Merivale Parking Plan Campaign

Fighting Fund Bank Account and Stickers

Fighting Fund

We have opened a new Bank Account for the Fighting Fund at Westpac named "Merivale Parking".  The account number is 03-1707-0154286-000

Our legal advice is we have a good case to challenge CCC restricted parking in Merivale. We need funds for our fighting fund and every bit helps. Enquiries to Sheryn Gillard Glass and Cathy Solomon, glass@es.co.nz, 52 Murray Place Christchurch 8014, ph 3554 258.

Stickers.

We have some stickers available for distribution which will be a very visible and daily reminder to the Council of opposition to the Merivale Parking Plan. The stickers are adhesive, fluorescent and size A5 and can be attached to letter boxes or motor vehicles, or attached to inside windows with eg bluetack.

There are two stickers. Firstly;

WE OPPOSE

CCC PARKING RESTRICTIONS

DON'T MESS WITH MERIVALE

Secondly, for those who would consider an amended parking plan if there were Residents' Parking Exemptions;

WE WANT

PARKING EXEMPTIONS

DON'T MESS WITH MERIVALE

Urgent Official Information Request dated 27 March 2009

On 27 March 2009 we made an urgent Official Information request to the Christchurch City Council. We attach a copy of the letter and subsequent interim correspondence with Mr Graham Sutherland, Community Board Advisor.

MERIVALE PARKING PLAN CAMPAIGN

www.merivale.typepad.com

 

 

52 Murray Place

CHRISTCHURCH

  8014

Ph 3554 258. Fax 355 4882. Email glass@es.co.nz

27 March 2009

 

 

Mr Graham Sutherland

Community Board Advisor

Christchurch

City Council

Christchurch

 

Sent by Email                                 

 

 

Dear Mr Sutherland

 

URGENT: MERIVALE PARKING PLAN

 

Would you please provide the following information as an urgent request for Official Information under the Local Government Official Information Meetings Act 1987. The reason for the urgency is because the information is necessary so our legal advisors will be in possession of relevant facts and in a position to give legal advice.

 

Retailers’ concerns.

 

We refer to paragraph 16 of the Community Board Agenda dated

24 November 2008

which says that in September 2004 the Council commissioned a parking occupancy survey in and around Merivale Mall in response to “concerns expressed by retailers regarding parking supply in the area.”

 

Please provide any records of the content of those concerns together with the following:

 

(i)                  Were those who expressed concerns retailing in and around the Merivale Mall at the time they expressed concerns?

 

(ii)                 How are the concerns recorded?

 

(iii)               Where are the concerns recorded?

 

(iv)              Are the concerns recorded in writing?

 

(v)                How many retailers in total expressed concerns?

 

(vi)              Over what period of time were the retailers’ concerns expressed? Please supply dates.

 

Complaints.

 

You have advised that the Merivale Parking Plan was in response to complaints received by the Christchurch City Council.

 

Please provide any records of the content of those complaints together with the following:

 

(i)                  How are those complaints recorded?

 

(ii)                Where are those complaints recorded?

 

(iii)               How many complaints are there in total?

 

(iv)              What period of time do the complaints cover? Please supply dates.

 

(v)                Are the complainants residents in the streets affected by the Merivale Parking Plan?

 

(vi)              If some complainants are residents, please advise how many of the total number of complainants reside in the streets affected by the Merivale Parking Plan.

 

Contract to Mark the Kerbs of Affected Streets Prior to the Decision on

2 February 2009

 

(i)                  When was the contract to mark the kerbs in the streets affected by the proposed Merivale Parking Plan made and when was the contract concluded?

 

(ii)                Did the Christchurch City Council (or the appropriate division of the said Council) issue a Tender in respect of marking those kerbs?

 

(iii)               Was the tender advertised? If so, please provide a copy of the advertisement.

 

(iv)              Please supply a copy of the Tender documents.

 

(v)                When did the contract to mark those kerbs commence or come into force? i.e. what was the ignition point of the contract?

 

(vi)              What are all the terms and all the conditions of the contract?  These extend beyond the price to be paid to the contractors. We need to know what work was to be done and when was it to be done and where it was to be done.

 

(vii)             In respect of the price to be paid to the contractors it is public money which is being expended and such a cost to public money would be published in the accounts of the Christchurch City Council. In addition, the cost is an indication as to the extent of the work which was to be done. Therefore we do not accept that the price cannot be revealed as one of the terms and conditions of the contract.  

 

 

 

South Merivale

(Schools) Parking Plan

 

Please forward paper copies of all Council/Community Board Agendas in respect of the

South Merivale

(Schools) Parking Plan.

 

Papanui Rd Bus Priority Project

 

Please forward paper copies of all Council/Community Board Agendas in respect of the Papanui Rd Bus Priority Project.

 

We look forward to your early response.

 

Yours faithfully

 

Sheryn Gillard Glass and Jim Glass, Cathy Solomon and Jim Barribeau.

Also on behalf of others.

  

Copy to Mr Phil Shamy

Raymond Donnelly & Co

P O Box

533

CHRISTCHURCH

8140

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

10 April 2009 by Email

 

Dear Graham

 

Thankyou for your email saying you have forwarded our Urgent Official Information request dated 27 March 2009 to the appropriate Council staff for a response.

 

We are surprised about this as you are the Community Board Advisor and surely could deal with our urgent request very quickly as you have access to the information. You have always in earlier contact and correspondence been "the person in the know" as regards writing and disseminating material such as meeting Agendas and Reports for the Fendalton/Waimairi Community Board and Committees and the minutes of the meetings and the receiving of written submissions. 

 

Would you please advise who, if not you, has access to the information urgently requested.

 

Yours faithfully

 

Sheryn Gillard Glass and Jim Glass, Cathy Solomon and Jim Barribeau

Also on behalf of others.

 

----- Original Message -----

From: Sutherland, Graham

To: Jim & Sheryn Glass

Sent: Friday, March 27, 2009 9:19 AM

Subject: RE: Urgent Official Information Request Attached

Thank you for your email.  I have forwarded your request to the appropriate Council staff for a response.

 

regards

Graham

 

Graham Sutherland
Community Board Adviser - Fendalton/Waimairi
Democracy Services Unit
DDI: 03 941 6728
Fax: 03 941 6748
Mobile: 027 645 1439
Email: graham.sutherland@ccc.govt.nz
Web: www.ccc.govt.nz
Christchurch City Council
Fendalton Service Centre, Corner Jeffreys & Clyde Roads, Fendalton.  PO Box 29 183, Christchurch 8540
Please consider the environment before printing this email.

 

Where Will it Stop?

On Wednesday 1 April 2009 in the Press (page A2) is a disturbing article beginning "Long-stay parking fees could be increased on Christchurch Streets to get more commuters on buses".

It says "New parking charges could also be introduced in streets aroung suburban shopping centres and on the fringes of the city centre to cut commuter travel and encourage bus travel. The new parking fees proposed on the central business district fringe would target commuteers who evaded long-stay charges by parking outside the central city and walking in. The proposals are included in a draft transport strategy drawn up by the Christchurch City Council."

 It seems that, having approved the three separate plans affecting Merivale against the wishes of many residents and local businesses, the Council may now intend to extend restricted parking in the whole of Christchurch. The three Merivale plans are the Merivale Parking Plan, the South Merivale (Schools) Parking Plan and the Papanui Rd Bus Priority Route Plan.

Where will it stop?

Mike Yardley criticises some of the ideas espoused by the Council and the former Mayor in his column in the Christchurch Press on Saturday 4 April 2009 under the sub headings "Smashing Suburbs" and "Park and Die" (Page D5).  

Update 31 March 2009 : Fighting Fund and Legal Advice

 On 2 February 2009, Community Board Committee approved the Proposed Merivale Parking Plan despite 13 submissions opposing it including submissions by Sheryn Gillard Glass and Cathy Solomon supported by nearly 2000 signatures of persons affected by the Proposed Plan, including over 500 Merivale residents.

At the end of the meeting Sheryn asked what was the next step - would it be Judicial Review. Cheryl Colley replied that the decision just made was a final decision. However, the CCC news release issued on 3 February showed this was untrue. All was not lost as the approval given on 

2 February 2009

(by a vote of 6 to 1) had yet to be ratified.

 

The same Council Members and Community Board members sit on the Community Board as on the Committee and they said in a written news media release that the decision will be ratified on

Tuesday 10 February 2009

.

We consulted Phil Shamy, a partner of Raymond Donnelly about this matter and engaged him to seek to delay the ratification while he looked at the matter.

 

 

A FIGHTING FUND

 

We set up a fighting fund and funds quickly came in to pay for a Legal opinion.  Mr Shamy wrote to the CCC asking for the proposed ratication to be rescheduled in one month's time so he would have time to give legal advice and represent us. As no reply was forthcoming, Mr Shamy wrote again.  The CCC sent a fax refusing to defer the decision. 

The Community Board did ratify the decision. The persons who voted to ratify it were: Cheryl Colley, Sally Buck, Val Carter (Chairwoman), Jamie Gough, Mike Wall and Andrew Yoon. Faimeh

Burke voted against it as the people did not want it.

 

 

2 February 2009 Submission Notes of Cathy Solomon

These are the notes to which Cathy Solomon spoke at the meeting on 2 February 2009 of the Fendalton/Waimairi Community Board Works, Traffic and Environment Committee in opposition to the Proposed Merivale Parking Plan.

To the Members of The Fendalton/Waimairi Community Board: Cheryl Colley, Sally Buck, Faimeh Burke, Val Carter, Jamie Gough, Mike Wall and Andrew Yoon.

Submission Notes from Cathy Solomon

2 February 2009

1191 individuals signed our submission forms. Of these 1055 completely opposed the PMPP.

I spoke to many residents, ratepayers, businesses and employees and was surprised by strength of their feelings against the scheme.

1. A few quotations that reflect the feelings of the community:

“The present situation is bearable. More planning will bring grief. If it is a plan to make money, then it will bring anger as well.”

Having lived in Murray Place since 1999 the traffic has always been busy Mon-Fri but manageable for us and our friends. We would be very disappointed to see parking signs and/or painted lines etc on our beautiful street.”

“This is a residential area & if there is a parking problem due to the commercial area in Merivale _ then they (the businesses there) should be made to address it.

“If it ain’t broke, don’t fix it.”  From various people

2. Some of the issues that surfaced from these discussions

·        We choose to live in this neighbourhood because of the amenities            

o       the restaurants, shops, banks, post office, medical facilities, etc.

o       the closeness to the city

o       parking issues seen as a minor inconvenience rather than a problem

           

Most people feel that 120 will make the situation in Merivale worse.

Cutting down parking, even on one side of the road, is going to penalise residents. It will cut the available parks in half and double the demand on the free side of the street.

·        Many residents worry that the free side will be parked up first thing in the morning.

·        Traffic on the roads with P120 will increase as potential parkers cruise looking for recently vacated places.

·        Nowhere could I find any evidence of the efficacy of restricting parking on one side of the street. Were any studies or reports discovered or commissioned that found evidence to support this solution? Have any other cities used it successfully?

  

·        Concern that parking restrictions in residential areas will lower property values.

·        Businesses and employees were worried about the safety of employees as they have to hunt further and further afield for parking spaces.

·        Paragraph 20 of the Agenda indicates that “each and every business owner was visited by council representatives…” However, paragraph 32 (p. 11) claims 5 businesses responded. But where is the data from all the visits? Why wasn’t this information included in the report? Is there a summary of concerns from businesses and medical practices/facilities?

·        Disability parking concerns. If parking on the roads around Merivale become restricted to P120, 60 & 30, have plans been drawn up to include enough disability parks? Problems near Nurse Maud and other places.

·        Over the years many of the roads included in the PMPP have been upgraded, beautified, narrowed and as a result lost parking spaces. Many residents blame to council for the loss of these parking places and for not considering other solutions such as angle parking when the upgrades were taking place.

If one were to look at the numbers of people we found who oppose the PMPP as well as consider paragraphs 33 and 52 of today’s agenda (“Analysis of the results by residential zones shows that the majority of the residents are not supportive of the PMPP in its initially proposed state. …”), there seems no mandate to go ahead with the PMPP.

Our Press Release 4 February 2009

MERIVALE PARKING PLAN CAMPAIGN

www.merivale.typepad.com

PRESS RELEASE

52 Murray Place

CHRISTCHURCH

  8014

Ph 3554 258. Fax 355 4882. Email glass@es.co.nz

4 February 2009

A severe blow was dealt to local democracy on

2 February 2009

when, despite many submissions from members of the public opposing it, a  committee of the Waimari/Fendalton Board approved the Proposed Merivale Parking Plan by 6 votes to 1. One Member of the Community Board, Faimeh Burke, voted against the Plan and said she voted against it because the people do not want it. 

 

The Committee members, Cheryl Colley, Sally Buck, Val Carter, Jamie Gough, Mike Wall and Andrew Yoon approved the plan on

2 February 2009

despite the fact that we tabled submissions at the meeting with signatures from 1,191 people opposing the proposed plan, of whom 1,055 people opposed it totally, including at least 510 Merivale residents. When we went door to door speaking to residents in their own homes there was overwhelming opposition to the Parking Plan as the figures show.

The Community Board had no mandate to approve the plan. The Council sent out 4,700 newsletters in the middle of 2008 and received an 8% response (ie 375 responses) as follows:

33% in support of the proposed Plan 123.75 people

40% opposed the plan                       150     people

27% gave no response                       101.25 people

In gathering the signatures we confirmed the written information  many Merivale residents and businesses posted to us in questionaires in December 2008 which is that there is great concern in the community about this matter and people do not want restricted parking. Merivale people were very upset when the City Council engaged engineers to mark the kerbs prior to the decision, in respect of which we await a satisfactory explanation and information requested under the Official Information Act.

Our consultation was public. See our website at www.merivale.typepad.com to read for yourself our written submissions to the Community Board, letters in respect of our consultation with Merivale residents and businesses and other documents. We are considering our next step, as to any rights of appeal, or judicial review.

We have seen the Press release issued on

3 February 2009

by the Fendalton/Waimairi Community Board’s Works, Traffic and Environment Committee in which Mrs Val Carter incorrectly referred to our submissions as a petition (twice).  I telephoned Mrs Carter and she apologised for the error. As to the Committee’s unfounded criticism of the signatures, the submissions and original signatures are on the Council file in two bound volumes. Go and have a look.

Sheryn Gillard Glass and Cathy Solomon.

Official Information Request- Unsatisfactory replies from CCC & the Mayor

On 23 January 2009 we made an urgent Official INformation request for the name of the consulting engineer who was contracted by the CCC to undertake the work and asked the CCC to advise the date and terms of the contract. The CCC has not advised the terms of the contract- there are many terms in addition to hourly rates - see reply dated 9 February 2009: 

"09 February 2009

Our Ref No: 8007

Sheryn Gillard Glass & Jim Glass

 

 

Per Email: glass@es.co.nz

 

Dear Mr & Mrs Glass

Local Government Official Information and meetings act 1987

I refer to your email dated

23 January 2009

in relation to a request for information re the Merivale Parking Plan.

The Network Operations Team of the Transport and Greenspace Unit, directed their engineering consultants, Via Strada, to measure the proposed parking restrictions in Merivale.  The instruction to Via Stada was a verbal instruction only and took place on the morning of

the 15^th January 2009

.

Via Strada charge on a per hour basis and this information is withheld under Section 7(h) of the Local Government Official Information and Meetings Act 1987 to allow the Christchurch City Council to carry out, without prejudice or disadvantage, commercial activities.

I advised that under the provisions of the Local Government Official Information and Meetings Act 1987 you have the right to request the office of the Ombudsmen to review the decision of the Council on the disclosure of the information requested.

I trust this assists.

Yours faithfully

Jason Roberts

Solicitor

Legal Services Unit

 

cc: Jessica Maddock

 

JR:FHP

TRIM: 09/16088

 

 Correspondence with Mayor

On 23 January 2009 we wrote to the Mayor, Mr Bob Parker, by email and enclosed copies of our 2 letters to the Waimairi/Fendalton Community Board dated 20 and 23 January 2009 seeking explanations as to the marking of the kerbs prior to the meeting to consider the Proposed Merivale Parking Plan. Our email dated 23 January 2009 and the Mayor's reply dated 19 February 2009 are as follows:

"Dear Mr Parker

 

We write to you as the Mayor of Christchurch. We wonder if you are aware that Council officials have instructed engineers to measure and mark various streets of Merivale and seem to be behaving as if a decision has already been made prior to the meeting on 2 February 2009? We wonder if you are comfortable with the situation?

 

We attach a copy of a letter we wrote to the Fendalton/Waimairi Community Board which is self explanatory. We have this morning again written to the Fendalton/Waimairi Community Board. Please see next email. We look forward to hearing from you.

 

Yours faithfully

 

Sheryn Gillard Glass and Jim Glass and others." 

 

"glass@es.co.nz

Dear Sheryn and Jim

Thank you for your email regarding the marking of parking restrictions distances/stretches on various streets in Merivale.  I understand that Peter Barnes, Consultation Leader, and by the Fendalton/Waimairi Community Board have already written to you.

I am assured the marking of streets before the meeting by the Community Board is standard practice and the most efficient method of making sure that what is proposed in the reports to the Community Board is a correct and accurate measurement.  If the Community Board resolves to reject the recommendations of the report the markings will fade with time, if on the other hand the Community Board resolves to agree with the recommendations in the report then there is no need to take the measurements again and there is no disagreement over where it was agreed the lines should go.

Thanks for emailing me.

Bob Parker
MAYOR "

 

Submissions of Sheryn Gillard Glass to the Fendalton/Waimairi Community Board

To the Members of The Fendalton/Waimairi Community Board; Cheryl Colley, Sally Buck, Faimeh Burke, Val Carter, Jamie Gough, Mike Wall and Andrew Yoon.

 

Submissions From Sheryn Gillard Glass.

 

2 February 2009

 

I am Sheryn Gillard Glass and this is Cathy Solomon. We will speak on behalf of ourselves and our respective husbands, Jim Glass and Jim Barribeau, and other  people who would be affected by the Proposed Merivale Parking Plan and who have signed their names to the submissions.

 

I shall speak about the Council’s consultation results, our consultation results, the need for an enquiry, the origins of the plan, complaints, the Local Government Act, the advance marking of the kerbs, the collection of signatures and the signatures themselves.

 

You will recall that when I opposed the Plan at the meeting on 24 November 2008 I indicated that we would consult further with our neighbours and you will also recall that at least 40 members of the public came to the meeting on 24 November 2008 so it is clear that the prospect of restricted parking is a matter of great concern.

 

Consultation Results Of The Council

 

I refer to the Agenda prepared by Mr Graham Sutherland and Mr Peter Barnes and other Council staff and helpfully made available to us prior to today. 

 

The Council distributed a total of 4,700 survey forms. From the 8% who replied, only about one third agreed with the proposed plan.  If you look at that in terms of 100 people canvassed that would mean 8 of the 100 replied and of that about 2, or say at best 4, wanted to do something about it.  

 

This means the Council is becoming involved for effectively 4 out of 100 people.  There frankly is not the need.

 

The submission form also asked “Do you believe parking in the Merivale area is an issue that needs to be addressed ?” and 62% ticked “yes”.  That translates to 62% of the 8% who replied. Also it is such a general question that it is meaningless. What does it mean? It may just mean there were a lot of people in the Mall car park and the person had to walk further that day. And note the word is “issue” not “problem”.

 

In any case, in response to the second question, as we have seen, only one third of 8% supported the Proposed Merivale Parking Plan. So people did not want restricted parking. 

 

This means the Council is becoming involved for at best  4 out of 100 people.   As I said there is no need. There really is no need for the Council to do anything - the whole point of consultation is to see whether or not there is a need.

 

We do not believe you have a mandate to approve the Proposed Merivale Parking Plan. We have to ask “Why are we all here?”

 

 

Our Consultation Results

 

Our consultation has been public with our documents published on the website. On

3 December 2008

we wrote a letter to the neighbours and included a questionnaire, with a flier on the front. Cathy and I hand delivered 800 of these to the residents in the affected streets and to Merivale Businesses, with another 50 to the Merivale mall for its tenants - 850 in all. It was a big job and time consuming.

 

The questionnaire asked “Do you support the Proposed Council  Parking Plan for Merivale?  Yes/No”.  The second question was “If your answer to the first question is “yes” would you want residents’ exemptions if the Council would allow it? Yes/No.”  We put this in the questionnaire because there was a lot of lively discussion at the Council meeting on

24 November 2008

about residents’ exemptions. As you are aware the Council’s policy is not to grant them unless there is no drive on access.  The questionnaire asked if people wanted a Group response to the Council and asked if people could help. It is a measure of people’s concerns that 14 residents and 4 businesses offered to give some help in collecting signatures and one of the residents  was 85 years old. In the event not everyone could help.

 

The responses started coming in and by

2 January 2009

it was even clearer that the prospect of restricted parking is a matter of great concern and also it was clear most people still did not want restricted parking.  

 

On 15  January 2009 we made enquires and found out the date of today’s meeting so we did not have much time. It was clear that  99% of questionaires did not support the Proposed Merivale Parking Plan at all as it stands, of which  81% opposed any parking restrictions and 18% would support an amended plan but wanted residents’ exemptions. So two submissions were needed, one for each group of persons.

 

The Need for an Enquiry

 

Given that our results are so very different from the Council’s consultation figures we seek an enquiry as to how the Council could canvas 4,700 people and come up with something which no-one wants.

 

Origins of Proposed Merivale Parking Plan.

 

Given the very different results, we briefly looked at where the Plan began:

 

(1) On

7 September 2004

the Council commissioned a parking survey in and around Merivale because retailers (not residents) had expressed concerns about parking supply in the area.

 

(2) It showed many workers park in the streets of Merivale while they are at work, sometimes all day.  

 

(3) In April 2005 the Council commissioned an engineer’s report from Steve Abley, to consider and assess the parking survey and propose solutions. His brief from the Council was: “What Parking Problems, if any, exist in Merivale?”

 

(4) Steve Abley wrote a comprehensive report which reviewed the parking survey dated

7 September 2004

,  quoted from the Council’s “Parking Strategy for the Garden City 2003” and recommended parking restrictions in Merivale.

  

(5) The Council’s Agenda says the proposed parking restrictions are strongly consistent with Council’s “Parking Strategy for the Garden City 2003”. The strategy says:

 

“Many of the methods put forward in this strategy look to reduce our demand for travel. They propose to support increasing the use of public transport, walking and cycling, to resolve some of the issues connected with parking by reducing demand. Although this strategy is foremost a parking strategy, it is important that the opportunities to reduce our travel demand and the use of individual vehicles for trips are recognised in this strategy.”

 

(6) On

28 April 2008

this Board gave approval to undertake consultation and in about June 2008 the Council issued the 4,700 consultation letters which I have already discussed which do not give you a mandate.

 

(8) The consultation letter said that “complaints about parking in the general Merivale area are received on a regular basis” and that motorists may continue to drive and park on other streets rather than change to using a “non-private car mode” of travel.

 

Just as an aside, we recognise the Council’s parking strategy sees private motor vehicles as less desirable than eg walking or using  public transport, but there is room for other views in the community  - wwwlove your rubbish, www love your car.

 

Complaints

 

With respect to complaints made to Council, no details have been given as to how many there were, how regularly they were made and who made them. Where are the complaints and what are they about? When I first spoke to Graham Sutherland on

10 November 2008

he said this project may be from a complaint by only one person in the street but then he thought better of it and said that would not be right –not if it was only one person.  

 

 Local Government Act 2002

 

Section 77 of the Local Government Act says that a local authority must in the course of the decision making process seek to identify all reasonably practical options for the achievement of the objective of a decision and assess those options by considering various criteria set out in the section. We know very little about this Act but it seems that only one option was proposed in the Abley report and it is on the table here today – that of restrictive parking.  

 

Advance Marking of the Kerbs

 

The Council instructed engineers to mark the kerbs, in advance of the meeting today as if the result of the meeting is a foregone conclusion. People are very concerned and upset and the Council has not yet provided a satisfactory explanation or provided the material requested in an urgent request under the Official Information Act.

 

 

Collection of Signatures

 

We began collecting signatures on

20 January 2009

and stopped last night. It was a huge job to organise, and synchronise and carry out and it took about a week to get everyone started upon collection. We and our wonderful willing helpers set out, mostly at night after work. It was wonderful going door to door but slow - everyone was very friendly, hospitable and keen to discuss the matter. We needed more time - we missed quite a lot of people who were out and we did not have sufficient time to canvas people working at Nurse Maude, St Georges or the medical rooms at St Georges, Cox St or St Albans St. We met very few people who supported the plan as it is.  

 

The Signatures

 

The signatures confirmed that there is no support for the proposed Merivale Parking Plan. We collected one thousand, one hundred and ninety one signatures (1,191), all of which opposed the plan. 

 

Of these one thousand and fifty five (1,055) totally opposed the Plan.

 

We believe these signatures are your mandate. We ask you not to approve the Plan.

 

We want to publicly thank everyone who has helped.

Correspondence with the CC Council, including concerning the Official Information Request

Email from Mr Peter Barnes dated Monday 26 January 2009.

Hi Sheryn,

 I hope you had a good weekend and managed to avoid the heat! Following your email addressed to members of the Fendalton-Waimari Community Board, of which you 'copied me in', I have sourced information you have requested regarding the marking and checking of PMPP areas.

This is not my area of speciality, so I had to seek advice to get this.  I am a 'consultation Leader' and it has been, and is, my job, to talk to the community, and be a linkage with technical CCC people such as the Network Operations team, who have provided the following three paragraphs for you.  While I can supply a description of the work, and the name of the Consultant (see below), other consultant contract details are not available because of commercial sensitivity. 

Description of Proposed Parking Restriction Verification and Checking.  Description Provided by CCC Network Operations Team.

"The Council engaged an engineering consultant (Via Strada) to measure and define the proposed parking restrictions in the Merivale area. They their staff very experienced at this, have completed a lot of work for Council.  In late 2008 worked on the Merivale south area parking restrictions. Via Strada staff worked on the streets where recommended restrictions are defined in the report to be submitted on 02 February.

When preparing any formal recommending parking resolutions for elected members to consider resolving, Council staff have to ensure the description of any parking restriction being recommended is accurate. This accuracy is required in the event that elected members approve the resolutions. The method to achieve this is to accurately measure the block length of any road between intersections, and describe the position of each recommended restriction-relative to the nearest intersection. Spray paint which wears off quickly is used to define the positions of any proposed restrictions, and the defined restrictions are measured accurately.

If the elected members do not formally resolve the recommended parking restrictions, then this decision is recorded in the public minutes and no further action is taken. The current recommended restrictions would not be installed.  The painted reference marks on the footpath or roadway would wear off in the near future".

 Regards,

Pete

 
Peter Barnes

Consultation Leader

Caoital Programme

 Christchurch City Counsil

Ph. 941 5208

Email from Mr Peter Barnes dated 27 January 2008

Hi Sheryn,

To avoid any confusion, and to make it clear, can you please confirm
what further information you require re: PMPP. That is, what information
are you seeking under the Official Information Act.

I am wishing to get the request underway ASAP, to the right people
internally within CCC 'processing' /sourcing it, but I need a clear
description (in writing) of what you require please.

Thanks in advance,
Pete

Our reply 28 January 2009

MERIVALE PARKING PLAN CAMPAIGN

www.merivale.typepad.com

52 Murray Place
CHRISTCHURCH  8014
Ph 3554 258. Fax 355 4882. Email glass@es.co.nz

28 January 2009



Christchurch City Councillors and Community Board Members
Christchurch City Council
Christchurch

Sent by Email                                  URGENT



Dear Christchurch City Councillors and Community Board Members.

I attach a copy of a further email from Mr Peter Barnes which is stalling in
respect of this OIA request.  It was quite clear in our letter to you and Mr
Peter Barnes dated 23 January 2009 what we requested in respect of an urgent
request under the Official Information Act and it is a matter of concern
that on Tuesday 27 January 2008 Mr Barnes is only just "wishing to get the
request underway."

We expect an answer urgently.

 Yours faithfully Sheryn Gillard Glass (also on behalf of others).

Prior to the decision the Council has put markings on the Street

 Correspondence with CCC

 

MERIVALE PARKING PLAN CAMPAIGN

www.merivale.typepad.com

  

52 Murray Place

CHRISTCHURCH 

  8014

Ph 3554 258. Fax 355 4882. Email glass@es.co.nz

20 January 2009

Christchurch 

City 

Councillors and Community Board Members

Christchurch

City Council

Christchurch

 

Sent by Email                                  URGENT

 

Dear 

Christchurch 

City 

Councillors and Community Board Members

 

As you will recall I presented a submission at the meeting on

24 November 2008

opposing the Proposed Merivale Parking Plan on behalf of myself and others and indicated that we would consult further with our neighbours, which we have done.

 

We understand the Community Board is to meet at

8am

on Monday 2 February in the Boardroom at the Fendalton Service Centre, corner Jeffreys and Clyde Roads to consider the Proposed Merivale Parking Plan. Given the Christmas period this has not given us much time.

 

At that meeting on

2 February 2009

we shall present submissions concerning the Proposed Merivale Parking Plan on behalf of persons affected by the Plan. I advise that responses we have received to date show virtually no support for the Plan.

 

Last week we spoke to Mr Graham Barnes and asked what had happened to the modified plan which was to go to you, the decision makers. He advised the modified plan is still being written, it has not yet gone to you, that further consultation with the public will not take place despite the modifications, that a letter would be issued to us by Friday 16^th or yesterday (it has not yet arrived) and that the Agenda will be issued two days before the meeting on 2 February 2009.  

 

We are very concerned and puzzled as there are already P120 markings on the kerbs of several affected streets including Rugby St, Office Rd, Aikmans Road and Leinster Roads. These indicate that the Council is already spending ratepayers’ money on implementing the Proposed Merivale Parking Plan BEFORE a decision has been made.

 

I ask you, City Councillors and Community Board Members, to please reply urgently in writing.

 

Yours faithfully

Sheryn Gillard Glass and Jim Glass. Also on behalf of others.

 

FIRST REPLY FROM PETER BARNES NOT FROM ELECTED REPRESENTATIVES

 

Hi Sheryn,

I telephone you earlier today but you were out. I can't remember if the
phone number I have spoken to you on previously is a work or home
number? Anyway, my message is too long for an answer phone, so here is
an email!

I have been contacted by Graham Sutherland, the Board Adviser to the
Fendalton-Waimari Community Board. Graham has asked me to reply to the
letter you have sent to Community Board members regarding the Proposed
Merivale Parking Plan (PMPP), and work that has recently taken place to
check proposed parking distances/stretches (your letter dated 20 January
2009).

The purpose of this letter to inform you of the background and reason
for the checking and paint marking that has been undertaken.

In order to check proposed parking restriction distances/stretches on
various streets, a Council consultant engineer has recently been on-site
in Merivale to measure distances, and check the suitability (physically)
of parking restrictions on streets (should the PMPP be approved by the
Community Board).  This sort of check is standard, and is expected by
ratepayers, as Council is expected to maintain a high level of quality
control.

As part of this measuring and checking process the engineer has been
(discreetly as possible) marking distances on streets with spray paint.
This paint marking is temporary. It is purpose made paint that is
designed to fade-off in approx. 1-2 months time.

It is cost effective to mark when measuring for proposed parking
restrictions (and Community Board resolutions), as the measuring in this
case takes 2 full days of staff time.  If the Community Board approves
the PMPP on 2 Feb, Council has saved two days staff time/cost as the
marking has already been completed.  If the Community Board makes
amendments to what staff propose on 2 Feb, then staff will just have to
measure and mark the individual amendments. If the Community Board
rejects the PMPP, then the marks will completely fade away over time. 

I wish to convey to you that there has been no decision made (what so
ever) regarding the PMPP. Staff have considered issues raised in the 24
November meeting, and will be taking an amended report to the 2 Feb
meeting for the Community Board to consider, IN THAT MEETING.  It is
Councils view (and my personal view) that the measuring and paint
marking that has been undertaken is standard project practice. The
measuring/painting work that has been done is not a signal of any
decision made to date.

Please call me if you wish to discuss further, it would be good to talk
in person.

Regards,
Pete

______________________________
Peter Barnes
Consultation Leader
Capital Programme Group
Christchurch City Council
PO Box 237
CHRISTCHURCH
P  03 941 5208
M  021 334 563

 

23 January 2008 Further Letter to Elected Representatives

----- Original Message -----
From: "Jim & Sheryn Glass" <glass@es.co.nz>
To: "Barnes, Peter" <Peter.Barnes@ccc.govt.nz>
Cc: "Faimeh Burke" <faimeh.burke@ccc.govt.nz>; "Andrew Yoon"
<andrew.yoon@ccc.govt.nz>; "Jamie Gough" <jamie.gough@ccc.govt.nz>; "Val
Carter" <val.carter@ccc.govt.nz>; "Cheryl Colley"
<cheryl.colley@ccc.govt.nz>; "Mike Wall" <mike.wall@ccc.govt.nz>; "Sally
Buck" <sally.buck@ccc.govt.nz>
Sent: Friday, January 23, 2009 10:54 AM
Subject: Merivale Parking Plan


> Dear Peter Barnes and Christchurch City Councillors and Community Board
> Members
>
> On 20 January 2009 we wrote to you, Christchurch City Councillors and
> Community Board Members, as elected members and have not had the courtesy
> of a reply. Instead Mr Barnes has replied as below. We did not seek a
> reply from Mr Barnes and that situation has not changed.
>
> Although we appreciate the fact that Mr Barnes has sent an email we seek
> an answer in writing from you, the elected members, as soon as possible.
> Please appreciate that this is a very serious matter. We and many others
> are very concerned and upset about it.
>
> We advise that the explanation given by Mr Barnes is unacceptable as it is
> inadequate and unconvincing and unlikely and does not come from the
> Christchurch City Councillors and Community Board Members. We look forward
> to your prompt reply, elected members.
>
> Meanwhile, Mr Peter Barnes, would you please advise the name of the
> consulting engineer who was contracted to undertake this work and advise
> the date and terms of the contract. If you need to treat this as an urgent
> request under the Official Information Act please do so.
>
> Yours faithfully Sheryn Gillard Glass and Jim Glass. Also on behalf of
> others.
>
> ---- Original Message -----
> From: "Barnes, Peter" <Peter.Barnes@ccc.govt.nz>
> To: "Jim & Sheryn Glass" <glass@es.co.nz>
> Cc: "Sutherland, Graham" <Graham.Sutherland@ccc.govt.nz>
> Sent: Wednesday, January 21, 2009 1:55 PM
> Subject: PMPP - Checking of proposed parking sections/distances
>

 REPLY FROM GRAHAM SUTHERLAND, NOT THE ELECTED REPRESENTATIVES

  Hi Sheryn & Jim

Please find attached a letter in response to your recent correspondence
to the Fendalton/Waimairi Community Board members regarding the Proposed
Merivale Parking Plan.  A hard copy will be mailed to you as well.

Kind regards
Graham

Graham Sutherland
Community Board Adviser - Fendalton/Waimairi

Ph 941 6728

23 January 2009

 

Sheryn Gillard Glass & Jim Glass

52 Murray Place

Christchurch

8014

 

Dear Sheryn and Jim

 

I refer to your emailed letter to Christchurch City Councillors and Fendalton/Waimairi Community Board members, dated

20 January 2009

, regarding the Proposed Merivale Parking Plan.

 

The Fendalton/Waimairi Community Board members have asked me to respond to you on their behalf to inform you that your comments have been noted and to address the issues raised in your letter and subsequent emails.  The Fendalton/Waimairi Community Board has the delegated authority from the Christchurch City Council to make a decision on the Proposed Merivale Parking Plan and as such is the appropriate body to respond to your correspondence.  As the Fendalton/Waimairi Community Board Adviser, it is appropriate for the Board to request that I respond on its behalf.  A copy of this letter will be provided to the Board members.

 

With respect to the marking that has appeared on the streets covered by the Proposed Merivale Parking Plan, you have received an explanation from Peter Barnes regarding this and the Board is satisfied with that response.  While the process of marking out areas and taking measurements in preparation for staff reports is a standard practice, Board members and staff accept that the public response to observing the results of this work is understandable.  It is generally agreed that lessons can be learned from this experience and improvements to the process will be investigated by Council staff, while still acknowledging the necessity for precise measurements when considering approval of legally enforceable parking restrictions.

 

The Board and I would like to assure you that the marking on the streets in no way suggests that a decision has already been made on this matter.  As you know, this matter will be considered by the Board’s Works, Traffic & Environment Committee on

Monday 2 February 2009

and all Board members will approach that meeting with an open mind and without any predetermination.  This is both a legal requirement and a moral obligation for the Board members.

 

 

You have indicated that you wish to speak at the meeting on 2 February and that will be a further opportunity for you to put forward your views and any supporting information.  This will be received by the Board members in good faith and with an open mind, as will all other information that contributes to the decision-making process on this matter.

 

 

Yours sincerely

 

 

 

 

 

Graham Sutherland

Community Board Adviser

Fendalton/Waimairi Community Board

Ph. 941 6728

 

 

 

>
>