, ie Riccarton Road

* Better access

* A greater residential catchment Ms Mouat answered questions from members.

The Area Parks Officer provided the following report: "Summary The Annual Plan lists the new installation of play equipment to be erected in the old disused pond on Shands Crescent Reserve this financial year, 1995/96. $20,000 has been allocated by the previous Board from its Project Fund. Further to consultation of the Annual Plan a letterbox drop has been distributed to the reserve catchment. The proposal has appeared also in the local newspaper. No submissions have been received in any of these processes, either for or against the proposal. The Parks Unit has entered into a contract to build and install this playground with the contractor who has built the play equipment and is awaiting instructions to install it. At this late stage of proceedings questions now arise in the community? Background The previous Board, in addressing questions about the empty pond on Shands Crescent Reserve, resolved to allocate $20,000 from its 1995/96 Project Fund to construct play equipment in this "pond" and fill it with bark chips as safety undersurfacing. Consultation This proposal was advertised consistent with our statutory obligation to undertake consultation as an important part of our annual budget planning process. No submissions were received during the month allowed for submissions. As a result the budget allocation was approved for expenditure during this (1995/96) financial year. At this stage of the process the immediate reserve catchment had not been canvassed for their views on this proposal. Accordingly a letterbox drop pamphlet was distributed to the following streets: * Shands Crescent

* Tara Street

* Paeroa Street

* Piko Crescent

* Peverel Street - part

* Euston Street - one side only

* Rattray Street - one side only

* Riccarton Road - part

* Konini Street

* Totara Street - part only

* Puriri Street - part only

* Clyde Road - part only This letterbox drop was distributed in August of this year. By closing date for submissions (Friday 25 August 1995) no submissions had been received. Further to this the item was promulgated in the local newspaper. In view of this the appropriate planning was undertaken and the playground constructed. It was due to be installed beginning on the week of Monday 27 November 1995. The Petition The Area Parks Officer received a call from Justine Mouat on Thursday 23 November. This was the first time any officer of the Council was aware of any problems in the community about this development proceeding. By Friday 24 November a petition had been raised and our Parks Project Officer approached by some residents while marking out the location of the playground on-site with the contractor. It was decided to delay the installation until the Board had considered the petition. This put considerable pressure on the contractor who at very short notice had to reschedule work for the week of 27 November. Installation cannot now take place until after Christmas due to prior commitments. The Area Parks Officer recommended that in view of the late stage of proceedings to erect this play structure in Shand Crescent Reserve and with cognisance of the full programme of community consultation already undertaken, the Riccarton/Wigram Community Board resolve that the proposal to erect this play structure in the disused pond on Shands Crescent Reserve proceed." The Board resolved to undertake an on-site inspection of the Shands Crescent and Paeroa Reserve sites and that this matter would be held over for consideration to the Special Board Meeting schedules for Tuesday 12 December 1995. An on-site inspection was held prior to the meeting, attended by Ms Mouat and residents of the area. Members viewed both the Shands Crescent area and Paeroa Reserve. Much discussion followed at the meeting. The Board resolved to endorse its previous decision to allow the installation of play equipment in the disused pond on the Shands Crescent Reserve, subject to minor changes these being to retain the existing rock feature and to relocate a picnic table.

2.4 BELLA ROSA DRIVE - PARKING RESTRICTION REQUEST

The previous Board considered in May 1995 a petition from residents requesting time limit parking in Bella Rosa Drive because staff from Tegel Foods were parking for long periods outside their properties. At this time the board made the following resolutions: 1. That the Council contact Tegel Foods Ltd requesting that they encourage all employees to park on-site to satisfy adjoining residents. 2. That the Board decline the petition's request to install time limited parking in Bella Rosa Drive at this time. 3. That the Council's Parking Unit be asked to undertake enforcement work within this area. 4. That Transit New Zealand be requested to - (a) Investigate the current parking restrictions on Carmen Road on the south-eastern side in the proximity of Tegel Foods Ltd as retention of these broken yellow lines was not seen as warranted.

(b) Consider the placement of time limit parking (P120) on the north-western side of Carmen Road from Bella Rosa Drive to Tirangi Street. The Area Traffic Engineer advised the Board that items 1 and 3 have been acted upon. Tegel Foods Ltd Human Resources Adviser has been contacted with a view to encouraging all employees to park on-site. Unfortunately, in some instances, parking on the road is actually closer or more convenient to employees than parking at the rear of the site. There is no legal obligation for Tegel to enforce parking on their site only. The Council's Parking Enforcement Unit has been asked to include this area in their enforcement rounds. Following discussions with Transit New Zealand, they have advised that the broken yellow line that currently exists adjacent the Tegel frontage is there for safety reasons in that it improves the visibility for traffic exiting the site. It is not considered appropriate to remove this restriction. The placement of time limit parking (P120) on the north-western side of Carmen Road from Bella Rosa Drive to Tirangi Street would tend to move the parked vehicles even further into Bella Rosa Drive. This would be inappropriate considering the original petitioners against kerbside parking came predominantly from Bella Rosa Drive. The Area Traffic Engineer has inspected the extent of the problem in Bella Rosa Drive on many occasions and at different times of the day. I find that the problem is generally isolated to about six vehicles near the Carmen Road intersection. Kerbside parking is still available to all residential properties to cater for visitors etc. In the Area Traffic Engineer's opinion no further action is required on this matter under the existing circumstances. Following full discussion on this matter the Board resolved to undertake an on-site inspection of the Bella Rosa Drive area and that this matter would be held over for consideration at this meeting. An on-site inspection was held prior to the Board meeting. Following discussion, a resolution seeking to place a P120 time limit parking restriction in Bella Rosa Drive, up to and including Cataluna Place was lost. The Board received the Area Traffic Engineer's report. (Mr B Shearing declared a pecuniary interest in this item and took no part in the discussion and voting.)

3. 1996/97 ANNUAL PLAN - CAPITAL WORKS PROGRAMME

Members discussed the recommendation from the Financial Planning Manager to re-evaluate and prioritise those projects that the Board may wish to seek funding for from the unspecified funds in Year 1 (1996/97) and Year 2 (1997/98) of the Capital Works Programme. Members then undertook the re-evaluation of the 16 August Special Meeting of the Board's priorities, along with the Unit Manager responses to the Board schedules. The Board resolved that the following priority projects be promoted for funding from the unspecified funds (in single priority order). 1. Waterloo Road (Islington - Templeton)

cycleway development $126,000 2. Maidstone Road/Waimairi Road intersection

safety works (¹/2 share with Fendalton/Waimairi) $22,500 3. Leslie Park Car Park $20,000 4. Hornby Local Area Traffic Management Scheme $30,000 5. Waterloo Road Stage II (Fulham-Brixton)

landscaping $10,000 6. Halswell Park Car Park $40,000 The Board accepted the programming details of the balance of its priority works. The Board further resolved to fund the following works from its 1995/96 Discretionary Fund allocation: 1. Branston Park new fencing $5,000 2. The Glebe pathway formation $5,000

The meeting concluded at 8.25pm.

CONFIRMED THIS 7TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 1996

______________________________________

D N Buist

CHAIRPERSON

Top of Page ~ Council Proceedings ~ Council & Councillors