This page is not a current Christchurch City Council document. Please read our disclaimer.
3 JULY 1996
A meeting of the Riccarton/Wigram Community Board
was held at Sockburn Service Centre
on Wednesday 3 July 1996 at 5.00 pm
Helen Broughton, Mary Corbett, Ishwar Ganda,
Lesley Keast, Mark Kunnen, Mike Mora and
Bob Shearing.
APOLOGIES An apology was received and accepted from
Lesley Keast for
lateness.
Lesley Keast arrived at 5.20pm and was absent for clauses 1, and part of 2.1.
Bob Shearing retired at 7.20pm and was absent for clauses 4 to 14.
Graham Berry retired at 7.25pm and was absent for clauses 4 to 14.
Mark Kunnen retired at 7.35pm and was absent for clauses 13 and 14. PART A - MATTERS REQUIRING A COUNCIL DECISION
Nil
PART B - MATTERS DEALT WITH BY THE BOARD AND REPORTED FOR INFORMATION ONLY
1. CONFIRMATION OF MEETING REPORTS
It was resolved that the reports of the Riccarton/Wigram Community Board meeting held on 29 May 1996, 5 June 1996 and 17 June 1996 be confirmed as true and correct records of those meetings.
2. SPEAKING RIGHTS
2.1 MS JUSTINE MOUAT
Ms Mouat had been granted speaking rights to address the Board on matters relating to public consultation. Ms Mouat's concerns related to a meeting held on Wednesday 29 May 1996 in St Teresa's Church Hall to address issues surrounding the installation of playground equipment in the Shand Crescent Reserve.
Ms Mouat stated that a mistake had been made in the minutes which compromised the wishes of the community representatives present at the meeting. Ms Mouat put forward to the Board that minutes in future should be recorded by way of a tape recorder. She suggested that consultation on this matter has not been effective and that the public do not understand exactly what the Board is doing.
Ms Mouat pointed out that she had approached the Board on 23 November 1995 and put forward residents' concerns. She felt that the Board could have saved at least $20,000 if residents' concerns were taken into account at this stage.
In addition to requesting that tape recording be the means for taking minutes at public meetings with the Board, Ms Mouat requested that funding also be made available for tidying up Shand Crescent Reserve. She also suggested that in general residents would like to see water going into a small pond with grating and a picnic table in the area, rather than a children's playground. It was suggested that this would be an issue for further consultation with the Board at its next meeting in August.
Mr Kunnen requested that a notice of motion be put to the Board. The Chairperson ruled the proposed notice of motion out of order in that it had not been submitted five clear days before the meeting, as required by Standing Order 2.16.1.
2.2 Lochee Road residents' petition
2.2.1 Mr Paul Cook
Mr Cook was in attendance representing residents of Lochee Road and their concerns over a petition submitted to the Board requesting speed humps on Lochee Road.
Mr Cook intimated that a number of residents did not sign the petition and were unhappy with the recommendations presented to the Board in the form of a parking plan, and associated speed humps.
Mr Cook proceeded to advise the Board that there were two issues at point on Lochee Road. The first, speed, he believed is an enforcement problem and speed humps will not help alleviate concerns. Proposed humps were outside Mr Cook's house and he believed that the sound of cars braking and then accelerating past the humps would be more of a nuisance than having no humps at all.
The second issue Mr Cook raised was parking which he believed was not a problem outside of the rugby season. He believed that the majority of residents on Lochee Road did not support the Council's proposal. There is ample parking already at the Riccarton Working Men's Club and Marist/Albion Rugby Football Club and he believes that it is up to those clubs to sort the parking problem out and not up to the community.
Parking problems could be alleviated by the club ensuring that when a senior rugby match which draws a large crowd is played that this be the only game scheduled for that time. This would mean that two grounds are unused but Mr Cook felt that this would prevent large numbers of people gathering at the park at any one time.
Enforcement of parking measures was also an idea Mr Cook put to the meeting.
Mr Cook was also concerned that there was no public notification of the meeting and that he had only heard of a Board meeting that night.
Mr Cook also raised the possibility of conflict of interest with the Chairperson also being the Chairperson of the Riccarton Workingmen's Club. The Chairperson explained that he had no pecuniary interest in the Club.
2.2.2 Mr Easterbrook
Mr Easterbrook was also in attendance representing the residents of Lochee Road. Mr Easterbrook's concern was based around the activities of the clubs in Middleton Park on a Saturday night. Mr Easterbrook noted that there is often bad behaviour in the park from kids late at night and always a mess on Sunday mornings left behind by club users.
Mr Easterbrook felt that someone had to take control of all of the activities in the area in the times concerned and suggested that more rubbish tins be placed along the edge of the park and that more security lighting be provided in the area, especially around the toilet block.
2.2.3 Mrs McKenzie
Mrs McKenzie was in attendance to support a petition that was presented to the Board as follows.
"We are concerned about cars travelling at high speed in our street and ask the Council to consider the installation of speed humps as a deterrent."
Mrs McKenzie commended the Council on responding so quickly to the petition's request and felt that the proposal put forward at the meeting was a good idea. Mrs McKenzie noted that speed was the main concern and the topic of the petition and that many people misjudged the corner on Lochee Road. She stated that trees and people were constantly at risk on the corner where she lives and that she felt unsafe when cars sped down the street.
It was pointed out to the Board that many people use Lochee Road as a thoroughfare from Riccarton Mall as well as people using it as a means to get to Middleton Grange School. Buses and articulated trucks also use the street as a thoroughfare.
2.2.4 Board Consideration
Following the presentations from Mr Cook, Mr Easterbrook and Mrs McKenzie under `Speaking Rights', the Board proceeded to discuss the issues of speeding cars and parking on Lochee Road.
The Board was in receipt of a report from the Area Traffic Engineer which provided some historical information on the road and current traffic problems as they related to driveway access, speed of vehicles and the Club usage of Middleton Park.
There is no Area Traffic Management Plan for this area. A plan was tabled which showed parking opportunities fronting onto the park with three associated speed humps.
It was conceded by Board members that there had not been enough consultation with the residents of Lochee Road with regard to angle parking and speeding. It seemed quite obvious that there was a division between the residents. Consensus appeared to be that a public meeting should be called bringing together all of the people affected on Lochee Road.
The Board resolved that residents of Lochee Road and all interested parties be invited to a public meeting to investigate solutions to parking and traffic problems.
2.3 residents' petition seeking children's playground in hansons lane reserve
A petition has been received from Mrs Helen T Thompson on behalf of
47
petitioners with regards to the possibility of locating play equipment in the
Hansons Lane Reserve.
The petitioners have put their signatures to the following:
"If you would like to support a proposal for a bright and colourful children's play area in Hansons Reserve (behind Countdown in Hansons Lane, opposite Lady May Kindergarten) ..." In her letter to this office Mrs Thompson writes:
"I recently received a leaflet advising of work soon to commence on the preparation, planting and bark mulching of a shrub border and tree planting within the above reserve. I have often felt that it is wonderful to have this large reserve in Hansons Lane but have wondered why there isn't a play area there, especially with a kindergarten just across the road. I have lived in Hansons Lane for five years and have two children aged 5 and 3 who love going to parks but there is not one suitable within walking distance. Middleton Park doesn't contain much and the slide is too high for little ones; Auburn Avenue Reserve is very run down and not bark chipped for safety, and Curletts Road is small, old, and not fenced very safely to keep children in, considering it is on a very busy road. I am President of a local playgroup. Many newcomers to the area soon bring their children along to make new friends and recently a new mother from Wellington commented to me that she was amazed at the lack of good, colourful, modern play equipment in the area. With all this in mind I started a petition to gauge the feeling of others. I have nearly 50 signatures and this only took a week. Could you please consider this proposal and ensure that positive action is made towards this very worthy cause." Mrs Thompson was in attendance to request the installation of a modern children's play area in Hansons Lane Reserve. Mrs Thompson believed that the park was under-utilised at present and that play equipment would attract people in the area. She felt that play equipment would be popular in the park as there is a play centre across the road and a playground targeting the pre-school age group would make a popular addition to the area.
The Board noted that current procedure is to undertake a needs analysis of such a facility before a decision is made whether to support the petition. This is done for two reasons, the first being to inform the community that this petition has been received and, secondly allows the community to provide feedback to the Board.
The Board resolved:
1. That the petition be received.
2. That an appropriate sign be placed in the Hansons Lane Reserve seeking comment on this proposal.
3. That the results of this process be reported back to the Community Board for further consideration.
2.4 mr paul farrow - riccarton business group
Mr Farrow was in attendance representing the Riccarton Business Group over concerns of the proposed bus clearways to be installed on Riccarton Road.
Mr Farrow commented that bus clearways would lead to the decline of business in Riccarton Road and that he believed that the 172 car parks presently on Riccarton Road were the life-blood of local businesses. He stressed that members of the Riccarton Business Group had chosen to situate their businesses on Riccarton Road because of the car parking and customers who pick up and drop off items as a result.
The Riccarton Business Group believes that the clearway zones will change shopping habits with people wanting to avoid Riccarton Road. The narrowing of footpaths will also act as a deterrent to pedestrians. Mr Farrow stated that a more positive move by the Council would be to turn the Riccarton Road business area into a boulevard and that closer consultation with the Council and Community Board would improve the business area of Riccarton Road.
3. RICCARTON ROAD BUS CLEARWAYS
The Board held a meeting with the City Services Committee on Monday 1 July 1996 (this included an on-site inspection of Riccarton Road) and a public meeting was held on the Tuesday attended by 60 people and officers of the Canterbury Regional Council.
Lesley Keast moved "That this Community Board refer the bus clearways issue back to the City Services Committee so that other options can be presented to all the parties concerned for consultation". This was seconded by Mike Mora and on a show of hands was declared lost by three votes for and six against.
The Board resolved:
1. That the Riccarton/Wigram Community Board oppose the proposed bus clearway lanes for Riccarton Road. (Passed on a show of hands, 6 votes for and 3 against).
2. That the Riccarton/Wigram Traffic Committee undertaking of a Traffic Management Plan for the length of Riccarton Road (and the surrounding areas) be developed.
3. That the Riccarton/Wigram Community Board instigate a main street programme for the Riccarton commercial area with a sub-committee consisting of Helen Broughton, David Buist, Mark Kunnen and Graham Berry to work with all interested parties. (Passed on a show of hands, 6 votes for and 3 against).
4. TEMPLETON SWIMMING POOL
Members were in receipt of the following request from the Templeton Pool Management Committee seeking a Board contribution to a proposed toddlers pool.
The Chairman of the Management Committee, Mr Doug Budge, has written:
"I write to ask you to allocate $25,000 to complete the funding for a toddlers pool at our complex. I was asked to submit a wish list to the Christchurch City Council for our requirements at the Templeton Pool Complex. We have only one wish. A toddlers pool. The City Council has set the figures and stipulated that the Riccarton/Wigram Community Board should match the funding. They have in fact tagged the money dependent on your contribution.
I would ask this committee to consider the work and effort the Templeton Pool Committee has put into this complex over the last three years. We have been instrumental in attracting more community involvement in the complex. With our solar heating system installed for the 95/96 season we found that we attracted more family groups to use our facility this season even though the weather was not conducive to operating an outdoor pool this summer.
The single biggest complaint that we have had in our three seasons of operation is that we don't have adequate facilities for toddlers. This is the reason we have asked the Christchurch City Council to invest in the future of the children of Templeton. We need the toddlers pool to complete the needs of the toddlers and family groups who want to use the facilities.
Over the last three seasons the Templeton Pool Complex has been administered by a local management committee. We have put in hundreds of volunteer hours to make this a safe environment for our patrons. We therefore respectfully ask you to favourably consider our request."
Whilst the Draft Annual Plan (page 78) shows the amount of $25,000, a matching contribution from the Community Board had not been sought. It is understood however that options for a toddlers pool range in total cost from $30,000 to $50,000 which will obviously impact upon any contribution which the Community Board may wish to make.
The Board resolved:
1. That the correspondence be received and that the Leisure and Community Service Unit be asked to provide a report on options to meet the request of the Templeton Pool Management Committee and that costings be provided.
2. Upon receipt of the requested information the Community Board give consideration to a preferred option and its costs.
3. That a maximum of $15,000 be set aside from the Board's 1996/97 Discretionary Fund if required.
5. RICCARTON SERVICE CENTRE
The Community Manager reported that at the Council meeting to consider the Draft Annual Plan on 30 April 1996 the following resolutions were passed.
"1. That, in line with the recommendation made by the Riccarton/Wigram Community Board, the provision in 1996/97 for the Riccarton Sub-Service Centre be retained, to allow the retention of a Council staffed and operated sub-service centre in Riccarton. 2. That investigations continue as to alternative options to be considered at the expiry of the lease of the current premises in October 1996, in order to achieve a more viable operation." The lease of the current premises expires in October 1996. The lease agreement provides that 3 months notice be given if it is not the intention to renew the lease.
There are a number of issues to be investigated regarding the Council's decision. It is important that to meet the first decision that the lease be renewed. This action is recommended so full consideration can be given to all the options possibly available.
It should be noted that the rent component of the total operating cost is $16,500 of a total net operating cost of $111,852. Obviously any change of location would not be likely to reduce the rentable costs significantly in fact could be the opposite.
The Board resolved that the existing lease over Shop 13 Smiths City Centre, Rotherham Street be renewed for a further 12 month period.
6. WADELEY ROAD
The Area Traffic Engineer produced a report which identified traffic issues in Wadeley Road following requests from residents via a Community Board member.
Wadeley Road is a local access road which runs between Maidstone Road, a minor arterial road and Waimairi Road also a minor arterial road. It has a carriageway which varies between 12 metres at the eastern end and 14 metres at its western end. Constructed at the western end of Wadeley Road is a threshold treatment. Located off Wadeley Road are two small cul de sac streets: viz Ashfield Place and Ilkey Place.
Wadeley Road forms a convenient short cut route for traffic travelling between Waimairi Road and Maidstone Road. The alternative route via the Maidstone Road and Waimairi Road intersection is more than twice the distance. Traffic volumes on Wadeley Road are estimated to be in excess of 5000 vehicles per day.
There have only been four accidents recorded on Wadeley Road. All these incidents have occurred at the Waimairi Road intersection during the afternoon period. Three of these accidents have involved right turning vehicles into Wadeley Road. Two, not checking adequately and colliding with a south bound vehicle on Waimairi Road and the third involved a rear end event with a north bound vehicle on Waimairi Road. The fourth accident involved a cyclist left turning out of Wadeley Road merging with a south bound motorist on Waimairi Road.
Over a period of time residents have expressed concern at the:
- Increasing number of traffic using the street particularly the number of heavy vehicles.
- The speed of traffic using the street.
- Level of street lighting.
There have been numerous proposals to both limit the traffic in the street and the speed of travel of motorists along it. These proposals have included such measures as road closures, one way streets and additional threshold treatment. None of these proposals have been successful. Either the residents adjacent to the proposed treatment have objected to the proposal or the residents in the two side streets have indicated strong opposition to one way or road closure options. For any measures to discourage through traffic to be effective they must be severe. This is because the alternative route is considerably longer both in terms of distance and travel time.
The Street lighting in Wadeley Road is to a local road standard and would be regarded as amenity lighting and not street lighting. There are no immediate proposals to upgrade the lighting along this road.
For any traffic proposals along the road to be successful they should require the support of the majority of residents. In this case the initiative should come from the residents as a collective group as none of the proposals suggested by the Council have met with general acceptance.
The Board resolved that the information be received.
7. speed limit review
At its 1 April meeting the Board received a delegation, led by Councillor Denis O'Rourke regarding a review of speed limits in the city being undertaken in conjunction with the Land Transport Safety Authority (LSTA) and Transit New Zealand.
As part of the review of speed limits the City Streets Unit has recently conducted a survey (by way of a questionnaire) to gain community feedback on proposed speed limits.
The returns are being sorted into Board areas for analysis and consideration.
The Board resolved that the Traffic Committee be given power to act to receive the speed limit review responses and to prepare a submission to the City Services Committee.
8. COMMUNITY BOARD TRAFFIC COMMITTEE
The Chairperson (Helen Broughton) reported on the 26 June 1996 meeting of the Traffic Committee.
(i) Attendance
Messrs D Buist, M Kuneen, and M Mora with apologies from B Shearing and Lesley Keast.
(ii) Southern Arterial Extension
It is noted that Transit New Zealand will shortly be releasing its report and preferred designation.
The `Wigram Option' is, apparently, the preferred route.
Agreed
* That individual members may make cross submissions to the City Plan
seeking the retention of the existing designation (being the Hornby Bypass
Option).
* That, upon receipt of the Transit New Zealand report, a representative
be invited to address the Traffic Committee.
(iii) Harakeke Street Traffic Restraint
As a result of the proposal being put out for community comment, the indication was that it had been favourably received.
The question of whether the proposal now required resource consent notification would be investigated.
(iv) Konini Street
It was noted that the (Board requested) LATM should cover the complete residential catchment through to Kotara Street/Kahu Road.
(v) Service Centre Traffic Workload/Projects
The Community Manager will report to the next Committee meeting.
(vi) Riccarton Parking Survey
The Community Manager confirmed that the completed analysis would be undertaken as a matter of urgency, within a month if possible. (Survey information was tabled.)
(vii) Blenheim Road Rerouting
Carried forward to next meeting.
(viii) Riccarton Road Bus Lane (as promoted by City Services Committee)
It is noted that this has been included onto the agenda for discussion.
(ix) Riccarton Mall Development
Plans showing future development to be sought for discussion.
The Board resolved that the information be received.
9. COMMUNITY BOARD COMMUNITY FACILITIES COMMITTEE
At its meeting on 7 February 1996 the Board resolved to establish this committee comprising Mark Kunnen and Bob Shearing, (the Board Chairperson being ex-officio), the Community Manager and Community Activities Officer.
The first meeting was held on 10 June with Bob Shearing being elected Chairperson. The following report details matters considered:
1. TERMS OF REFERENCE
The original establishment of this committee was on the basis that it could assist with the implementation of the `Management Guidelines for Community Facilities'.
As the implementation process is an operational role the meeting had to review its basic Terms of Reference.
The Mission Statement is that this committee has, primarily, a political advocacy role to support local community facilities within the Riccarton and Wigram Wards.
2. COMMUNITY FACILITIES MANAGEMENT GUIDELINES UPDATE
Penelope Goldstone reports:
The following comments are an update on the implementation process for the Management Guidelines as outlined in a report to the Board on 7 February 1996.
* The Officer Project Team to oversee the process has now been established
and is in fact meeting weekly. Membership of the team is:
Tony Gemmill, Community Manager Fendalton Service Centre
Ruth Evans, Community Activities Officer, Linwood Service Centre
Paul McOscar, Community Activities Officer, Shirley Service Centre
Jan Rogers, Community Representative
Noel Briggs, Community Representative
* They are currently developing a plan of action to implement the
guidelines. Because of the large number and range of facilities, it is
imperative that the implementation process be delivered in a consistent
manner.
* To enable this to happen, provision was made in the draft 1996/97 budget
to introduce the guidelines. This provision has been deleted from the draft
annual plan. The Project Team is looking at another corporate funding
source.
* The Project Team is also linking with the Health and Safety Committee to
avoid duplication of effort.
* Final guidelines have just been printed and will be available
shortly.
In summary, the Project Team is co-ordinating the process and has a complex task before it. We will receive instructions in due course about the process and our involvement.
3. OVERVIEW OF EXISTING FACILITIES
Members were in receipt of:
* list of local facilities, being
- Riccarton Town Hall
- Hei Hei Community Centre
- Waimairi Road Community Centre
- Halswell Hall
- Templeton Hall
- Yaldhurst Memorial Hall
* timetable of the three Council facilities
* 1994/95 annual report on these three Council facilities
* new fees schedule 1996/97
The Community Activities Officers gave a verbal update on the facilities.
A review of current community-owned hall constitutions would be necessary in respect of wind-up clauses. This would happen as the guidelines were implemented with each hall.
3.1 Riccarton Town Hall
Review of Community Facilities Agreed that the Community Board be requested to undertake a review in accordance with the Guidelines, clause 6.
It was considered that the review is justified on the basis of
- the Board's withdrawal from the Riccarton Mall Community Room
- review of existing Town Hall users
- needs for community facilities in the Riccarton area.
The expected timetable would be for the request to be considered at the July meeting of the Community Board and for a consultant to research and report back by the end of September 1996.
4. GENERAL
4.1 Establishing Community Facilities
Agreed to initiate, in accordance with the Guidelines, clause 5, with respect to Templeton and Westmorland.
It is noted that Templeton was the subject of a Recreation Review (presented to the Community Board in 1993), and that the resident groups in these two areas had sought such facilities. Also, both these had been promoted by the Board at its 16 August 1995 meeting onto the draft 1996/97 Annual Plan.
4.2 Community Facilities Map
Agreed that map be prepared identifying schools, halls, churches, parks, resident groups, creches, community police.
4.3 Reviews of Existing Facilities
Agreed to undertake reviews of each facility in the near future. This will eventuate when the new guidelines are implemented and Management Plans are developed for each centre.
4.4 Tour of Facilities
Monday 1 July 1996, 8.30 am to noon.
The Board resolved:
1. That the information be received.
2. That a needs analysis be carried out for the Riccarton Town Hall and surrounding community in accordance with Management Guidelines for Community Facilities clause 6.
3. That a Needs Analysis be carried out in respect of the proposed Templeton Recreation Centre and a proposed facility for the Westmoreland Community in accordance with clause 5 of the Management Guidelines for Community Facilities.
4. That the Community Board set aside $10,000 in total of discretionary funding for the aforementioned three research projects with final costing being provided as soon as available.
10. AWATEA STREAM ESPLANADE RESERVE
Community Board approval was sought for the naming of a recently acquired Esplanade Reserve as the Awatea Stream Esplanade Reserve.
The City Council recently acquired a 16 m wide corridor of land (1258 m2 in area) containing a short reach of Awatea Stream contiguous with Warren Park at Wilmers Road.
The land will be developed as a "green corridor" by the Water Services Unit in close co-operation with the Parks Unit.
It will be managed as an enhanced `natural' feature integrated with Warren Park.
Generally, an appropriate name for any Esplanade Reserve should include the name of the waterway flowing through it, or along it.
The Board resolved that the new Esplanade Reserve contiguous with Warren Park and Wilmers Road and containing a short reach of Awatea Stream, be named Awatea Stream Esplanade Reserve.
11. COMMUNITY BOARD LOCAL FUNDING COMMITTEES
The Board received the following report which gave an outline of the role of the local funding committees in the distribution of funds under both the Hillary Commission' Local Funding Scheme and the Council's Community Development Scheme.
Seven Committees have been established by the Council to distribute and administer the Council's community funding process. (The Metropolitan Funding Committee and the six Community Board based committees.)
The principal funding round for 1995/96 has been completed and organisations have been advised of the outcome of their applications.
The Hillary Commission, in establishing guidelines for assessment committees, has stated:
The assessment committees shall have the following features:
(a) Local authority elected representatives, whether council or community board members, shall not comprise more than half of the assessment committee.
(b) A representative nominated by the regional sports trust, whose boundaries include the local authority.
(c) Community representatives shall be appointed for their comprehensive knowledge of local sport, fitness and physical leisure needs, rather than their expertise in any one activity or organisation. Community representatives may be council employees.
(d) The committee shall reflect the local community character by including men and women, and representation from relevant special population groups.
(e) The committee shall have representation from the local Maori community.
(f) Wherever the local authority has community recreation staff, they should work closely with the committee, attend its meetings and assist in its decisions.
(g) Where the local authority does not have community recreation staff, committees are encouraged to utilise the expertise and local knowledge of Internal Affairs Link Centre, and New Zealand Lottery Grants Board advisory staff. Contacts for these officers can be obtained by contacting your nearest Link Centre.
The procedure has been in operation since 1990. The members appointed from the community are appointed for a three year term. The current members complete their three year term in October and nominations are to be sought later this year for these positions.
In determining the proportion of funds available to the funding committees, the Council resolved in September 1995:
1. That the contribution of the Community Development Scheme remain at its present level, based on a dollar per head of population, inflation adjusted annually.
2. That the Community Development Scheme resources be split 50% to the Community Funding Committees and 50% to the Metropolitan Funding Committee from the 1995/96 Funding Round.
3. That the split of 30% to Metropolitan and 70% to Community Funding Committees remain the same in respect of the Hillary Commission Local Funding Scheme resources.
4. That Community Development Scheme funds be utilised in respect of the appropriate guidelines unless there are exceptional circumstances to fund other projects.
5. That each funding committee under the Community Development Scheme guidelines be authorised to make commitments for one year in advance of up to 10% of the resources they have available under the community development scheme. This Council at its inaugural meeting in October 1995 re-established the Metropolitan Funding Subcommittee with the delegation to consider applications and disburse monies received through the Hillary Commission Local Recreation Scheme and the Community Development Scheme.
The Community Board Funding Committees' delegation should also be confirmed.
A request for the breakdown of ethnic groups within the community was sought and this will be made available to the next funding committee as part of their ensuring fair and equitable funding to applications for the next round.
The Board resolved that the Community Boards confirm the process for the distribution of Hillary Commission Funding and Community Development Funding and re-establish a Community Funding Committee for a further three years with delegated authority to distribute the funds under both the Hillary Commissions guidelines and the Council's Community Development scheme process.
12. CHILDREN'S STRATEGY
A further meeting of this working party was held on 4 June 1996 and the latest meeting was held on Tuesday 2nd July.
Mary Corbett, as spokesperson for this Working Party, advised that Mr Bob Ayrey from the Canterbury Regional Council and Mr Graham Pulley (the Environmental Health Officer, Sockburn) were in attendance to discuss matters of pollution.
The Board resolved to receive the information.
13. RESOLUTION TO EXCLUDE THE PUBLIC
The Board resolved that the draft resolution to exclude the public, as set out on page 18 of the Agenda, be adopted.
CONFIRMED THIS 7TH DAY OF AUGUST 1996
CHAIRPERSON