This page is not a current Christchurch City Council document. Please read our disclaimer.
24. 9. 97
PROJECTS AND PROPERTY COMMITTEE
12 SEPTEMBER 1997
A meeting of the Projects and Property
Committee was held on
Friday 12 September 1997 at 2.00 pm
| PRESENT: | Councillor Ron Wright (Chairman), Councillors Oscar Alpers (from 2.10 pm), Ishwar Ganda, Ian Howell, Alister James (from 2.10 pm) and Gail Sheriff. |
| APOLOGIES: |
Apologies for lateness were received and accepted from Councillors Oscar Alpers and Alister James who both entered the meeting at 2.10 pm and who were present for all clauses with the exception of clause 5.1. |
| Apologies for absence were received and accepted from the Mayor and Councillors Carole Anderton, Morgan Fahey and Denis O'Rourke. |
The Committee reports that:
PART A - MATTERS REQUIRING A COUNCIL DECISION
| 1. | PHOTOGLOSS LTD AND CCC LAND GLENSTRAE ROAD | RR 5947 |
| Officer responsible | Author |
| Property Manager | Property Services Manager, Pamela Ellis |
| Corporate Plan Output: Property Unit Capital Outputs (Fixed Assets - Surplus Property) | |
The purpose of this report is to inform the Council of developments since the Council's resolution of 25 September 1996 which authorised the disposal of surplus Council land (Lot 9) and granted right-of-way access to Photogloss Limited, owner of the adjoining land in Glenstrae Road. The Council is also asked to rescind two conditions of the resolution it passed in September 1996.
BACKGROUND
When the report was submitted to the Council at the September 1996 meeting and in response to the public notification of the intended disposal under s.230 of the Local Government Act 1974, submissions were received from residents of Glenstrae Road regarding the loss of open space and the possible effects on the views of neighbouring properties resulting from the proposed Photogloss residential development which incorporated the Council's Lot 9. Having considered the reports and the submissions from the residents, the Council adopted the following resolutions:
"That the Council agree:
(a) To the sale of the land in CT 34C/1062 (Lot 9 DP 46254) to the owner of the adjoining land in CT 30F/797 by private treaty;
(b) To the granting of a right-of-way over CT 34C/1061 and CT 24B/999 (reservoir lots) in favour of the balance lot in CT 30F/797;
subject to the following conditions:
- That settlement of the sale and grant of a right-of-way be conditional upon depositing of a plan of subdivision in respect of the balance (contiguous) land in CT 30F/797 which subdivision extends to include the Council's land in CT 34C/1062.
- That the price for the land and right-of-way be fair market value to be negotiated, based on valuation advice received by the Council at the time the adjoining subdivision is approved.
- That Photogloss (or the adjoining owner at the time) obtain all necessary consents, at its own cost, for the laying off of the right-of-way pursuant to Section 348 of the Local Government Act, and variation of the land use consent in respect of the reservoir land and Lot 9.
- Compliance with any requirements of the Water Services Manager in respect of the reservoir land.
- That the 4.5 metre building setback from the road as outlined in the Development Standards of the proposed Christchurch City Plan be increased to 6 metres for proposed Lot 43 on the future development.
- That the height of subsequent buildings on Lots 43 and 42 be no more than 1 metre above the level of the existing footpath or as negotiated with the neighbouring residents, such restriction to be imposed by way of a restrictive covenant to the satisfaction of the Legal Services Manager.
Conditions (i) to (iv) had been recommended to the Council by the Property and Projects Committee.
Conditions (v) and (vi) were imposed by the Council in recognition of the concerns of the residents.
A plan of the area is attached. The Lots 42 and 43 referred to in the original report are now shown as Lots 1 and 2 on the plan and are described as such throughout the remainder of this report.
DEVELOPMENT
Photogloss Limited subsequently submitted subdivision consent applications which included the triangular portion of Council land. In submitting these applications the developer has expressed concern at the special height restraints applied across the whole of Lots 1 and 2 which includes land owned by the developer and the triangular portion of Council land to be sold to the developer. They contend that it is unreasonable for the limitation to encumber other than the Council's land.
In terms of the Council's September 1996 resolution there was flexibility to negotiate with the residents on the building height level and indeed this was purposely included because it was recognised at the time of adopting the resolution that that the 1 metre height above the footpath had not been fixed by survey and could vary widely over the sections because of the contours of the hillside.
Subsequently the developer's consultants prepared plans showing their desired levels and submitted these to the residents and the Council. Council officers have since met on several occasions with the residents' representative, Mr D Harkness, and the developer's consultant, Mr Peter Yeoman of Davis Ogilvie and Partners Limited.
On the residents part, Mr Harkness has agreed that in terms of the Council resolution the point at which the footpath level should be fixed is at contour 103.8 metres plus the 1 metre giving a mid point on the footpath of 104.8 metres. This is a middle line which he considers the residents would accept. The residents preference as previously indicated to the Council was for the Council land to be retained completely as reserve.
The above mid-point level plus several other options have been discussed with the developer and his consultant but no agreement could be reached. In the spirit of the Council resolution, Council officers have taken all reasonable steps to achieve an acceptable compromise with both parties. At this point however Council officers cannot transfer the Council land to Photogloss because agreement on the terms of the Council resolution cannot be reached.
PROJECTS AND PROPERTY COMMITTEE
In July this year Photogloss sought speaking rights before the Property and Projects Committee on this matter and both Photogloss and Mr Harkness addressed the Committee on Friday 22 August 1997.
Subsequently the Committee met again on Friday 12 September 1997 to consider officers' reports and a legal opinion on the issues raised by Photogloss. The Committee also received preliminary valuation advice (which has now been confirmed) relating to the Council's proposed sale of Lot 9.
It has become apparent to the Committee that there is an impasse between Photogloss Limited and the residents. Photogloss will not agree to any form of restriction imposed by the Council through the sale of Lot 9, which is greater than the City Plan controls on height and setback.
Issues relating to valuation of Lot 9 are referred to in the public excluded section of the order paper.
In light of the difference in valuations (details of which are given in the public excluded section of the agenda) the Legal Services Manager advises against imposing conditions (v) and (vi) because such a difference clearly raises issues of the Council's fiduciary duty (ie. to act in accordance with good business principles) to its ratepayers.
Although there may be some blocking of part of Mr Harkness' view from his land and blocking of view when walking along Glenstrae Road, those factors are outweighed by the Council's fiduciary duty to ratepayers generally, given the difference in valuations.
Also, imposing height and setback controls additional to those in the City Plan could have an undesirable precedent effect when the Council wishes to sell other hill sections in the future.
CONCLUSION
Standing Order 2.18.17 provides that the Council may alter a resolution on the report of a standing committee.
Having regard to all factors, the Committee recommends to the Council that conditions (v) and (vi) only of the Council resolution of 25 September 1996 be rescinded.
| Recommendation: | That pursuant to Standing Order 2.18.17 the Council alter its resolution of 25 September 1996 by deleting conditions (v) and (vi). |
(Note: The Chairman retired from voting on this clause, when Councillor Howell temporarily assumed the chair.)
| 2. | HUNTSBURY SPUR DEVELOPMENT | RR 6117 |
| Officer responsible | Author |
| Property Manager | Pamela Ellis, Property Services Manager |
| Corporate Plan Output: Holding Property Development (Huntsbury Spur) page 8.8.8 | |
The purpose of this report is to seek the adoption of Council resolutions pursuant to Section 230 of the Local Government Act 1974 in respect of the disposal and exchange of land in the Huntsbury Spur subdivision.
PROPOSAL
As reported to the August meeting of the Council formal resolutions pursuant to Section 230 of the Local Government Act are required as a matter of precaution to ensure the exchange and transfer of properties in the Huntsbury Spur subdivision. Public notification of these resolutions is not necessary as the transactions fall within the exemption provision of Section 230(2) of the Act.
There are also two spare lots within the subdivision which are to be sold and the proceeds returned to the participating owners. Public notification has been given in accordance with Section 230(1). Because the disposal of these lots is a term of the binding agreement between the Council and the participating landowners, it is inappropriate that the full Property Disposal Decision Making Flow Chart process be undertaken. The disposal will however be undertaken by public tender or auction in accordance with Council policy.
The Committee is therefore asked to recommend to the Council the adoption of the undermentioned resolutions. A plan of the subdivision is attached.
FUTURE DISPOSALS
At the conclusion of the above transactions, there will remain two further lots in Council ownership, comprising 4654 square metres and 4.2130 hectares respectively. Both lots are capable of re-subdivision which would maximise the return to the Council. These lots will now be put through the Disposal Flow Chart process before a further report is submitted to the Committee with a recommendation for disposal or retention.
| Recommendation: | That the Council adopt the following
resolutions: 1.That pursuant to Section 230(2) of the Local Government Act 1974 the Christchurch City Council hereby resolves to dispose of the properties described in the following schedule: |
||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||
| 2.That pursuant to Section 230(1) of the Local Government Act 1974 the Christchurch City Council hereby resolves to dispose of the properties described in the following schedule: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||
| 3. | DISPOSAL OF SURPLUS PROPERTY AT 14 & 18 HOUNSLOW STREET | RR 6078 |
| Officer responsible | Author |
| Property Manager | Property Services Officer, Stephen Cribb |
| Corporate Plan Output: City Street Property Maintenance 9.5.13 text | |
The purpose of this report is to seek the Council's for the disposal of two small parcels of land to the adjoining owners.
The former Waimairi County Council in 1968 sold, by auction, Lot 1 DP26695 at 16 Hounslow Street. This land had previously been set aside for a road along with two corner roundings which are now described as Lots 2 and 3 DP26695 (see attachment). The Waimairi County Council had agreed to transfer each of the corner roundings to the adjoining owner for ten (10) cents and although the adjoining owners have been paying rates on the 8m2 and 5m2 respectively of land, the land has never been legally transferred.
Because of the size and location of these two parcels of land, they can only be disposed of to the adjoining owners. It is therefore inappropriate to put the properties through the full Property Disposal Flow Chart process.
In order to effect the transfers to the adjoining owners, it will be necessary for the Council to adopt the following resolution:
| Resolution Pursuant to Section 230 of the Local Government Act 1974, the Christchurch City Council hereby resolves to dispose of the land described in the following schedules: First Schedule All that parcel of land containing 8m2 or thereabouts being Lot 2 DP26695 part of Rural Section 24 and contained in Certificate of Title 9A/529. Second Schedule All that parcel of land containing 5m2 or thereabouts being Lot 3 DP26695 part of Rural Section 24 and contained in Certificate of Title 9A/530. |
| Recommendation: |
|
| 4. | DISPOSAL OF PROPERTY - 34 ST MARTINS ROAD | RR 6104 |
| Officer responsible | Author |
| Property Manager | Property Services Officer, Stephen Cribb |
| Corporate Plan Output: City Streets Unit Capital Outputs - Fixed Assets | |
The purpose of this report is to obtain the Council's approval for the disposal of a vacant residential section that has become surplus to the Council's requirements after the recent realignment of St Martins Road at Burnbrae Street. The property has been processed in terms of the surplus property decision making flow chart. There is no interest in or requirement by any unit of the Council to retain the property. Accordingly it is recommended that the property be sold and the proceeds returned to the City Streets Unit to offset the roading project costs. In order for the disposal of the land to comply with the provisions of the Local Government Act, the Council must pass the following resolution.
| Resolution Pursuant to Section 230 of the Local Government Act 1974, the Christchurch City Council hereby resolves to dispose of the land described in the following schedule. Schedule All that parcel of land containing 547m2 or
thereabouts being Part Lot 4 DP 5197 and contained in CT
357/71. |
| Recommendation: |
|
PART B - REPORTS FOR INFORMATION
5. PROGRESS REPORTS: MAJOR PROJECTS
The Committee received progress reports on the following projects:
| 5.1 | Central Library Upgrade Project - Project Update | RR 6044 |
| 5.2 | Christchurch Convention Centre - Monthly Report | RR 6109 |
| 5.3 | WestpacTrust Centre - Monthly Report | RR 6102 |
Arising from discussion of the report, the Venue Manager advised that Air New Zealand had recently agreed to pay for 700 premium seats, comprising 120 seats in the corporate boxes and 580 upholstered (club) seats which would command a premium price and receive food and drink service. The Venue Manager advised that the sponsorship represented a significant infusion of money, and would help generate interest from other potential sponsors. The Committee requested the officers to hold further discussions with the parties involved regarding the two colours which had been provisionally chosen for the seating, and report back to the next meeting of the Committee.
| 5.4 | Centennial Pool Redevelopment Monthly Report | RR 6111 |
| 5.5 | Pioneer Sports Stadium (Pool, Stadium Additions and Alterations, Creche) Monthly Report | RR 6106 |
PART C - REPORT ON DELEGATED DECISIONS TAKEN BY THE COMMITTEE
| 6. | RESOLUTION TO EXCLUDE THE PUBLIC |
The Committee resolved that the draft resolution to exclude the public tabled at the meeting be adopted.
CONSIDERED THIS 24TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER 1997
MAYOR