This page is not a current Christchurch City Council document. Please read our disclaimer.
CENTRAL CITY COMMITTEE
11 APRIL 1996
A meeting of the Central City Committee
was held on Thursday 11 April 1996 at 12 noon.
PRESENT: Councillor Margaret Murray (Chairman),
The Mayor, Ms Vicki Buck,
Councillors Graham Berry, Newton Dodge,
Alistair James and Charles Manning.
APOLOGIES: Apologies were received and accepted from Councillors Anna Crighton and Barbara Stewart.
ABSENT: Councillor Morgan Fahey.
IN ATTENDANCE: Councillor David Close. Councillor Alistair James retired at 12.30 pm and was present for part of clause 4. The Mayor retired at 1.00 pm and was present for clause 4. The Committee reports that: PART A - MATTERS REQUIRING A COUNCIL DECISION
1. VERANDAHS - BYLAW REQUIREMENTS RR 2520
Officer responsible Author Environmental Policy & Planning Terence Moody Manager Corporate Plan Output: Corporate PolicyThe purpose of this report is to review Council policy on the installation, conditions for, and on-going maintenance requirements for verandahs erected over roads, including footpaths, in shopping areas in the city. INTRODUCTION
There are a number of matters that have been raised in regard to the purpose, erection and maintenance of verandahs over footpaths and other pedestrianised public places in the ownership of the Council which it has been agreed should be examined. These are in two parts the first being the policy of the Council in regard to these structures and the second being the administration and continued monitoring of any conditions (including maintenance) of the verandahs once permission is granted.
1. Cont'd
There were also a number of operational issues in regard to the process of both approvals and on-going attention to the structures. These are being dealt with within the organisational context. THE COUNCIL'S PRESENT POLICY
The purpose of the Council requiring verandahs in specified areas of the city are to provide weather protection for pedestrians, and to avoid the wind effects of buildings, in the retail areas with high pedestrian flows. In this way pedestrian amenity is enhanced and the attractiveness and convenience of the central city as a shopping environment and as a place for visitors is improved [City of Christchurch City Plan, Volume 2, February 1995]. This can be seen as the most recent statement of the Council's policy in regard to the requirement for the provision of verandahs and the reasons for such provision. The City Plan specifies certain areas in which verandahs must be provided as part of development of buildings, particularly in regard to retail areas. (Plan attached buff paper). While the primary purpose is the provision of protection from weather (both rain and wind), this is to satisfy the perceived enhancement of pedestrian amenity in these areas. This latter point is important as it relates to the design of verandahs, what structures considered necessary for this purpose, and the continued maintenance of these structures. Outside of these areas where verandahs are required, owners of buildings can erect verandahs, provided they comply with the bylaws. Note: It is noted that the term `verandah' is not specifically defined in the City Plan, nor in the Christchurch City Public Places and Signs Bylaw 1992 which refers only to conditions for such structures. In the case of `balcony' there is a definition in the City Plan but it appears to refer only to `households'. There is also some differentiation in how the word `veranda(h)' is spelt, and although both spellings are acceptable, the Council should determine which it will adopt. The bylaw mentioned above uses `verandah', which as the word comes from Hindi is probably original, while the City Plan uses both `verandah' and `veranda'. LEGISLATIVE REQUIREMENTS APPLYING
Section 316 of the Local Government Act 1974 (LGA) clearly states that the ownership of roads is held in fee simple by the Council. The definition of `Footpath' under section 315 of the LGA as part of a road primarily for pedestrians clearly includes such in the ownership of the Council and the definition of road also includes Every square or place intended for the use of the public generally, .... Under section 334 of the LGA the Council has the right to construct or provide over any road facilities for the safety, health, or convenience of the public provided these do not impede traffic or create a nuisance. Section 341 enables the Council to grant a lease of the airspace above the surface of any road, subject to the purpose not contravening provisions of the Resource
1. Cont'd
Management Act 1991, or to interfere with the free and unobstructed passage of vehicles or pedestrians using the road. Any improvements relating to the lease shall be rateable property. The power to make bylaws under Section 684 of the LGA permits these to be made concerning roads and cycleways and the construction of anything ..., over, ...a road or cycleway. This would include the provision of verandahs over footpaths. The City has a current (1992) bylaw which deals with verandahs and sets down the requirements which must be met in regard to their construction, maintenance, and the installation of signs on, below, or above such verandahs. The provisions of this bylaw (Christchurch City Public Places and Signs Bylaw 1992) require verandahs to be of a suspended or cantilever type; not less than 2.9 metres above the kerb level nor closer than 530 millimetres to the kerb horizontally; with steel supporting members; with a fascia of between 300 and 450 millimetres, with a roof covering of weather resistant material; guttering and downpipes; and where abutting another verandah the junction must be made weather-proof. In the case of the ceiling this must be of material approved, finished and painted to the approval of the Public Health and Safety Manager (now the Environmental Services Manager). In the case of most of the above requirements these are either to the approval of the Public Health and Safety Manager or as otherwise approved by that officer. The Council, under the bylaw, has the power to require the removal of any verandah in certain circumstances and may take such action to enforce non-compliance with such a resolution. There is a requirement for the owner of the site to maintain any verandah in good and substantial repair and condition to the satisfaction of the Public Health and Safety Manager. (Clause 56). The requirements as to signs on, under and over verandahs are relatively specific as to size and placement with apparently little flexibility except in the case of fixing methods which are to the approval of the Public Health and Safety Manager. For example, the purpose of the limitation of signs affixed to the fascia having a maximum depth of 500 millimetres when the fascia is required to be no more than 450 millimetres in depth is not clear. The Building Act 1991 covers the erection of structures to safeguard people, from injury caused by structural failure, from loss of amenity caused by structural behaviour, and to protect property from physical damage caused by structural failure. WORKING GROUP ON VERANDAHS
An officer working group, consisting of representatives of the Roading, Environmental Administration, Public Health & Safety, and Environmental Policy & Planning Units met in 1995 to consider the matters raised.
1. Cont'd
The working group considered: (a) It was important that some provision for requiring under verandah lighting should be made. (b) That provisions should permit the Council to undertake repair and maintenance of such verandahs in the case of default of the owner carrying out the work and to recover the costs from the owner.. (c) That there be no rental charged for verandahs over roads, except in cases where business activities occur on, or above, the verandah. (d) That there was a need for an inspection programme for existing verandahs over roads, and for new verandahs on a programmed basis for constructional safety as well as maintenance purposes. (e) That the Roading Manager (now City Streets Manager) should be responsible for the on-going controls over verandahs under the provisions of the bylaw. DISCUSSION
There are a number of matters which require further consideration to ensure the policy of the Council is met. 1. The requirements of the bylaw, while requiring verandahs to be maintained in good repair and condition, do not provide for the Council to enforce such a requirement physically except by requiring the verandah to be taken down. Such action could go against the policy which requires such verandahs in certain areas. The bylaw should require the maintenance as part of the lease or licence to provide such a facility and allow the Council, if necessary, to repair at the cost of the building owner. 2. The policy, and the bylaw provisions, would seem to require an effective continuous weather protection along the pedestrian spaces they cover. This could create design constraints in some cases, or as appears to have happened in Lichfield Street at the entrance to the Cashel Plaza a gap in the continuous weather proofing in some conditions. The policy also states that these verandahs should be provided to avoid the wind problems caused by some buildings. In this regard it may be that certain building structural types should be required to have such provisions where ever they may be situated. Verandahs attached to heritage buildings can cause difficulties. In a number of cases the verandahs are in themselves of a `heritage' form with posts providing the outer (street side) supports. Some provision should be made in the bylaw to retain such forms rather than the cantilevered type required in the current bylaw. Provisions should be made to require any replacements to be of the same form, if necessary through providing slightly wider footpath areas when road reconstruction takes place to allow for traffic clearance for vehicles. 1. Cont'd
3. The question of providing further controls over such verandahs through requiring formal lease arrangements needs to be examined. In addition to providing weather shelter for pedestrians, including that from direct sun, they do provide an advantage to the retail shops in that window displays can be viewed in all weathers. If it is considered that under verandah lighting is necessary for night time safety purposes this could be provided by either requiring it to be built in as part of lease of the airspace over the roadway, or by a requirement that the building owner use building lighting, including that from shop windows for the purpose. 4. In regard to `dispensations' these, it would seem could relate to compliance with the rules in the City Plan, which could be delegated to officers provided the decisions do not obviate the policy requirements. In the case of the bylaw requirements the major problem in granting dispensations would seem to be the specific nature of some of the requirements but the reasons for these are clear. If there was a permit, licence, or lease arrangement written this could be subject to conditions set by the officers responsible once the Council has set the policy. 5. The question as to who should take responsibility for on-going controls over verandahs is a management issue that is being addressed. 6. It is unclear why the provision of a verandah should currently provide different rules for signage on these structures than for buildings without verandahs. The ability to use such verandahs on which to place or hang signs should be taken into account in determining the total signage permitted on the particular building. In a number of cases it appears that the specific bylaw requirements are not being currently met by some signage. Taking the above matters into account it is apparent that amendments to the provisions of the current bylaw, as they relate to verandahs, are necessary should the Council wish to introduce better controls over such structures. Recommendation: 1. That the bylaw be redrafted to reflect the matters raised in the discussion in the report (Items 1-5). 2. That the rules for signage be reviewed and be reported further to the Committee.
2. CITY TRAMWAY EXTENSION PROPOSALS RR 2650
Officer responsible Author Principal Policy Analyst Dave Hinman Corporate Plan Output:The purpose of this report is to set out the background to the proposals being mooted for extending the city tramway. The Chairman of the Strategy & Resources Committee had requested that this item be placed on the agenda in the light of recent publicity.
2. Cont'd
BACKGROUND
Members will recall that at the January 24/25 seminar meeting of the Committee the issue of a possible extension to the city tramway was raised. A letter from Christchurch Tramway Ltd had reported on the interest being expressed by the new Cashel Street Hotels (Grand Chancellor and Centra) in having the tram extended to their area. It had been pointed out right from the outset that no Council budget provision existed or was planned for such a project and some preliminary indication had been received from the Hotels that they may be prepared to contribute toward costs. At the seminar meeting there was some support for the proposal which was again referred to during the March 7 walkabout tour of the Committee. The January seminar agreed that the matter should lie on the table awaiting a clear indication of sources of funds for the project and for that reason it has not until now appeared on a formal Committee agenda. There has now been some interest expressed about the proposal by retailers around the route and a brief presentation was made to a recent meeting of the Inner City Promotion Team. This led to a report in The Star on April 3 from the Chairman of the Inner City Promotion Team expressing support for the proposal. At this stage Council staff have adopted quite a low key approach to this proposal and apart from some preliminary considerations about the most suitable route a `ball park' cost, and identifying impacts on other projects in the vicinity, the only time spent has been in discussions (ongoing) with interested parties. THE CASE FOR EXTENDING THE TRAMWAY
Very briefly the following reasons have emerged for giving consideration to extending the city tramway into the Cashel Mall area. (a) Presence of the two new major Hotels in Cashel Street and the benefits (to the Hotels, Tramway and central city) in linking these to the tourist tram circuit. (b) The attractions of city mall and again the mutual benefits of becoming part of the Tram circuit. (c) Potential economic spinoffs on route for example in Manchester Street. (d) Pending design decisions around the route which should take into account the future possibility of a tram extension (Cashel Street (Manchester-High), High Street triangle, Manchester Street, Cathedral Square, Worcester Street east, shuttle proposals).
2. Cont'd
NEXT STEPS
The following steps have been identified if the proposal is to be progressed. (a) Discussion and agreement on route and location within streets. (b) Strong support from business, landowners and the community generally. (c) A source of funds external to the Council. (d) Technical feasibility study and detailed costings. (e) Political commitment. In discussions so far it has been made clear that a, b and c would need to be satisfied before proceeding further. CONCLUSION
While this is not a project which is included in the Council's Corporate Plan and Budget, it is one of a number of central city initiatives which warrants basic investigation. It would be prudent to at least acknowledge the possibility of a future tram extension when undertaking other design work along the projected route. This should require some agreement about the details of the route. On the basis of the continued understanding that no Council funding has been planned for this project, it is considered appropriate for the present low key discussions with interested parties to continue. Recommendation: 1. That no detailed research be undertaken at this stage until businesses who want the extension are prepared to pay for it. 2. That Mr Hinman continue to talk to interested parties about the proposal. PART B - ITEMS DEALT WITH BY THE COMMITTEE AND
REPORTED FOR INFORMATION ONLY
3. SUPPLEMENTARY ITEMS
prohibition of alcohol in public places
central city tramway extension proposals
The Committee resolved to consider the above supplementary reports. The reasons for the items not being on the agenda (in terms of section 46a(7) of the Local Government Official Information Meetings Act 1987) were conveyed to the Committee.4. STEWART FOUNTAIN DEVELOPMENT RR 2557 The proposed concept for the Stewart Fountain area (High Street/Hereford Street) was presented to the Committee by landscape architect, Andrew Craig. The concept was presented as a basis for discussion by the Committee and was prepared in accord with a brief adopted by the Council last year. It was resolved: 1. That the Committee confirm the brief for the redevelopment of the Stewart Fountain area. 2. That the Committee approve the concept presented in principle. 3. That staff report in three months time on public consultation, timetabling and budget provision for the project.
5. STRATEGY FOR CHILDREN RR 2647 The Children's Strategy Study has drawn the Committee's attention to the perceptions of children and parents/caregivers to the central city. It was resolved that the Committee address the issues raised in the report with regard to the central city at a seminar session with the children's advocate, Lyn Campbell in attendance.
6. CENTRAL CITY ENHANCEMENT
- JAVA COFFEE HOUSE RR 2649 Approval was sought for an enhancement project at the corner of High Street and Lichfield Streets near the Java Coffee House. The owners of the Java Coffee House approached the Council staff with the plan for improvement of the area adjoining the premises. A key feature of the landscape plan is the addition of Topiary dancers. Foliage, when established on the wire frame will provide shelter to seating in the area but will not overtly detract from the view down High Street. Another feature will be the addition of a lawn area shaped to mirror the existing raised planter. It was resolved that the enhancement project as presented be implemented subject to public consultation and to funding being available. 7. PROHIBITION OF ALCOHOL IN PUBLIC PLACES RR 2640 The seminar session of the Committee on 19 March received a legal opinion from the Legal Services Manager on whether the Council could make a bylaw prohibiting the consumption of alcohol in Chancery Lane and public places. He advised that it had been established (and confirmed by the Police) the certain parts of the central city such as Chancery Lane were in private ownership and therefore not subject to the control of the Council. Apart from the existing provisions of the Local Government Act allowing the Council to apply a prohibition
7. Cont'd on alcohol for specific events such as New Year's eve celebrations, there was no other authority which would allow the Council to introduce a bylaw or other control which would restrict the consumption or carrying of alcohol in public places. The Legal Services Manager undertook to take to the Council's Legislation Subcommittee the Committee's suggestion that recommendation for a change of legislation be forwarded to the Government. The Subcommittee resolved at its meeting on 26 March that it be recommended to the Central City Committee that it seek a report on the issue to allow that Committee to submit a recommendation to the Council providing (if the Committee saw fit) for the matter to be referred, to Zone 5 of the Local Government Association. It was resolved that the Legal Services Manager report to the May Committee meeting with a view to preparing a submission to the Zone 5 Local Government Association or through local members of Parliament seeking support for a change in legislation to allow Councils to control the consumption and carrying of alcohol in public places.
8. TRAFFIC CONTROL ITEMS The following traffic control measures have been implemented by the Committee: - P5 Loading Zone in Armagh Street.
- Compulsory Stop sign Cathedral Square adjacent to BNZ building.
- P5 At All Times Loading Zone Cathedral Square adjacent to Camelot Hotel.
- Taxi Stand Extension Cathedral Square adjacent to the Tower building.
- P5 loading Zone Worcester Street. The meeting concluded at 2.00 pm. CONSIDERED THIS 24TH DAY OF APRIL 1996
MAYOR