This page is not a current Christchurch City Council document. Please read our disclaimer.

Christchurch City Council





AT 5.00PM





1. Apologies
2. Confirmation of Report
3. Deputations by Appointment
4. Riccarton/Wigram Community Board Works and Traffic Committee - Report of 17 February 1998 meeting.
5. Riccarton/Wigram Community Board Community Affairs Committee - Report of 24 February 1998 meeting.
6. Riccarton/Wigram Community Board Environmental Committee - Report of 26 February 1998 meeting
7. Progress Report - City Streets 1997/98 - Capital Works Programme
8. Parks Capital Works Programme 1997/98
9. Broomfield / Hei Hei / Islington Local Area Traffic Management Scheme
10. 84-86 and 94 Buchanans Road - Identified as Surplus Property
11. Allocation of Project Funding for 1998/99
12. Public Excluded
13. Surplus Roading Property at 140 Springs Road





The report of the 4 February 1998 meeting of the Board has been circulated to members.

Chairperson's Recommendation: That the report of the Riccarton/Wigram Community Board meeting of 4 February 1998, as circulated, be taken as read and confirmed.



3.1 Nil




Officer responsible Author
Community Manager Roger Cave, Secretary to the Board
Corporate Plan Output: Riccarton/Wigram Community Board Vol 1, 3.1 text 6

The purpose of this report is to submit the outcomes of the Works and Traffic Committee meeting held on 17 February 1998.

The meeting was attended by Helen Broughton (Chairperson), David Buist (for items 3.1 and 4), Mike Mora and Mark Kunnen (for items 2, 3 and 4).


An apology was received and accepted from Ishwar Ganda.


Over recent months this Committee has had discussions with residents of Wadeley Road concerning traffic volumes and vehicle speed.

Wadeley Road is seen as an attractive bypass to the intersection of Maidstone Road and Waimairi Road.

A video-recorded count of traffic movements over a ten hour period on 12 November 1997 revealed an estimated daily traffic volume of around 4,800 vehicles, with an average hourly flow during the ten hours surveyed of around 370 vehicles.

Volumes as identified are about three times the maximum desirable for a local residential street such as Wadeley Road.

City Streets have been able to include the Maidstone/Waimairi intersection traffic signal work onto the capital works programme for 1998/99. The traffic signals will need to provide 'arrow' facilities so as to 'soften' the impact of turning restrictions at Wadeley Road. There may be the opportunity to finance any work at Wadeley/Maidstone as part of the Maidstone/Waimairi Intersection project.

On behalf of local residents Messrs C van Schreven and J Brown were in attendance to discuss the Area Engineer's report and recommended option. Option '2' was favoured, this being a 'left turn in' only at Waimairi Road.

Full consideration of the report, the options, resident expectations, and financing this work (through the Maidstone/Waimairi Intersection project) was given.

As Waimairi Road was the responsibility of City Services Committee it was felt that that Committee be advised, as soon as practicable, of the Board's deliberations.

The Committee also agreed that the Area Engineer discuss with the City Streets Unit the option of funding of the Waimairi Road remedial work from the Council's allocation of funds for the signalisation of the Maidstone/Waimairi intersection.

  1. That option 2 (left turn in only at Waimairi Road) for the Wadeley Road/Waimairi Road intersection be adopted by the Community Board.

  2. That the recommended option be subject to a safety audit.

  3. That the recommended option be put out for public consultation, the outcomes of which to be received by the Works and Traffic Committee at its 21 April 1998 meeting.

  4. That confirmation be sought that this work will be included and funded from the proposed Waimairi Road/Maidstone Road Intersection traffic signal installation project; confirmation to be received by the Works and Traffic Committee at its 21 April 1998 meeting.

  5. That the Community Board identifies, by way of submission, with the City Services Committee, the need for this work (at Wadeley Road/Waimairi Road) to proceed at the earliest opportunity (10 March meeting of City Services Committee) and that speaking rights be sought if considered necessary.

Mr van Schreven and Mr Brown were thanked for their ongoing support.

The Board Chairperson comments: While I have no problem with the overall outcome from the Committee's consideration of this particular matter, I consider that it is important that the City Services Committee is appraised of the proposal before the public consultation commences. Waimairi Road is an important link in the Council's existing ring road system and it is appropriate that any work proposed on this leg is endorsed by the City Services Committee before proceeding further.

As far as timing is concerned, I consider that the outcome from the safety audit must be known before any representation is made to the City Services Committee. The proposal for a deputation to the 10 March meeting should therefore be reviewed.

For these reasons I am recommending a slightly modified process as follows:

Chairperson's Recommendations:
  1. That option 2 (left turn in only at Waimairi Road) for the Wadeley Road/Waimairi Road intersection be adopted by the Community Board.

  2. That the recommended option be subject to a safety audit.

  3. That, subject to a satisfactory outcome from the safety audit, the Board identifies, by way of a submission to the City Services Committee, the need for this work to proceed at the earliest opportunity, and that speaking rights be sought if considered necessary.

  4. That the recommended option be put out for public consultation, the outcomes of which to be received by the Works and Traffic Committee at its 21 April 1998 meeting.

  5. That confirmation be sought that this work will be included and funded from the proposed Waimairi Road/Maidstone Road Intersection traffic signal installation project; confirmation to be received by the Works and Traffic Committee at its 21 April 1998 meeting.


The Chairperson (Keith Derbyshire) has written to the Service Centre in respect of three local traffic issues. Officer comment is given also.

3.1 Rotherham Street

Mall and Smiths City Access/Egress Points

"The situation relating to the car park exits from the Riccarton Mall and Smiths City in Rotherham Street continue to be of major concern, especially from a safety point of view. I have discussed the position at length with Paul Burden, and he agrees that something should be done quickly to avoid someone being injured.

The ideal action would be to move the Smiths City exit about 40 metres to the north, and we understand that this is already planned by the property owners but we believe that nothing is likely to be done by them for some considerable length of time. This being the case we ask that the Works and Traffic Committee consider the possibility of allocating funds to either carry out the work, or alternatively have a traffic island placed in Rotherham Street in order to deter traffic from using the Smiths City Park as a thoroughfare when exiting the Mall roof park.

The stopping of such traffic movement would have two advantages. Firstly, it would improve the safety of pedestrians using that section of Rotherham Street, and secondly it would remove what is essentially a second intersection on Clarence Street only about 20 metres from the Dilworth Street intersection."

The Area Engineer (Paul Burden) reported -

"There are essentially two options for improving or removing the current problem of vehicles "cutting through" Smiths City from the Riccarton Mall access ramp.

The first is to relocate the Smiths City vehicle entrance. This is already proposed as part of a carpark redesign and building alterations planned in around two years time. We could wait until then, or possibly fund the relocation now out of Board funds. The property owners have said previously they will not contribute to this proposal at the present point in time.

The cost of this is estimated at around $8,000.

The second options is to construct an island across the intersection. This would prevent anyone from travelling straight through from the ramp into Smiths City and visa versa. Unfortunately it would also prevent legitimate right turns into either property. The Mall Management has indicated some concern at this but it has not been fully debated with them.

The cost of this option is also estimated at around $8,000.

There have been no reported accidents at this location although Mr Derbyshire has reported several "near misses".

There was some discussion on the 'responsibility' of who should finance any work, and, in particular, whether this should be the property owners or the Council.

Recommendation: That option 1, being the relocation of the Smiths City vehicle entrance on Rotherham Street, be adopted.
Chairperson's Recommendation: That the Board facilitate a meeting to which the residents association and property owner(s) be invited to discuss the relocation of the Smiths City vehicle entrance.

3.2 Burdale Street Parking

"We have recently received complaints from residents of Burdale Street about parking in the section of the street between Mandeville Street and Picton Avenue.

Apparently the street is used for all day parking by workers from the area, stopping residents or their guests from parking on the street.

We ask that consideration be given to installing limited time parking on one side of the street. This street is ideally situated to such restriction as only one side is residential with the other side commercial."

The Area Engineer (Paul Burden) reported -

"The installation of further parking restrictions on one side of the other streets now affected by "all day" parking is an issue which requires further investigation. In my opinion it would not be in our best interests to install restrictions on an ad hoc basis. The streets around the Mall were done on an area-wide basis and I suggest at some point in the future we look at the "outer lying areas" as part of a "stage two" implementation. There are other streets that have expressed a similar concern to the Burdale Street residents, ie Picton Avenue and parts of Riccarton Road.

The attached plan shows the area which could be the subject of a parking survey.

Recommendation: That the area east of Clarence Street, bounded by Riccarton Road and Burdale Street to include Mandeville Street be subject to an on-street parking study and that the outcomes be brought back to this Committee for consideration.
Chairperson's Recommendation: That the above recommendation be adopted.

3.3 Maxwell Street Crossing Opportunity

"I have been presented with a petition signed by 44 residents, the prayer of which states:

"We the undersigned ask the Christchurch Council to take urgent action to assist us to cross Maxwell Street, Riccarton, to visit the Mall. At present no assistance is offered against speeding traffic. Can we have a marked crossing soon please?"

I appreciate that there are many criteria which must be met before a pedestrian crossing can be installed, but I feel that the situation at the intersection of Maxwell, Dilworth and Division Streets is a special case.

There is a high proportion of residents in the area who rely on wheelchairs or walking frames to make them mobile, and these residents and other elderly people do have difficulty in crossing this section of roadway.

The fact that a high proportion of the growing numbers of motor vehicles using this section of roadway exceed the speed limit makes the act of crossing the road a very hazardous operation for even the able bodied."

The Pedestrian Advocate (Mike Thomson) reported -

"I fully support the residents' request for a pedestrian facility, crossing Maxwell Street at the Mall frontage.

I believe a refuge island located just east of the Division Street intersection is the most appropriate. This option is the most cost effective ($7,500 including design, supervision, management and construction). The facility could be built without affecting driveway access, through movements, or Mall traffic. Refuge islands are considered to be the safest option whereby pedestrians need to consider other road users rather than simply stepping out into the roadway hoping that the vehicle driver will yield."

There was discussion on the best traffic management option; the refuge island or a raised platform between the extended kerbs (currently in place) at the Division Street intersection.

  1. That the Pedestrian Advocate be requested to provide more detailed information by way of a report, addressing the benefits and/or hazards of the raised platform option and median option: such report to include details of pedestrian movement numbers, pedestrian desireline, etc.

  2. That this information be available for the 17 March meeting of this Committee.

  3. That the Community Board give favourable consideration to funding the raised platform option in the sum of $20,000 from 1998/99 Project Funds.
Chairperson's Recommendation: That the above recommendations be adopted.


The Community Manager reported -

Now that the initial round of consultation has been completed it is important to reflect on the community input received. As a general comment I would suggest that the degree of concern, as evidenced through the three public meetings, may not be as high as what may have initially been thought. This may mean that the degree of "restriction" required is not great?

A copy of the summarised comment from each of the three meetings is attached as a guide to members decisions.

Officers have given consideration to the comments received, together with any other past contribution received, and have formulated a scenario incorporating measures and restrictions which is now available for the Committee's consideration.

The Area Engineer reported -

The clearest message received was that "parking ticks" would be welcome by the majority of residents. Therefore these have been included. They should extend as near as practicable to the areas currently experiencing all day parking. Where possible whole sections of streets should be treated rather than abruptly stopping the ticks midway down a street.

With the exception of Dovedale, Solway, Ilam Park Place and Parkstone, all other roadways affected are around 9.0 metres wide. While Dovedale and Solway are 12.8 metres wide, Parkstone is 11.0 metres and Ilam Park is only 7.8 metres wide.

Nine metres is adequate width for cars to be parked on both sides while maintaining two way traffic for cars. For this reason complete parking bans are not considered necessary on any of the affected roads except Ilam Park Place which, as mentioned, is only 7.8 metres wide.

Dovedale and Solway Avenues are just wide enough to allow parking at 90 degrees to the kerb without altering the kerb position. However, it is strongly advised that adequate protection of parked vehicles is provided by means of kerb build-outs at the start and finish of the angle parking precinct. Also, to offset the decrease in traffic safety associated with manoeuvring into and out of 90 degree parking, it is suggested that kerb build-outs also be provided opposite the intersecting side roads. This will improve safety by ensuring vehicles are not manoeuvring into and out of any parking spaces which would otherwise be located within the intersection. Also, it will provide an opportunity for landscaping. The cost of this treatment is estimated at around $50,000 for Dovedale and $60,000 for Solway. Perhaps a cost share could be explored with the College. An additional 45 spaces could be provided on Dovedale and a similar number on Solway.

Due to the narrowness of Ilam Park Place it is proposed to ban parking on one side. It is also proposed to ban parking on the bends in Rutherglen Avenue.

For consistency all existing restrictions should be rescinded but obviously this will need to be discussed further with residents.

It should also be noted that the installation of parking ticks without the presence of parking restrictions would not conform to current Council policy (refer policy register page 75). A waiver of this policy will need to be sought from Council.

The Community Manager further reported -

Once the Committee has agreed to the degree of action that is required it is important to consider the next stage of the consultation process.

From the three meetings held to date it is clear that some people could be looking for further (on-site?) discussion, while others appeared quite relaxed about any direction to be taken.

I believe that the process of "selective" discussion could be seen to be just that and, on this basis, it is probably important that all residents are notified of the Committee's initial decisions. This could be by way of a letter box drop to all of the residences covered previously.

The communication should make provision for (invite) reference back to the Service Centre on any matters of concern at the outcomes. It is suggested however that residents in individual streets should approach us with a collective comment rather than individually, and that an invitation be offered for representatives (1 or 2) of the streets, where there may be concern, to attend before the Committee at a future meeting to elaborate on those concerns.

The Committee is then, of course, charged with the responsibility of making a recommendation to the Board. There may be some difficulty in making separate and different decisions but it should always be remembered that there is scope for review of any decisions (later) in the light of experience under any changes made.

A plan showing the suggested on-street traffic management proposals is attached as page 14.

There was also discussion on the public meeting outcomes and resident expectations, the proposed recommendations, the "responsibilities" of the College of Education, City Plan inadequacies, use of public roads for the benefit of such institutions, and funding of any on-street works.

Mark Kunnen moved -

"that the cost of any angle parking, after due consideration,
should be met by the College of Education."

The motion lapsed through there being no seconder.

  1. If on-street angle parking is proposed in Dovedale Avenue and Solway Avenue, that the College of Education be approached with the view to a cost-sharing partnership to meet the cost of installation.

  2. That the proposed next stage of consultation be adopted.
Chairperson's Recommendation: That the above recommendations be adopted.


At its February meeting the Board decided that a submission on the discussion document "Two Futures - One Choice" be made via this Committee and referred back to the 4 March meeting of the Community Board.

Only Helen Broughton and Mike Mora were in attendance when this matter was discussed (no comment had been received from other members).

Whilst 'Direction B' of the discussion document is supported (this reads "reduce traffic growth, significant improvements in public transport"), it was considered that more emphasis and pro-action needs to be taken/identified in long-term planning options.

Reduction in vehicle emission and more encouraging statements (such as "investigations for light rail/trains) need to be promoted. A bolder and more comprehensive approach is needed by the territorial authorities and suggested development ideas should be identified.

Through such documentation as the Council's Annual Plan and the Board's Statement of Priorities all would agree that ongoing discussion is needed to encourage greater use of public transport as a good alternative to meeting increased traffic demands on our city's roading network.

Recommendation: That a submission embracing the above points be endorsed by the Community Board, to be forwarded to the Canterbury Regional Council.
Chairperson's Recommendation: That the above recommendation be adopted.



6.1 Blenheim Road Overbridge/Realignment

Still awaiting a report to the City Services Committee, probably now March meeting.

6.2 SH1 Carmen Road, Hornby, Level Crossing

Members will recall our on-site meetings. Tranzrail had advised that this work would be completed by the end of the current financial year.

A memo received indicates that this work could now be completed by the end of May 1998.

6.3 Riccarton Car Parking

Following our meeting with representatives of the Business and Residents Associations on 11 December, they are working through the issue and will come back to this Committee soon.

6.4 Riccarton Road Traffic Management Plan

It was hoped to report back to the February meeting of City Services Committee; now moved out to March.

6.5 Halswell/Halswell Junction/Kennedys Bush/Sparks Road Intersection

Members will be aware that a roundabout has been designed for the above intersection. This was prepared by the Council and forwarded to Transit New Zealand for comment (Halswell Road is a State Highway). The design included Kennedys Bush Road as a "leg" in the roundabout. Transit New Zealand believes that the inclusion of Kennedys Bush Road reduces the optimum performance of the roundabout and will introduce safety concerns. For this reason they will not support the current design.

In the interests of resolving the issue an independent consultant has been asked to consider both alternatives and provide what is essentially a "peer review" of the project. At this stage the outcome of this review is unknown.

Unfortunately there is still no budget for the project. This is contrary to advice received from Transit New Zealand in 1997, at which time this office was informed that construction was planned in the 1998/99 financial year.

Given this latest information it would seem that the roundabout is still several years away.

6.6 Southern Motorway Arterial Options

As resolved by the Community Board (4 February), a meeting with Transit New Zealand is being organised.

The question of kerb and channel on the Main South Road (Chalmers to Parker) will also be on the agenda for that meeting.


Tuesday 17 March, 8.00am.

This will probably include an on-site visit to Middleton Grange School to give further consideration to their problems in relation to Suva Street, to be followed by a visit to the Hillary Crescent Residents Group who have concerns also in relation to Suva Street and pedestrian movements across Curletts Road.




Officer responsible Author
Community Manager Roger Cave, Secretary to the Board
Corporate Plan Output: Riccarton/Wigram Community Board Vol 1, 3.1 text 6

The purpose of this report is to submit the outcomes of the Community Affairs Committee meeting held on 24 February 1998.

(a) Community Consultation

The Committee received a presentation from Jane McLachlan (Community Activities Officer, Beckenham) on the process followed by the Spreydon/Heathcote Community Board in addressing issues raised by a similar Glen Greer exercise in community consultation within the Spreydon/Heathcote community.

Members noted that an outcome had been that the Board's objectives and performance indicators had been restructured for 1998/99 based on the outcomes from the consultation process. It was also noted that the new objectives were proposed to assist the Board in the allocation of its 1998/99 project funding.

The Committee agreed that a similar process, with some refinements, could be suggested to the Board for its later adoption.

As far as timing is concerned, the Committee considered that it would be appropriate to finalise proposed objectives etc prior to the end of the current term with a view to recommending to the incoming Board for its adoption early in the new term.

In acknowledgement of a difficulty in addressing how best to handle "health" and "education" issues, and in noting the resources likely to be required in addressing the three main issues, it was agreed that an emphasis should be given to reviewing options for considering how the Board could advocate/support the "community safety" concerns raised through the consultation.

Officers were requested to prepare a report for the next meeting of the Committee with recommendations for a process to pursue further action, including the identification of stakeholders and the timing for a series of focus meetings to be held to receive further input from the community. An overall framework leading to the recommendations for possible new objectives was also sought.

Recommendation: That the Board endorse the proposed programme for action resulting from the original community consultation exercise.

(b) Other Matters

(i) Broomfield Community Research Outcomes

Members noted that a full report on the outcomes from recent research would be available for consideration at the March meeting of the Committee.

(ii) Friendship House

Officers reported on some difficulties being experienced in planning for the relocation of the former Springs Road Creche building to Gilberthorpes School.

(iii) Hornby After School Programme

Officers similarly reported on difficulties and high costs involved with the proposal to modify the former ATC Cadet Trust building for use with the after school programme.

(iv) Hornby Youth Worker

Members noted that the recently appointed Youth Worker would be in attendance at the March meeting of the Committee to report on his work to date, in accordance with the contract for employment utilising the Board's funds.

(v) Current Community Providers

Members reiterated their interest in receiving further information on all youth workers (current and proposed) in order to better understand the extent of coverage being provided.

Officers confirmed that a "big picture" report would be provided to a later meeting and that a recommendation would be available on the option to meet with the Youth Liaison Committee in order to also assist an understanding of services being provided.

Recommendation: That the information be received.
Chairperson's Recommendation: That the above recommendations be adopted.




Officer responsible Author
Community Manager Roger Cave, Secretary to the Board
Corporate Plan Output: Riccarton/Wigram Community Board Vol 1, 3.1 text 6

The following report from the Land Drainage Engineer, Paul Dickson refers -


The purpose of this report is to report on investigations into the use of Kyle Park for stormwater detention, treatment and disposal to groundwater.

1. Summary

Kyle Park is situated in a triangle between Waterloo Road, Carmen Road and the Main South Railway. It was originally a gravel pit and was subsequently filled with a mix of domestic waste and clean fill by a private operator.

Stormwater from 32 hectares of urban catchment has for many years been directed onto the park and disposed of to ground soakage. The stormwater percolates through the waste body and has the potential to cause groundwater contamination, although effects to date are believed to be minor. The activity does not have a resource consent from the Canterbury Regional Council.

Seven options for disposing of this stormwater in an approved manner have been considered. The recommended option is to continue to dispose of the stormwater to ground soakage at Kyle Park, but at a point distant from the waste body. Stormwater would be held in a temporary storage area of approximately 0.6 hectare extent, including a permanent pond of approximately 1,100 m2 area, then filtered, and discharged to groundwater via a soakage bore.

The impact of the works on Kyle Park can be minimised by appropriate design, and it is expected that the pond and landscaping would enhance the park's appearance.

2. Background

Kyle Park is situated in a triangle between Waterloo Road, Carmen Road and the Main South Railway. Its area is nine hectares. Kyle Park was originally a gravel pit that was subsequently filled with waste. The waste composition is understood to be a mixture of both clean fill and domestic refuse.

Stormwater from a catchment of 32 hectares is currently discharged to surface soakage at two locations within Kyle park; one at the western end of the park, and the other on the northern boundary opposite Taurima Street.

The stormwater discharge to ground soakage does not have a consent from the Canterbury Regional Council (CRC) and would not receive a consent in its present form. The CRC has expressed its concern at stormwater discharging through waste before entering groundwater, with the potential for groundwater contamination.

3. Investigations

3.1 Stormwater Discharges

Two stormwater outfalls discharge into Kyle Park. The larger outfall at the western end of Kyle Park discharges stormwater runoff from about 26.2 ha of predominantly residential catchment to the west, directly onto the surface. A further 3.6 ha could be linked into this drainage system in the future. The smaller Taurima Street outfall discharges runoff from a 5.8 ha residential catchment to the north into a boulder hole disposal pit sited within the park. This pit cannot cope with larger flows and overflows onto the surface.

The entire area of Kyle Park appears to have been infilled with both industrial and domestic waste to a depth of about 15 metres below the level of Waterloo Road. The bottom two to three metres of waste are below the water table.

3.2 Stormwater Disposal Options

The stormwater disposal options considered were:

  1. Discharge stormwater to alternative soakage system (outside Kyle Park);
  2. Divert stormwater to the Heathcote River via Haytons Drain;
  3. Construct on-site retention/treatment pond and discharge via on-site injection well.

3.2.1 Discharge Stormwater to Alternative Soakage System

Two potential sites were investigated; one on rural land between Mortlake Street and Roberts Road, and one near the junction of Racecourse Road and Waterloo Road. In both cases it would be necessary to purchase land, excavate a sizeable pond and lay a new pipeline to the site. It has been assumed that stormwater quality remediation can be achieved to a satisfactory level by soakage through the pond lining. No allowance has been made for water treatment before soakage to ground.

"Mortlake Street Pond" (see Figure 1)

This area is 5 metres higher than Waterloo Road at Kyle Park and a deep excavation would be required if stormwater were to be transferred to the site by gravity. This would require a deep and expensive pipeline to transfer the stormwater.

Land purchase 1.2 ha @ $12,500/ha $ 15,000
Excavate and landscape pond and disposal area 200,000 m3 @ $5/m3 $1,000,000
Revenue from sale of excavated gravel 200,000 m3 @ $2/m3 ($ 400,000)
750mm concrete pipeline 1165 m @ $850/m $ 990,000
  Estimate total $1,605,000

"Racecourse Road Pond" (see Figure 1)

This option could partially utilise existing pipework in Waterloo Road, but suffers from the high cost of land purchase. New pipework could be smaller than above because of the more favourable gradient.

Land purchase 8700 m2 @ $40/m2 $ 348,000
Excavate for pond and dispose of fill off site 5900 m3 @ $10/m3 $ 59,000
Excavate for pond and build embankments 500 m3 @ $20/m3 $ 10,000
675mm concrete pipeline 1030 m @ $600/m $ 618,000
  Estimate total $1,035,000

3.2.2 Stormwater Diversion to the Heathcote River

This option would redirect stormwater pipes serving the Kyle Park catchment into the Haytons Drain system, and hence to the Heathcote River via the Wigram East Retention Basin, or into the Awatea Drain system. Both the Haytons and Awatea pipe networks are designed for a 20% annual exceedence probability ("5 year return period") storm and would be overloaded by the diversion of additional stormwater from Kyle Park. Thus to implement this option it would be necessary to construct many hundreds of metres of large diameter pipe.

Adverse effects of this option would include:

  1. Transfer of stormwater from this catchment to the Heathcote Catchment, with adverse effects on flooding in the Heathcote River,
  2. Lost opportunity to recharge groundwater.

Estimated order of costs $ 1.5 to 2 million.

3.2.3 Treatment and Disposal on Kyle Park

This option involves the construction of a storage area of approximately 0.6 hectare extent, including a permanent pond of approximately 1,100 m2 area and one metre depth. The storage area would be lined and would hold storm runoff in temporary storage until it could be discharged to ground soakage via a sand filter. These dimensions are based on the engineers' judgement that a design storm would be a 10% annual excedence probability (AEP), ("ten year return period") event. Some 6,000 cubic metres would be held in temporary storage during a 10% AEP storm.

The size of the design storm is to be refined during the design phase in consultation with the Canterbury Regional Council.

Apart from the pond and associated landscaping the works would include an open-air sand filter approximately 20 metres square and an underground, concrete pump chamber. Both the sand filter and pump chamber would be screened by appropriate location and planting.

John Marsh & Co Landscape Architects were engaged to consider means of incorporating the pond with enhancements to the park and, if possible, the BMX track. Three options were proposed and have been costed below.

3.2.4 On-Site Treatment Options

Option 1: Pond East of BMX Track

This part of Kyle Park is currently under-utilised as it is open and windswept. It has been difficult to establish a strong planting theme in this area because of the very thin layer of soil and the presence of landfill gases. A water feature and tree planting would add value to what is at present a rather nondescript part of park. A swale would be needed between the BMX track and the road to direct stormwater from the western stormwater pipe. The swale would sit on a terrace, parallel to the footpath, which would benefit the BMX Club by providing additional seating and parking space.

The elevation of this area would necessitate a wider, shallower pond which would thus be more expensive to line. The need for extra earthworks, including shifting the BMX track, makes it the most expensive option.

Excavate and line pond $ 376,000
Filter and outlet structure $ 179,000
Landscape planting $ 49,000
Relocate BMX Track $ 40,000
Estimate Total $ 644,000

Option 2: Pond Adjacent to BMX Track

The option of locating the pond south of the BMX track was discussed with the BMX Club which did not respond favourably to it. It meant reconstruction of some of the track and periodic flooding of the track which, the club feels, might occur at inconvenient times for major club events. The club preferred to avoid this risk.

Not costed in detail.

Approximate order of costs $ 600,000

Option 3: Pond West of BMX Track

The retention of water in the current ponding area, at the west end of the park, was also investigated as an option. The pond in this location would be close to the western discharge point but some distance from the smaller pipe to the east of the BMX track. The option involves removal of some of the woodland trees that currently exist in the area and excavation of the pond around tree roots. It would also require the removal, lining and reinstatement of part of the BMX track. The Parks Unit is not happy with this option as they believe that there are visual and safety disadvantages. The woodland area is a strong feature of the park and should be retained, cleaned up and possibly enhanced.

Excavate and line pond $ 281,000
Filter and outlet structure $ 123,000
Landscape planting $ 49,000
Relocate BMX Track $ 0
Estimate Total $ 453,000

4. Discussion of Options

4.1 Off-Site Treatment

Off-site treatment is possible but suffers from a number of disadvantages, principally cost. The cost of providing soakage at an alternative site is of the order of one million dollars. The cost of providing a satisfactory outfall to the Heathcote River via Haytons Drain or Awatea Drain has not been costed in detail but would be of a similar order of costs.

4.2 Treatment and Disposal on Kyle Park

The proposed on-site works would include construction of a permanent pond with appropriate landscaping, an area set aside for temporary storage and outlet structures, and additional landscape plantings. The impact of structures would be minimised by good design, and the pond and landscaping would significantly enhance the park's appearance and utility.

During a large storm the storage area would partially or wholly fill and would take from one to three days, to empty. However, events in which the pond would fill would be uncommon: for example, there would be a 10% chance in any year of the pond covering the proposed 0.6 hectare lined area. At such times, because of generally wet ground conditions, it is unlikely that the public users would be inconvenienced. Therefore it is unlikely that the park's function would be adversely affected by on-site stormwater disposal.

The costs of on-site treatment options might be reduced by reducing the extent of the lined area. A reduction would increase the chances of untreated stormwater entering groundwater and would be subject to the resource consent process.

Public safety issues would be canvassed during the design and consenting process.

5. Work in Progress

Design work is continuing and the Water Services Unit is planning to lodge a notified resource consent application for on-site treatment and soakage by the end of February 1998. The following steps are in progress:

  1. Obtain the Community Board's agreement to proceed with planning for an on-site option,
  2. Consult the BMX Club about pond location, track relocation (if applicable) and landscape enhancements in the BMX Track area,
  3. Notify the community by means of a letter box drop,
  4. Take engineering and landscape design to a stage suitable for a resource consent application.
  5. Investigate means of reducing the costs of the preferred option.
  6. Apply to the Regional Council for a resource consent to discharge stormwater to ground soakage.

6. Conclusions

On-site Treatment Option 1 is the option preferred by the Parks and Water Services Units because, although the most expensive, it will potentially add the greatest value to the park without disrupting the existing woodland character and BMX Club operation. Some further design work to identify possible cost reductions is warranted.

Off-site treatment options are not desirable because they are more expensive and are unable to provide complementary benefits to the park.

  1. That this report be received.

  2. That the Riccarton/Wigram Community Board endorse Option 1.

  3. That the Water Services and Parks Units proceed with design work on Option 1 and identify possible means of reducing costs.

  4. That Council apply to the Regional Council for a resource consent to discharge stormwater to ground soakage, based on On-Site Treatment Option 1.

The location map and the three options are attached as pages 26 to 29.


An on-site meeting of the Environmental Committee was held at Kyle Park on Thursday 26 February.

The following members were in attendance: Mike Mora (Chairperson), Mary Corbett and Mark Kunnen, Bob Shearing. An apology was received from Lesley Keast.

Members met on site at Kyle Park and were joined with officers to assist discussion on the options to be considered for the disposal of stormwater presently discharging into Kyle Park.

Paul Dickson (Land Drainage Engineer) and Suzanne Weld (Parks Planner) explained the bases behind the choice of the options before the Committee, and further explained the detailed planning and cost for each option. Members noted that the options ranged in cost between $453,000 and $644,000 and that design and supervision fees would be an additional cost.

Members also noted that there would be a need for work, in each case, affecting part or all of the existing BMX track. The degree of remedial work would vary according to the option chosen.

After a full discussion members agreed that option 1 would be the preferred choice, with option 3 (being the cheapest option) being the second preference. Members did however agree that there should be community input into the final assessment and that appropriate consultation should now take place prior to a final consideration of the options.

The Committee noted that no specific allocation of funding was presently available within the Council's current five year capital programme.

Committee Recommendation:
  1. That the Board endorse the Committee's preference for option 1, with a second preference for option 3.

  2. That a further report be received following the Water Services Unit carrying out appropriate consultation with the community to ascertain community views on the two options.




Officer responsible Author
City Streets Manager Brendan Bisley, Projects Engineer
Corporate Plan Output: Riccarton/Wigram Community Board Vol 1 3.1 text 6

The purpose of this report is to provide an update on progress with the City Streets Capital Works Programme within the Board's area.

A. Kerb and Channel Renewals

i. Darvel Street (Kilmarnock - Matai Street West)

Full reconstruction. Construction is complete.

ii. Kahu Road (Kilmarnock - Totara Street)

Full reconstruction. Construction is complete.

B. New Construction

i. Hendersons Road Footpath

Construction of new kerb and channel and footpath on the south west side to link the two existing kerb and channels. The project has been completed.

ii. Kennedys Bush Road (Hyndhope - End)

Construction of kerb and channel and a footpath on the quarry side of the road. The contract has been tendered. Construction is underway.

iii. Carmen Road Footpath

Construction of a new footpath along the west side of Carmen Road. Construction is complete.

C. Safety Works

i. Buchanans/Hasketts

Construction of kerb and channel to improve the intersection visibility. Tender has been delayed. Expected tender is March. The delay was caused by problems with the drain at the corner.

ii. Buchanans/Racecourse

Construction of the community initiated trial scheme is complete.

iii. Springs/Awatea

Construction of a splitter island. Construction is complete.

iv. Springs/Garvins

Threshold construction. The project has been deferred due to problems finalising the stormwater piping requirements.

v. Waterloo/Moffatt

Intersection improvements to more clearly define the various streets. Construction is underway.

vi. Peer/Waimairi

Realignment of the intersection to improve safety. Expected tender date is March.

Recommendation: That the information be received.
Chairman's Recommendation: That the information be received.



The purpose of this report is to inform the Community Board on progress on parks capital projects within the Board area as at 31 January 1998.


Included in this report is a schedule (pages 33 and 34) setting out progress details in respect to individual parks capital projects. In general terms the programme is progressing satisfactorily with scheduled completion times likely to be met with the majority of projects.

Exception Reports

Set out below is an update on projects that are anticipated to be delayed or deferred, along with advice on project reallocations.

Recommendation: That the information be received.
Chairman's Recommendation: That the information be received.




Officer responsible Author
City Streets Manager Paul Burden, Area Engineer
Corporate Plan Output: Local Traffic Management

The purpose of this report is to present the draft Broomfield / Hei Hei / Islington Local Area Traffic Management Scheme to the Board and gain approval to circulate it to the public for comment.

A very well attended public meeting was held on Tuesday 26 August 1997 to consider traffic safety improvements for inclusion in the LATMS. The issues raised are outlined on the list of concerns in the draft plan.

The draft LATMS is being presented to the Board prior to circulation for public comment. A copy of the LATMS is circulated to Board members with this agenda.

Recommendation: That the draft Broomfield / Hei Hei / Islington Local Area Traffic Management Scheme be circulated for public comment.
Chairperson's Recommendation: That the officers recommendation be adopted.




Officer responsible Author
Community Manager Stephen Cribb, Property Services Officer
Corporate Plan Output: Property Services Consultancy 8.8 text 2

In accordance with the Property Manager's flow chart process these three properties have been identified as being surplus to Council requirements.

Consideration is now being given to options for disposal/lease/redevelopment.

The three residential sections were acquired in 1976 for future road widening but are now surplus to City Streets' requirements.

The Property Status Report and street plan are attached as pages 35 and 36.

Recommendation: That members endorse the request of the Property Manager that Nos 84-86 and 94 Buchanans Road are surplus to requirements.
Chairperson's Recommendation: That the officer's recommendation be adopted.



Officer responsible Author
Community Manager Roger Cave, Secretary to the Board
Corporate Plan Output: Elected Member Representation, Vol 1 3.1 text 4

The Board is required by early March 1998 to have resolved its allocation of project discretionary funding for the 1998/99 financial year. At two previous meetings of this Committee (15 December and 27 January) there has been discussion on the process of allocating these funds.

Issues raised included -

it should be acknowledged that many of our current practices are based on these, eg after school programmes, funding committee outcomes etc.

The following schedule received the endorsement of the informal meeting of the Finance and Policy Committee held on Thursday 19 February. A schedule of all requests is attached for members' information.

Chairperson's Recommendations:
  1. That the Community Board allocate its 1998/99 Project Fund as follows:
Project 2000 $15,000
Community Activities  
Hornby Youth Worker $15,000
Gilberthorpes OSCAR $14,000
Riccarton Youth Subsidies $10,000
Community Development facilitation, Hornby $17,000
Community Initiatives Fund $23,000
Outdoor youth recreation facilities $30,000
Maintenance assistance fund for community sports groups $5,000
Arcon Stream Reserve, play equipment $15,000
Kyle Park planting $6,000
City Streets  
Buchanans/Vanguard pedestrian improvements $15,000
Maxwell Street at Division Street traffic restraint $20,000
Wadeley Road traffic restraints/turning ban $45,000
Waterloo Road at Kyle Park pedestrian refuge islands $20,000
  1. That the 1998/99 Discretionary Fund of $50,000 be retained and allocated during that financial year.




Section 48, Local Government Official Information and Meetings Act 1987.

I move that the public be excluded from the following parts of the proceedings of this meeting, namely clause 13.

The general subject of each matter to be considered while the public is excluded, the reason for passing this resolution in relation to each matter and the specific grounds under Section 48(1) of the Local Government Official Information and Meetings Act 1987 for the passing of this resolution are as follows:

13. SURPLUS ROADING PROPERTY AT 140 SPRINGS ROAD Good reason to withhold exists under Section 7 Section 48 (i) (a)

This resolution is made in reliance of Section 48(1) of the Local Government Official Information and Meetings Act 1987 and the particular interest or interests protected by Section 6 or Section 7 of the Act which would be prejudiced by the holding of the whole or relevant part of the proceedings of the meeting in public are as follows:

13. Conduct of negotiations. Section 7 (2) (i)

Top of Page ~ Council & Councillors Information

This page is not a current Christchurch City Council document. Please read our disclaimer.
© Christchurch City Council, Christchurch, New Zealand | Contact the Council