DECISION OF THE HEARINGS PANEL. Community Board Member David East (Chairperson) Councillor Jamie Gough Community Board Member David Cartwright.

Transcription

1 IN THE MATTER OF the Local Government Act 1974, Section 339 A N D IN THE MATTER OF an objection to a proposed transport shelter outside Number 64 Main North Road DECISION OF THE HEARINGS PANEL DATE OF HEARING: PANEL MEMBERS: IN ATTENDANCE: At Christchurch in the Boardroom, Papanui Service Centre, 35 Langdons Road on Friday 24 May 2013 at 1.30pm before the Hearings Panel. Community Board Member David East (Chairperson) Councillor Jamie Gough Community Board Member David Cartwright. Des and Marie Gibbard (Objectors) Jenny Law and Bobby Kwok (Objectors) Lona Nation (Objector) Paul Burden (Road Corridor Operations Manager) Christine Toner (Consultation Leader, Transport) Edward Wright (Environment Canterbury) Janet Anderson and Aimee Bryant (Committee Advisers). INTRODUCTION The hearing was held to consider objections received from Des and Marie Gibbard, S Law and Bobby Kwok, Lona Nation and Alistair Ritchie to a proposal to erect a bus shelter at an existing bus stop outside Number 64 Main North Road. The objections had been referred to the Council s Hearing Panel for a determination in accordance with Section 339 of the Local Government Act BACKGROUND At the Shirley Papanui Community Board meeting of 8 May 2013, the Board considered a report seeking its approval to install a Super Stop (several combined bus stops) on Main North Road. In confirming its support for increasing the use of public transport, the Board also acknowledged that setting up new bus stops in residential areas may well inconvenience the few to benefit the many. The Board accepted an assurance from Ecan officers that the proposed location was the logical one, given that it was a route change-over point and noted previous advice that the Northlands Super Stop was an interim solution to the establishment of a permanent Papanui interchange hub. Acting under delegated authority from the Council the Board resolved, inter alia, that the existing bus stops alongside the Northlands Mall car parking area be extended and that a new bus stop be created on the south east side of Main North Road, commencing at a point nine metres north east of its intersection with Proctor Street and extending in a north easterly direction for a distance of 13

2 metres. The Board further resolved that a Crime Prevention Through Environment Design (CPTED) audit be completed for the proposed bus stops and that recommendations for the reduction of anti-social behaviour and vandalism come to the Shirley Papanui Board as soon as possible; and requested staff to consider the installation of sufficient rubbish bins in relation to the Super Stops. The original proposal included the installation of additional upgraded on-street shelters to protect transferring passengers from inclement weather and to provide a safe and clean environment while they wait. Affected residents had written to the Shirley Papanui Community Board objecting to both the proposed Super Stops and to the proposed Bus Shelters. As the Community Board did not have delegated authority to make a determination regarding the bus shelters, those residents were advised that they would need to make a separate objection to the proposed bus shelters and that these objections would be considered and determined by a Council Hearings Panel. Four written objections were received in accordance with Section 339 (3) and referred to the Council Hearings panel in accordance with section 339 (4) of the Act. In their written objections, which related to the shelter/bus stop on the south-eastern side of the Main North Road, the submitters raised the following issues: a) Bus shelters attract vagrants and teenagers who use them as overnight accommodation and party spaces, with unacceptable and sometimes frightening noise and behaviour late at night. Users of the bus shelter opposite No 64 already cause this kind of nuisance to the residents. b) Vandalism to surrounding property occurs now, with the bus stop now outside No 64 and also around the nearby bus shelters. The fence and gate post at No 62 was painted with graffiti in the few days prior to their objection being written. Graffiti, bottles, and broken glass (of the actual shelter structure) are frequently observed in the other shelters along the road. Neighbours feel that the introduction of bus shelters will exacerbate this vandalism. c) At shelters along the road and opposite on Main North Road there are often used condoms, broken bottles, food containers, shopping trolleys and rubbish left in and around the shelter; there is commonly an odour of urine and vomit in and around the shelters. Even with the bus stop now in place, the residents have to clean up underwear, condoms and other rubbish from their driveways and letterboxes. Neighbours say that no one else takes responsibility for cleaning this up. d) Immediate neighbours are concerned about their privacy being threatened, and are concerned that if security cameras are required, these may further invade their privacy. e) They are concerned about any additional lighting around the bus shelter creating a disturbance to their living and sleeping areas. f) Shelters impede access along the public footpath. g) The proposed structures offer limited protection from wind and rain and are therefore of doubtful economic value. h) Shelters will require constant maintenance at a cost to the ratepayer.

3 i) A shelter will add to the obstruction of visibility for drivers as they enter and exit their driveway. There are anecdotes that buses currently stop at this bus stop for more time than it takes for a passenger to alight or disembark. (Note: ECan advise that the stop is currently used as a timing point, because of the Hub requirement for connection between buses from various routes, and sometimes a bus will wait at this stop for longer than ten minutes). Thus a driver leaving one of these properties has to emerge past the front of the bus before they can see if traffic is approaching. The residents point out that a shelter would obscure the small window of visibility at the point where the resident crosses the footpath, so neither the resident driver nor the driver of an approaching vehicle can see one another until the exiting vehicle is well out onto the carriageway beyond the bus. j) When the residents arrive home, they are often prevented from entering their own driveway by vehicles that have U-turned on Main North Road after leaving the Northlands car park. These vehicles get stuck in the driveway as the road is not quite wide enough for the movement. These U-turning drivers have to wait for a gap in the traffic, often with their view of the road obscured by a bus and potentially a bus shelter - before they can reverse up and complete their turn. Consequently the residents wait for some time in the middle of Main North Road until their driveway is clear.

4 THE HEARING Evidence of Mr Des Gibbard Mr Gibbard advised that he was speaking on his own behalf and also that of his neighbours with whom the proposal had been discussed. He stressed the following: Poor visibility for vehicles exiting the driveway when buses are there and a shelter will make it worse. Some buses wait there for five minutes or more. Has counted up to five buses waiting at the stop at the same time. Rubbish and cigarette butts are discarded in the surrounding areas untidy. People are drinking, breaking bottles and relieving themselves on private property. In response to the Panel Mr Gibbard advised he had resided at his address for approximately nine years. The buses that wait most often are the ones that go to Bishopdale and Princess Margaret Hospital. Evidence of Mrs Marie Gibbard Mrs Gibbard presented a written statement describing an incident that had occurred that morning as she was exiting her driveway at 7.15am. She described that a bus driver stopped in front of her, opened the door and did the fingers to her. She also stated that Main North Road had become even more busy with the additional buses on this route, that waiting buses which leave their engines running cause vibrations and that it would be better to move the bus stop to the business area near Mary Street. Evidence of Ms Jenny Law Based on observation of what has occurred in the shelter on the other side of the road Ms Law objected to a bus shelter on the south eastern side of Main North Road: Noisy vandals breaking glass. People hide in the shelter. Better location between Mary Street and Loftus Street outside businesses. Cycles ride on the footpath as there is no cycle lane where the buses stop. Car collisions occur frequently in the area now there are two bus stops directly opposite each other. Numerous buses stop there and wait. Beggars frequent bus shelters. Surrounding properties are damaged and used to discard rubbish. Access to their letter box would be impeded. Use Briscoes as a hub.

5 Evidence of Edward Wright, Ecan Officer Mr Wright explained the background to the proposal and how this bus stop/shelter fits the overall design of the transport system. Northlands Mall is the third most important destination point after Riccarton Mall and the Central Interchange in Tuam Street. The bus stop is part of a pilot project for the new hubs and spokes model. The Northlands hub serves the Main Blue Line from the north to Princess Margaret Hospital and feeder services to and from Riccarton and Eastgate. It needs to be a timing point (buses cannot leave before their scheduled time) to ensure the timetable at stops further along the line is accurate. Ecan has undertaken to review its timetables in an effort to reduce these waiting times but acknowledges traffic varies, for example it reduces when schools are on holiday. Only Bishopdale and St Albans buses actually terminate at this stop two other services terminate at Langdons Road. Finally good facilities for passengers are important to the success of the model. The design of the shelters addressed some of the issues residents raised. The glass sides improved visibility for residents exiting their properties and also provided a deterrent effect to occupants engaging in less savoury activities. Light spill at night would be no greater than the ambient street lighting and while the glass could be broken with some effort, it was a lot easier to clean. HEARINGS PANEL CONSIDERATION Size of Shelters The panel asked Mr Burden, the Council s Road Corridor Operations Manager, whether the size of the shelter at 16 metres long was necessary and was assured that this was less than optimal capacity if anything. Location Both Mr Burden and Mr Wright stressed that the bus stop/shelter was seen as an interim and less than ideal solution until a suitable off street interchange can be identified and developed. In response to a further question from the panel, Mr Wright advised that Langdons Road would not be suitable as a termination point for the Orbiter or the Blue Line which come down Harewood Road. Also there was not enough space, there were three separate stops between the Main North Road and Langdons Road termini and generally eliminating the Main North Road stop would slow the buses down. The panel considered the proposal from some of the submitters to site the stop near Mary Street, outside businesses, would also be unsuitable because of lack of space. Reference to the map showed that even if the traffic island was moved there would be insufficient space outside the commercial property at No 58 between driveways. The panel believed it had to accept the assurance of staff that a thorough investigation into location had been carried out and the proposed site was the most suitable. While recognising that the objectors would be inconvenienced by having a number of buses stopping outside their properties it did not appear that the proposed shelter would unreasonably prevent access to any land having a frontage to the road in terms of s.339(1).

6 Other Nuisance Factors The panel asked Mr Wright what protocol did drivers follow if there were already buses waiting at the stop, and were advised that there was no exact science, and that bus drivers would need to find a space to queue behind in the bus lane. The degree to which this happened would need to be taken into account when reviewing the bus schedules. The panel then asked about how damage to bus shelters was reported. Mr Wright replied that the bus driver could radio it in or a member of the public could report it to Metro-info. From there it would be relayed to the City Council. The panel agreed that the ideal solution would be to locate and purchase a suitable property where a permanent interchange could be constructed. It could not see the traffic congestion improving in the future and accepted that the bus shelter has to be adjacent to the bus stop which in turn needs to be located reasonably close to the destination point (Northlands Mall). However, the panel further agreed that its decision needed to reinforce a number of mitigating factors to deal with the very real issues raised by the submitters. DECISION The Panel resolved, acting under delegated authority of the Christchurch City Council, to: 1. Receive the written and verbal submissions from Des and Marie Gibbard, Jenny Law and Bobby Kwok, Lona Nation and Alistair Ritchie. 2. Decline to uphold their objection to the siting of the proposed bus shelter. 3. Approve the erection of a bus shelter extending for 16 metres on the footpath outside No 64 and part of 1/66 Main North Road on the south eastern side. 4. Support the resolutions of the Shirley Papanui Community Board and recommend that staff implement mitigating measures wherever practicable including the establishment of regular cleaning and rubbish collection routines. 5. Request staff to maintain regular contact with the residents in the area of the Super Stop and to supply them with a contact phone number or numbers to call in the event of them experiencing any of the issues alluded to in their submissions. 6. Request staff to investigate ways in which the implementation of a permanent transport interchange to service the bus routes which terminate or pass through Northlands and Langdons Road can be more speedily effected. DATED AT CHRISTCHURCH THIS 30 TH DAY OF MAY 2013 COMMUNITY BOARD MEMBER DAVID EAST CHAIRMAN