Christchurch City Council

Agenda

 

 

Notice of Meeting:

An ordinary meeting of the Christchurch City Council will be held on:

 

Date:                                     Thursday 28 July 2016

Time:                                    9.30am

Venue:                                 Council Chambers, Civic Offices,
53 Hereford Street, Christchurch

 

 

Membership

Chairperson

Deputy Chairperson

Members

Mayor Lianne Dalziel

Deputy Mayor Vicki Buck

Councillor Jimmy Chen

Councillor Phil Clearwater

Councillor Pauline Cotter

Councillor David East

Councillor Jamie Gough

Councillor Yani Johanson

Councillor Ali Jones

Councillor Paul Lonsdale

Councillor Glenn Livingstone

Councillor Raf Manji

Councillor Tim Scandrett

Councillor Andrew Turner

 

 

22 July 2016

 

 

 

Principal Advisor

Dr Karleen Edwards

Chief Executive

Tel: 941 8554

 

Chris Turner

Committee Advisor

941 8233

christopher.turner@ccc.govt.nz

www.ccc.govt.nz

Note:  The reports contained within this agenda are for consideration and should not be construed as Council policy unless and until adopted.  If you require further information relating to any reports, please contact the person named on the report.
Watch Council meetings live on the web:
http://councillive.ccc.govt.nz/live-stream

 


Council

28 July 2016

 

Council - Terms of Reference

 

 

Chair

The Mayor

Membership

The Mayor and all Councillors are members of Council

Quorum

Half of the members if the number of members (including vacancies) is even, or a majority of members if the number of members (including vacancies) is odd.

Meeting Cycle

To be separately considered

 

 

The Council has the power to: (these powers cannot legally be delegated)

·         Make a rate

·         Make a bylaw

·         Borrow money, or purchase or dispose of assets, other than in accordance with the long-term plan

·         Adopt a long-term plan, annual plan or annual report

·         Appoint a Chief Executive

·         Adopt policies required to be adopted and consulted on under the Local Government Act 2002 in association with the long term plan or the preparation of the local governance statement

·         Adopt a remuneration and employment policy

 

The Council is also responsible for:

·         Reviewing and making decisions, when required, on the District Plan

·         Approving all Council strategy and policy, except that specifically delegated to a committee or subcommittee

·         Adoption of, and amendment to, Committee Terms of Reference, Standing Orders and Code of Conduct

·         Approving or amending the Triennial Agreement  and Local Governance Statement

·         Reviewing and making decisions on representation reviews

·         Appointing and discharging trustees, directors or office holders to Council’s Council-Controlled Organisations  and Council Organisations, except where specifically delegated to a committee or officer, and determining the remuneration for trustees, directors or office holders

·         Dealing with issues of significant community importance

·         Monitoring progress on earthquake recovery

Considering recommendations from Council committees, subcommittees, Community Boards, the public, stakeholders and others, and making Council decisions with regard for the requirements of Sections 76 – 81 of the Local Government Act 2002

 

 


Council

28 July 2016

 

TABLE OF CONTENTS

 

1.       Apologies................................................................................................................................... 4

2.       Declarations of Interest............................................................................................................ 4

3.       Confirmation of Previous Minutes.......................................................................................... 4

4.       Public Participation.................................................................................................................. 4

4.1       Public Forum....................................................................................................................... 4

4.2       Deputations by Appointment............................................................................................... 4

5.       Presentation of Petitions......................................................................................................... 4

6.       Chief Executive's Report......................................................................................................... 19

Communities, Housing and Economic Development Committee

7.       Draft Christchurch Visitor Strategy ...................................................................................... 29

8.       Communities, Housing and Economic Development Committee Minutes - 7 July 2016.. 83

Infrastructure, Transport and Environment Committee

9.       Infrastructure, Transport and Environment Committee Minutes - 12 July 2016.............. 89

Strategy and Finance Committee

10.     Business Improvement District Policy................................................................................... 95

11.     Strategy and Finance Committee Minutes - 12 July 2016................................................. 159

STAFF REPORTS

12.     Partial review of the Freedom Camping Bylaw.................................................................. 165

13.     Tuam Limited - Dividend Payment...................................................................................... 197

14.     Greater Christchurch Urban Development Strategy Update............................................ 201

15.     Resilient Greater Christchurch Plan.................................................................................... 261

16.     Public Transport Committee Report................................................................................... 369

17.     Notice of Motion................................................................................................................... 381

18.     Resolution to Exclude the Public......................................................................................... 382  

 

 

 


Council

28 July 2016

 

 

1.   Apologies

At the close of the agenda no apologies had been received.

2.   Declarations of Interest

Members are reminded of the need to be vigilant to stand aside from decision making when a conflict arises between their role as an elected representative and any private or other external interest they might have.

3.   Confirmation of Previous Minutes

That the minutes of the Council meeting held on Thursday, 14 July 2016 be confirmed (refer page 5).

4.   Public Participation

4.1  Public Forum

A period of up to 30 minutes is available for people to speak for up five minutes on any issue that is not the subject of a separate hearings process.

4.2  Deputations by Appointment

A period of up to 30 minutes for deputations that have made application and been approved by the Chairperson.

There were no deputations by appointment at the time the agenda was prepared. 

5.   Presentation of Petitions

5.1

Megan Blakie will present a petition regarding the ban of single use plastic bags in the new CBD. 

  


Council

28 July 2016

 

 

 

Christchurch City Council

Minutes

 

 

Date:                                     Thursday 14 July 2016

Time:                                    9.33am

Venue:                                 Council Chambers, Civic Offices,
53 Hereford Street, Christchurch

 

 

Present

Chairperson

Members

Deputy Mayor Vicki Buck

Councillor Jimmy Chen

Councillor Phil Clearwater

Councillor Pauline Cotter

Councillor David East

Councillor Jamie Gough

Councillor Yani Johanson

Councillor Ali Jones

Councillor Paul Lonsdale

Councillor Glenn Livingstone

Councillor Raf Manji

Councillor Tim Scandrett

Councillor Andrew Turner

 

 

14 July 2016

 

 

 

Principal Advisor

Mary Richardson

General Manager Customer and Community

Tel: 941 8554

 

Jo Daly

Council Secretary

941 8581

Jo.Daly@ccc.govt.nz

www.ccc.govt.nz

Watch Council meetings live on the web:
http://councillive.ccc.govt.nz/live-stream

 


  

The agenda was dealt with in the following order.

1.   Apologies

 

Council Resolved CNCL/2016/00297

That the apology from the Mayor and apology for lateness from Councillor Manji be accepted.

 

Deputy Mayor/Councillor Turner                                                                                                                         Carried

2.   Declarations of Interest

There were no declarations of interest recorded.

3.   Confirmation of Previous Minutes

Council Resolved CNCL/2016/00298

That the minutes of the Council meetings held on Tuesday, 21 June 2016 and Thursday, 23 June 2016 be confirmed.

AND

That the Council receives the Minutes from the Regulation and Consents Committee meeting held 16 June 2016.

AND

That the Council receives the Minutes from the Strategy and Finance Committee meeting held on 16 June 2016.

 

Councillor Livingstone/Councillor Cotter                                                                                                              Carried

 

Councillor Manji joined the meeting at 09:43 am.

4.   Public Participation

4.1  Public Forum

 

·     Jane Harrison (Chair), Lesley Fulton, Jason Mill, Steve Langridge, Moira McDougall and Sargeant Steve Jones-Poole of the Bridge South Brighton Trust addressed the Council regarding financial support to purchase a building at the centre of their project

·     Janet Begg and Paul McNoe, Chief Executive of Red Bus, addressed the Council regarding a Central City Bus Circuit

·     Jude Wastney and Justin Mitchell of Green Prescription, addressed the Council regarding reducing pool fees for those with a Green Prescription.

·     Frances Ryman and Irinka Britnall of the Englefield Residents Association addressed the Council regarding raising awareness of Englefield Lodge. This relates to item 11 – Hagley/Ferrymead Community Board Deputation Report.

Councillor East left the meeting at 10.18am and returned at 10.24am.

·     Connie Christensen of Go Cycle Christchurch addressed the Council.

4.2  Deputations by Appointment

4.2.1   Andrew Findlay and John Targett of the Christchurch Petanque Club addressed the Council regarding the report Lease of the Former United Bowling Club Area.

 

5.   Presentation of Petitions

There was no presentation of petitions.

53. Resolution to Include Supplementary Reports

 

Council Resolved CNCL/2016/00299

That the following report be received and considered at the Council meeting on Thursday, 14 July 2016:

54. Fees and Charges Amendments.

 

Councillor Livingstone/Councillor Cotter                                                                                                           Carried

 

6.   Akaroa/Wairewa Community Board Minutes - 11 May 2016

Pam Richardson, Chairperson, joined the table for this item.

 

Council Resolved CNCL/2016/00300

That the Council receives the Minutes from the Akaroa/Wairewa Community Board meeting held 11 May 2016.

 

Councillor Turner/Councillor Gough                                                                                                                    Carried

 

Councillor Cotter left the meeting at 10.35am and returned at 10.37am.

7.   Lyttelton/Mt Herbert Community Board Minutes - 1 June 2016

Paula Smith, Chairperson, joined the table for this item.

 

Council Resolved CNCL/2016/00301

That the Council receives the Minutes from the Lyttelton/Mt Herbert Community Board meetings held 1 June 2016 and 15 June 2016.

 

Councillor Turner/Councillor East                                                                                                                         Carried

 

8.   Lyttelton/Mt Herbert Community Board Minutes - 15 June 2016

 

Council Decision

Refer to item 7.

 


 

Report from Hagley/Ferrymead Community Board - 31 May 2016

9.   Easement Over Part of Hagley Park

Sara Templeton, Chairperson, joined the table for this item.

 

Council Resolved CNCL/2016/00302

Part A

1.      That the Christchurch City Council, acting in the capacity of holding a delegated authority from the Minister of Conservation;

a.         Subject to and conditional on recommendation 2(a), consent to the granting of the easement as outlined in this report.

 

Councillor Johanson/Councillor Lonsdale                                                                                                          Carried

 

Report from Hagley/Ferrymead Community Board - 15 June 2016

10. Lease of Former United Bowling Clubrooms and Greens at Hagley Park

 

Council Resolved CNCL/2016/00303

That the Council: 

 

1.         Publicly notify the proposal to grant a lease to North Hagley Community Sports and Recreation Charitable Trust over that part of Hagley Park where the former United Bowling Clubrooms and green space is situated, an area of approximately 5387.5m2, part of Section 6 Survey Office Plan 467852 of 87.5600 hectares more or less, classified as a recreation reserve notified in New Zealand Gazette number 107 page 2706 on 11 September 1980 as shown on Attachment A, Lease Area Plan RPS 1332.

2.         In its capacity of holding the Minister of Conservation's Delegation, pending the outcome of 1 above, to give consent to the lease in accordance with 54(1)(a)and (b) of the Reserves Act 1977.

3.         To authorise the Property Consultancy Manager to manage and conclude all issues and processes associated with the above resolutions including, but not limited to:

a.         Convening a hearings panel to consider any objections and making a recommendation back to the Council for a decision.

b.         Finalising lease documentation to North Hagley Community Sports and Recreation Charitable Trust for a period of up to 33 years broken into three 11 year terms at an annual rental set in accordance with the Council's Sports Lease Charges Policy.

c.         Granting permission to North Hagley Community Sports and Recreation Charitable Trust to enter into hire and sublease arrangements for utilisation of the grounds and buildings contained within the lease area specifically to High School Old Boys Rugby Club Incorporated, United Croquet Club Incorporated and Christchurch Petanque Club Incorporated as well as other sport and recreation user groups on terms and conditions to be approved by the Property Consultancy Manager on behalf of Council.

 

Councillor Lonsdale/Councillor Johanson                                                                                                          Carried

 

Report from Hagley/Ferrymead Community Board - 15 June 2016

11. Hagley/Ferrymead Community Board Deputation

 

Council Resolved CNCL/2016/00304

That the Council request a report to the Communities, Housing and Economic Development Committee on:

 

1.    Englefield Lodge

2.    Other heritage structures at risk

3.    An update on the Heritage Strategy and Heritage Buildings and Places Recovery Programme for Greater Christchurch.

 

Councillor Johanson/Councillor Turner                                                                                                              Carried

 

12. Hagley/Ferrymead Community Board Minutes - 31 May 2016

 

Council Resolved CNCL/2016/00305

That the Council receives the Minutes from the Hagley/Ferrymead Community Board meetings held 31 May 2016 and 15 June 2016.

 

Councillor Lonsdale/Councillor Johanson                                                                                                          Carried

 

13. Hagley/Ferrymead Community Board Minutes - 15 June 2016

 

Council Decision

Refer to item 12.

 

The meeting adjourned at 10:45am at which point Councillors Gough and Livingstone left the meeting.

The meeting resumed at 11:03am.

14. Riccarton/Wigram Community Board Minutes - 31 May 2016

Mike Mora, Chairperson, joined the table for this item.

 

Council Resolved CNCL/2016/00306

That the Council receives the Minutes from the Riccarton/Wigram Community Board meetings held 31 May 2016 and 14 June 2016.

 

Councillor Chen/Deputy Mayor                                                                                                                            Carried

 

15. Riccarton/Wigram Community Board Minutes - 14 June 2016

 

Council Decision

Refer to item 14.

 

Councillors Gough and Livingstone returned to the meeting at 11.06am.

Report from Shirley/Papanui Community Board - 1 June 2016

16. Notice of Motion

Mike Davidson, Chairperson, joined the table for this item.

 

Council Resolved CNCL/2016/00307

Part A

That the Council refers the notice of motion report from the Shirley/Papanui Community Board to the Infrastructure, Transport and Environment Committee.

 

Councillor Clearwater/Councillor Cotter                                                                                                            Carried

 

17. Shirley/Papanui Community Board Minutes - 1 June 2016

 

Council Resolved CNCL/2016/00308

That the Council receives the Minutes from the Shirley/Papanui Community Board meetings held 1 June 2016.

 

Councillor Jones/Councillor Cotter                                                                                                                       Carried

 

18. Shirley/Papanui Community Board Minutes - 15 June 2016

 

Council Decision

That the Council receives the Minutes from the Shirley/Papanui Community Board meetings held 15 June 2016.

 

Councillor Cotter/Councillor Jones

 

Report from Spreydon/Heathcote Community Board - 20 May 2016

19. Elected Members Information Exchange - Community Board Flier

Karolin Potter, Chairperson, and Melanie Coker, Deputy Chairperson, joined the table for this item.

 

Council Resolved CNCL/2016/00309

That the Council requests the Community Support, Governance and Partnerships Unit to investigate and deliver the development of a single page flier about Christchurch Community Boards, which can be obtained in libraries and service centres, as well as posted out with rates notices and other messages from the Christchurch City Council, post-election.

 

Councillor Scandrett/Councillor Clearwater                                                                                                     Carried

 


 

 

20. Spreydon/Heathcote Community Board Minutes - 20 May 2016

 

Council Resolved CNCL/2016/00310

That the Council receives the Minutes from the Spreydon/Heathcote Community Board meetings held 20 May 2016, 8 June 2016 and 17 June 2016.

 

Councillor Scandrett/Councillor Clearwater                                                                                                     Carried

 

21. Spreydon/Heathcote Community Board Minutes - 8 June 2016

 

Council Decision

Refer to item 20.

 

22. Spreydon/Heathcote Community Board Minutes - 17 June 2016

 

Council Decision

Refer to item 20.

 

Report from Burwood/Pegasus Community Board - 16 May 2016

23. Mairehau Road Improvement Plan

Andrea Cummings, Chairperson, joined the table for this item.

 

Council Resolved CNCL/2016/00311

That the Council:

 

1.    Ensures that the Disability Strategy and all other related policies are fully considered for each and every street works. 

 

Note: The Council requested that:

·   The Head of Transport meet with the Burwood/Pegasus Community Board on this issue.

·   Environment Canterbury and the Canterbury District Health Board meet with the Community Board on this issue.

 

Councillor Livingstone/Councillor East                                                                                                                Carried

 


 

 

Report from Burwood/Pegasus Community Board - 20 June 2016

24. Waterways Maintenance Contract Review

 

Council Resolved CNCL/2016/00312

That the Council request a report to the Infrastructure, Transport and Environment Committee, via the Land Drainage Recovery Programme Working Group, on the ecological and cost implications for when the relevant waterways maintenance contract is reviewed, of awarding the mowing contract of the river banks to a single contractor to cover from the water’s edge to the road/land side of the stopbanks.

 

This report is to be in conjunction with the work already being done by the Christchurch West Melton Water Management Zone Committee.

 

Councillor East/Councillor Johanson                                                                                                                    Carried

 

Report from Burwood/Pegasus Community Board - 20 June 2016

25. Community Board Delegations - Levels of service and local contracts

 

Council Decision

The Community Board requested that the Council consider, as part of its review of delegations to Community Boards, giving Community Boards greater input into levels of service and the provision of local contracts. Staff advised that this would be part of the review and a Council decision is not required.

 

26. Burwood/Pegasus Community Board Minutes

 

Council Resolved CNCL/2016/00313

That the Council receives the Minutes from the Burwood/Pegasus Community Board meetings held

16 May 2016, 7 June 2016 and 20 June 2016.

 

Councillor East/Councillor Livingstone                                                                                                                Carried

 

27. Burwood/Pegasus Community Board Minutes - 7 June 2016

 

Council Decision

Refer to item 26.

 

28. Burwood/Pegasus Community Board Minutes - 20 June 2016

 

Council Decision

Refer to item 26.

 


 

 

29. Fendalton/Waimairi Community Board Minutes - 30 May 2016

Val Carter, Chairperson, joined the table for this item.

 

Council Resolved CNCL/2016/00314

That the Council receives the Minutes from the Fendalton/Waimairi Community Board meetings held 30 May 2016 and 13 June 2016.

 

Councillor Manji/Councillor Gough                                                                                                                      Carried

 

30. Fendalton/Waimairi Community Board Minutes - 13 June 2016

 

Council Decision

Refer to item 29.

 

Report from Regulation and Consents Committee - 16 June 2016

32. Temporary Alcohol Ban in Riccarton Park Areas on New Zealand Cup Day 2016

 

Council Resolved CNCL/2016/00315

Part A

That the Council:

1.         Resolve it is satisfied that:

a.         There is evidence that the area to which the Alcohol Restrictions in Public Places Bylaw 2009 (the Bylaw) applies has experienced a high level of crime or disorder and that this can be shown to have been caused or made worse by alcohol consumption in the area; and

b.         The Bylaw, as applied by the resolution:

·     is appropriate and proportionate in the light of the evidence; and

·     can be justified as a reasonable limitation on people's rights and freedoms.

2.         Resolve to impose a temporary alcohol ban from 7am to 12 midnight on 12 November 2016 (New Zealand Cup Day 2016) in areas surrounding Riccarton Park Racecourse, namely:  both sides of the streets of Yaldhurst Road to Middlepark Road; Epsom Road to Racecourse Road; Buchanans Road to Masham Road; and Masham Road to Yaldhurst Road (see Attachment A - map).

3.         Place a Public Notice in the newspaper and provide signage in key public places covered by the alcohol ban.

 

Councillor Chen/Councillor Livingstone                                                                                                              Carried

 

33. Regulation and Consents Committee Minutes - 16 June 2016

 

Council Decision

Refer to item 3.

 

Report from Strategy and Finance Committee - 16 June 2016

34. Council Controlled Organisations - Half Year Financial Statements - Rod Donald Banks Peninsula Trust

 

Council Resolved CNCL/2016/00316

Part A

That the Council:

1.         Receive the half-year report for Rod Donald Banks Peninsula Trust.

 

Councillor Manji/Councillor Gough                                                                                                                      Carried

 

31. Parks and Reserves Bylaw - report back on scattering of ashes

 

Council Resolved CNCL/2016/00317

Part A

That the Council:

1.         Resolve that Parks Unit staff report back to the Council with:

a.    options for scattering ashes in cemeteries (current and/or future) and a draft amendment to the existing Cemeteries Handbook as required to enable scattering of ashes

b.    designated sites for scattering of ashes within Council’s open space areas, with management guidelines for any agreed site to be developed with the relevant Rūnanga, excluding Stanbury Park.

c.     draft guidelines explaining options and informing the public of best practice for scattering ashes taking account of cultural protocol and practices.

2.         Resolve to adopt the proposed Parks and Reserves Bylaw 2016 (Attachment E) and:

a.   that the form of the Christchurch City Council Parks and Reserves Bylaw 2016 is the most appropriate form, and that the bylaw is not inconsistent with the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990

b.  that the Christchurch City Council Parks and Reserves Bylaw 2016 comes into force on 1 September 2016

c.   that staff are otherwise authorised to make any typographical changes or correct minor errors as the case may be before the Bylaw comes into force

d.  that the Council give public notice that the Christchurch City Council Parks and Reserves Bylaw 2016 has been made by the Council, that it comes into effect on 1 September 2016 and that copies of the bylaw may be inspected and obtained at the Council’s offices or on its website, without payment.

3.         Amend 13.3(c)(ii) of the proposed Parks and Reserves Bylaw 2016 to align with the recent Drone Policy “has a total flying weight of not more than 1.5kg; and”.

 

 

4.         Notes that on 13 November 2014, the Council delegated various powers under the Christchurch City Council Parks and Reserves Bylaw 2014 to the Chief Executive, and that the Council approved the delegation on the basis that it did not take effect until the Council has made the Bylaw (refer resolutions 31.1.4 and 31.4); and

5.         Confirms that the delegation will now take effect on 1 September 2016 in relation to the Parks and Reserves Bylaw 2016.

 

Councillor East/Councillor Scandrett                                                                                                                   Carried

 

Report from Strategy and Finance Committee - 16 June 2016

35. Vbase Limited - Amendment to Constitution

 

Council Resolved CNCL/2016/00318

Part A

That the Council:

1.         Approve the amendment of the Vbase Limited constitution by:

a.         deleting existing clauses 11.1 to 11.6;

b.         inserting a new clause 11.1 as follows:

“11.1      Statement of intent: The Company shall have a statement of intent which complies with the Local Government Act 2002 or any subsequent amending or replacing legislation”; and

c.         re-numbering the existing clause 11.7 to clause 11.2

2.         Authorise the General Manager Finance and Commercial to sign the shareholders resolution authorising this change on the behalf of Council.

 

Councillor Manji/Councillor Gough                                                                                                                      Carried

 

36. Strategy and Finance Committee Minutes - 16 June 2016

 

Council Decision

Refer to item 3.

 

37. Te Hononga Council - Papatipu Runanga Committee Minutes - 15 March 2016

 

Council Resolved CNCL/2016/00319

That the Council receives the Minutes from the Te Hononga Council - Papatipu Runanga Committee meeting held 15 March 2016.

 

Councillor Clearwater/Councillor Chen                                                                                                              Carried

 

38. 2015/16 Metropolitan Discretionary Response Fund

 

Council Resolved CNCL/2016/00320

That the Council:

1.         Approves a grant of $50,000 to Ferrymead Park Ltd towards Financial Assistance for Ferrymead Park for administration costs.

2.         Approves a grant of $50,000 to Canterbury Insurance Assistance Service towards Advocacy for Cantabrians Made Vulnerable by the Impact of the Earthquakes for salaries and operating costs.

 

Councillor Jones/Councillor Livingstone                                                                                                             Carried

 

39. Elected Member Allowances and Expenses from 1 July 2016

 

Council Resolved CNCL/2016/00321

That the Council:

1.         Adopt the attached schedule of Expenses and Allowances from 1 July 2016 and refer it to the Remuneration Authority for its determination.

 

Councillor East/Councillor Johanson                                                                                                                    Carried

 

40. Request for delegation in relation to tree removals for SCIRT programme

 

Council Resolved CNCL/2016/00322

That the Council resolves the following:

1.         That the General Manager Customer and Community, and Head of Parks, be delegated severally, the following power:

a.         In consultation with any other units affected and relevant Community Board, to authorise the removal of any tree from any reserve, park, open space or road corridor where that removal is necessary for a SCIRT project. The relevant Community Board is to be given three working days' notice prior to any removals to be carried out under this delegation, in order for any feedback to be provided.  

b.         This delegation expires on 31 December 2016.

c.         This delegation may be sub-delegated.

d.         That any tree removed under this delegation must be replaced as per Council Policy.

2.         That the General Manager Customer and Community, and Head of Parks with respect to the removal of structurally unsound and unhealthy trees, be authorised to sub-delegate this delegation.

3.         That the Legal Services Unit make any corresponding changes to the Delegations Register.

4.         That SCIRT provides information about a ward work programme to each Community Board within the next month, outlining any potential impact on trees in the respective Community Board area.

Councillor Clearwater/Councillor Gough                                                                                                           Carried

Councillor Manji left the meeting at 12:13 pm  and returned at 12:18 pm..

Councillor Gough left the meeting at 12:24 pm.

41. Governance Group Memorandum of Understanding in relation to the Whakaraupō / Lyttelton Harbour Catchment Management Plan

 

Council Resolved CNCL/2016/00323

That the Council:

1.         Receive the information in the amended Governance Group Memorandum of Understanding tabled at the meeting in relation to the Whakaraupō / Lyttelton Harbour Catchment Management Plan, report.

2.         Elect the Councillor for Banks Peninsula onto the Governance Group.

3.         Delegate authority to the Lyttelton Mount Herbert Community Board to elect a member onto the Project Working Group.

4.         Delegate authority to the Councillor for Banks Peninsula to sign the Memorandum of Understanding on behalf of the Council.

5.    Require the Whakaraupō Partners Project Team to engage with the harbourside communities in developing the project plan as early as possible.

 

Councillor Turner/Councillor Clearwater                                                                                                           Carried

 

54. Fees and Charges Amendments

 

Council Resolved CNCL/2016/00324

That the Council:

1.         Agree that the Events and Park hire fees and charges headings in the Annual Plan document are modified to clarify the intended fee.

2.         Agree that the words “(Daily Fee)”  are inserted after the “Events - All parks except CBD” and “Hagley Park and Events - CBD and Hagley Park” headings in the Annual Plan.

3.         Note that the changes are clarifications rather than changes to the fee per se.

 

Councillor Livingstone/Councillor Jones                                                                                                             Carried

 Councillor Gough returned to the meeting at 12:26 pm.

42  Resolution to Exclude the Public

 

Council Resolved CNCL/2016/00325

That at 12:25 the resolution to exclude the public set out on pages 374 to 376 of the agenda be adopted.

AND

That Leah Scales of Christchurch City Holdings Limited and Rob Hall of Development Christchurch Limited remain after the public have been excluded for Items 48 and 49 of the public excluded agenda as they have knowledge that is relevant to those items and will assist the Council.

 

Councillor Cotter/Councillor Manji                                                                                                                         Carried

 

The public were re-admitted to the meeting at 1:08pm at which point the meeting concluded.

   

 

CONFIRMED THIS 28th DAY OF JULY 2016

 

Mayor Lianne Dalziel

Chairperson

 


Council

28 July 2016

 

 

6.        Chief Executive's Report

Reference:

16/847054

Contact:

Karleen Edwards

Karleen.edwards@ccc.govt.nz

9418999

 

 

1.   Purpose of Report

1.1       This Chief Executive’s Report provides a summary of the Council’s organisational performance for June 2016.

 

2.   Recommendation to Council

That the Council:

1.         Receive the report.

 

 

Attachments

No.

Title

Page

a

Chief Executive's Report

20

 

 

Signatories

Author

Karleen Edwards,  Chief Executive

  


Council

28 July 2016

 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


Council

28 July 2016

 

Report from Communities, Housing and Economic Development Committee  – 7 July 2016

 

7.        Draft Christchurch Visitor Strategy

Reference:

16/843363

Contact:

Claire Bryant

claire.bryant@ccc.govt.nz

941 8999

 

 

 

 

1.  Communities, Housing and Economic Development Committee Consideration

 

The Visitor Strategy Consultation Feedback (Attachment A) and the draft Christchurch Visitor Strategy – Setting the Direction 2016 (Attachment B) were considered by the Committee.

 

2.  Staff Recommendations

That the Communities, Housing and Economic Development Committee:

1.         Recommends the Council adopts the draft Christchurch Visitor Strategy – Setting the Direction 2016 to take effect from 22 August 2016.

2.         Recommends the Council revoke the following resolutions from CNCL/2016/00255:

a.         That a further piece of work around establishing a Working Group, be reported to the Council through the Communities, Housing and Economic Development Committee, to provide oversight of the implementation pathway.

b.         Direct the Working Group to report back to the Council with detailed action plans by September 2016.

c.          Direct Strategy and Transformation to co-ordinate delivery of the implementation pathway, in conjunction with key stakeholders, and to report back through the Working Group.

 

3.  Communities, Housing and Economic Development Committee Decisions Under Delegation

 

Committee Decided CHED/2016/00001

Part C

 

That the Draft Christchurch Visitor Strategy is referred to a workshop with the Communities, Housing and Economic Development Committee and other Councillors to discuss amendments to the Strategy including:

 

a.         Ensure the importance of cruise ships is weaved through the Strategy to indicate its significance.

             b.         Remove reference to the Stadium in the Executive Summary and on page 43.

             c.         Emphasise the importance of the Convention Centre.

             d.         Include environmental aspects.

             e.         Include the importance of hotels.

             f.          Include the importance of education and a test bed for new technologies.

             g.         Events.

             h.         Other matters.

The changed Visitor Strategy is to be referred directly to Council after the workshop.

 

Secretarial Note:  The Draft Christchurch Visitor Strategy was considered at a workshop held on Friday 15 June 2016 that all Councillors were invited to, and the most recent version of the Strategy is attached.

 

2.  Communities, Housing and Economic Development Committee Recommendation to Council

 

Committee Recommendation CHED/2016/00002

Part A

1.         That the Council revoke the following resolutions from CNCL/2016/00255:

a.      That a further piece of work around establishing a Working Group, be reported to the Council through the Council, to provide oversight of the implementation pathway.

b.     Direct the Working Group to report back to the Council with detailed action plans by September 2016.

c.      Direct Strategy and Transformation to co-ordinate delivery of the implementation pathway, in conjunction with key stakeholders, and to report back through the Working Group.

 

2.         That the Council adopt the Christchurch Visitor Strategy – Setting the Direction 2016 to take effect from 22 August 2016.

 

 

 

Attachments

No.

Report Title

Page

1

Draft Christchurch Visitor Strategy

31

 

No.

Title

Page

a

Visitor Strategy Consultation Feedback

38

b

Draft Christchurch Visitor Strategy (post submissions)

46

c

Strategic Framework Combined Strategic Focus to 2019

81

 

 


Council

28 July 2016

 

 

Draft Christchurch Visitor Strategy

Reference:

16/715865

Contact:

Claire Bryant

claire.bryant@ccc.govt.nz

8876

 

 

1.       Purpose and Origin of Report

Purpose of Report

1.1          The purpose of this report is for the Communities, Housing and Economic Development Committee to consider recommending that the Council adopts the proposed changes (Attachment A) to the draft Christchurch Visitor Strategy – Setting the Direction 2016 following consultation feedback, and adopts the Strategy (Attachment B).

Origin of Report

1.2          This report is being provided to:

1.2.1     Fulfil part of the November 2015 Council resolution (CNCL/2015/00025) which noted the need to underpin the strategy with a more holistic visitor proposition, integrating the Cruise Terminal and Cathedral Square.

1.2.2     Fulfil the part of the April 2016 Council resolution (CNCL/2016/00255) related to returning to the Council with an updated draft Strategy, to consider for adoption and release.

2.       Significance

2.1          The decisions in this report are of medium significance in relation to the Christchurch City Council’s Significance and Engagement Policy. The community engagement and consultation outlined in this report reflect the medium significance assessment and targeted consultation was undertaken with the visitor sector.

 

3.       Staff Recommendations

That the Communities, Housing and Economic Development Committee:

1.              Recommends the Council agrees to the proposed amendments to the draft Christchurch Visitor Strategy – Setting the Direction 2016 (Attachment A).

2.              Recommends, if the Council agrees to Recommendation 1, that the Council adopts the draft Christchurch Visitor Strategy – Setting the Direction 2016 (Attachment B) to take effect from 22 August 2016.

3.              Recommends the Council revoke the following resolutions from CNCL/2016/00255:

a.              That a further piece of work around establishing a Working Group, be reported to the Council through the Communities, Housing and Economic Development Committee, to provide oversight of the implementation pathway.

b.             Direct the Working Group to report back to the Council with detailed action plans by September 2016.

c.              Direct Strategy and Transformation to co-ordinate delivery of the implementation pathway, in conjunction with key stakeholders, and to report back through the Working Group.

 

 

4.       Key Points

4.1          This report supports the Council's Long Term Plan (2015 - 2025):

4.1.1     Activity: Strategic Planning and  Policy

·           Level of Service: 17.0.9 Provision of strategic advice on the social and economic issues facing the city

4.2          The following feasible options have been considered:

·           Option 1 – agree to the proposed changes (Attachment A) and adopt the draft Christchurch Visitor Strategy – Setting the Direction 2016 (Attachment B) (preferred option)

·           Option 2 – status quo - do not agree to the proposed changes and do not adopt the Strategy.

4.3          Option Summary - Advantages and Disadvantages (Preferred Option)

4.3.1     The advantages of this option include:

·           Sets in place a high level strategic direction (including clarity around vision, goals, and outcomes) to guide decisions aimed at regaining and building market share.

·           It is an opportunity to provide leadership, and a collaborative sector-wide approach to regaining and increasing our previous market share. 

·           Provides the direction to guide the development of detailed implementation plans in the future, in collaboration with the wider visitor sector.

4.3.2     The disadvantages of this option include:

·           The implementation plans which support and deliver the Strategy are not yet finalised – however, confirming the Strategy will provide high-level strategic direction for the activity and change already underway in the sector.

 

5.       Context/Background

 

5.1          Christchurch has lost a substantial proportion of its visitor and tourism market share following the earthquakes. While Christchurch’s annual international electronic cardholder spend increased by 11 per cent between 2014 and 2015 this compares to a 15 per cent increase in international visitor spend in New Zealand overall, indicating that Christchurch is not yet regaining market share (2015 Christchurch Retail Report).

5.2          The draft Visitor Strategy was reported to Council in December 2015 and the Council requested further work be undertaken to  underpin the strategy with a more holistic visitor proposition, and to integrate the Cruise Terminal and Cathedral Square into the overall framework. In April 2016 the Council approved the overall strategic framework and requested that the Visitor Strategy be updated following stakeholder and community consultation.

Consultation Results

5.3          A targeted visitor sector consultation was undertaken between 6 June and 24 June.  Emails were sent to a range of organisations with an interest in the visitor sector and from Christchurch and Canterbury Tourism to their members based in the Christchurch City Council district inviting feedback on the draft Strategy through Have your Say – Your Voice

5.4          An invitation to a sector briefing on 20 June 2016 on the draft Christchurch Visitor Strategy – Setting the Direction 2016 was included.  The strategy was presented and a panel with members representing the strategy document, tourism, events, and economic development answered questions. 

5.5          Your Voice received a total of 445 visits over the consultation period; the strategy was downloaded 212 times; and a total of 53 submissions were received via three channels - Your Voice, emails, and the sector briefing.  These included submissions from the Akaroa-Wairewa, Lyttelton-Mt Herbert and Spreydon-Heathcote Community Boards; the Ministry of Business, Employment and Innovation; the Department of Conservation; Regenerate Christchurch; and two NGO’s.   All submissions have been summarised and the proposed response (either an amendment or no change to the document) noted in Attachment A: Consultation Feedback.

5.6          One submitter did not think there was any need for a separate Christchurch strategy from the Canterbury Visitor Strategy. One submitter expressed concern that the focus on rebuilding market share could be seen as a disincentive to work cooperatively with other cities and regions.  The remaining 51 submissions were generally supportive of the strategy overall but had recommendations about specific components.  While these do not require substantive change to the direction or intent of the strategy, a few minor amendments can be made to improve the relevance of the document. 

5.7          The recommended changes along with the rationale for these are noted in Attachment A: Consultation Feedback.   The attached strategy document reflects the proposed changes.

5.8          There were many very positive and useful proposals focused on future opportunities in the submissions, including offers to participate in any implementation planning process. The implementation working group should take note of these when they start their planning.  The key common themes emerging from the submissions were:

Themes

Response

Infrastructure –14 (nearly one third) submissions commented on infrastructure-related issues. Comments were largely focused on the central city and cruise terminals - including timetabling and adequacy.

Recommend the strategy is amended to include in ‘Strategic focus to 2019’ (page 4) bullet point 11 -   “Ensure appropriate infrastructure to service visitors including free independent travellers is planned for and delivered.  This will include advocating for central government for funding assistance.”

Inclusiveness – over 11 requests for recognition of Banks Peninsula.

Related to this theme were requests for a collaborative and extensive engagement, especially with local promotional agencies, in the next stages of the strategy development.

Recommend a map of the district is added to the Contents page of the strategy and the words “…including Banks Peninsula” added to the first bullet point in the Executive Summary (page 2).

Recommend the strategy is amended to include local promotional agencies in the Key Stakeholder List (page 6).

People and skills - there were 3 submissions related to the importance of a ‘culture of hospitality’.

 

Recommend the strategy ‘Strategic focus to 2019’ (page 4) bullet point 12 is amended to include -   “Foster a culture of excellence with visitor hosting and service provision.”

A number of requests for more information in the strategy related to detailed, tactical issues.

No change to the document is recommended as the strategy is a high-level direction-setting document and does not cover detailed issues. Rather, these will be developed in the Implementation Plans.

 

Previous Resolutions

5.9          This report replaces a previous report responding to the Council resolution (CNCL/2016/00255).  That report was ‘left on the table’ of the June 2016 Communities, Housing and Economic Development Committee following feedback from key stakeholders received immediately prior to the meeting.  Key stakeholders have asked that we do not action the Council resolution to establish a Working Group or the development of detailed action plans. They prefer that this happens after the Strategy is adopted and a ‘more joined up’ approach is finalised, so that any new arrangements may be taken into account as required. 

5.10       Those agencies involved in the ‘more joined up’ approach will develop implementation plans to deliver the strategy, as appropriate at that time.  A ‘more joined up’ approach is identified in the strategy as one of the first strategic steps to take.

5.11       If the Committee agrees with this approach, this report asks you (as per Standing Order 3.9.18 “a local authority may, on a recommendation contained in a report of any...committee, revoke…all or part of any resolution previously passed”) to recommend revoking the following components of CNCL/2016/00255:

·         That a further piece of work around establishing a Working Group, be reported to the Council through the Communities, Housing and Economic Development Committee, to provide oversight of the implementation pathway.

·         Direct the Working Group to report back to the Council with detailed action plans by September 2016.

·         Direct Strategy and Transformation to co-ordinate delivery of the implementation pathway, in conjunction with key stakeholders, and to report back through the Working Group.

6.       Option 1 – Adopt the Christchurch Visitor Strategy – Setting the Direction 2016 (preferred)

Option Description

6.1          Agree to the changes proposed in Attachment A and adopt the ‘Christchurch Visitor Strategy – Setting the Direction 2016’.

Significance

6.2          The level of significance of this option is medium consistent with section 2 of this report.  Engagement requirements for this level of significance are targeted consultation.

Impact on Mana Whenua

6.3          This option does not involve a significant decision in relation to ancestral land or a body of water or other elements of intrinsic value, therefore this decision does not specifically impact Ngāi Tahu, their culture and traditions.

Community Views and Preferences

6.4          Visitor sector organisations are specifically affected by this option due to the strategy providing high level direction aimed at regaining market share. Their views are noted in Attachment B: Consultation Feedback.

Alignment with Council Plans and Policies

6.5          This option is consistent with Council’s Plans and Policies.

Financial Implications

6.6          Cost of Implementation – there is no immediate cost to adopting the Strategy.  Once an action / implementation plan is finalised any new implementation costs above the current agreed budget may be the subject of a further report to Council. 

6.7          Maintenance / Ongoing Costs – N/A at this time

6.8          Funding source – the Economic Development Coordination  and Leadership budget

Legal Implications

6.9          There are no legal implications in confirming the ‘Christchurch Visitor Strategy – Setting the Direction 2016’.

Risks and Mitigations

6.10       A risk, of adopting the strategy without an action / implementation plan in place, is that activity that is inconsistent or un-coordinated with the goals of the strategy may occur.  A mitigation is to maintain regular and open communication with the key stakeholders noting and exchanging information on the range of activity underway.

Implementation

6.11       Implementation dependencies - key stakeholders have indicated a preference for finalising the action / implementation plan once the strategy is adopted and the ‘more joined up’ approach is put into place. 

6.12       Implementation timeframe – an action / implementation plan will be in place within the next year.

Option Summary - Advantages and Disadvantages

6.13       The advantages of this option include:

·      It sets in place a high level strategic direction (including clarity around vision, goals, and outcomes) to guide decisions aimed at regaining market share.

·      The opportunity to provide leadership, and a collaborative sector-wide approach to regaining and increasing our previous market share in an industry experiencing significant growth at the national level. 

·      The strategy provides a direction to guide the development of detailed action / implementation plans in the future, in collaboration with the wider visitor sector.

6.14       The disadvantages of this option include:

·      The action/implementation plan which supports the Strategy is not yet finalised - however as much activity and change is underway in the sector, confirming the Strategy will provide high-level strategic direction.

7.       Option 2 – Do not adopt the ‘Christchurch Visitor Strategy – Setting the Direction 2016’

Option Description

7.1          Do not adopt the ‘Christchurch Visitor Strategy – Setting the Direction 2016’.

Significance

7.2          The level of significance of this option is medium consistent with section 2 of this report.  Engagement requirements for this level of significance are targeted consultation.

Impact on Mana Whenua

7.3          This option does not involve a significant decision in relation to ancestral land or a body of water or other elements of intrinsic value, therefore this decision does not specifically impact Ngāi Tahu, their culture and traditions.

Community Views and Preferences

7.4          Visitor sector are specifically affected by this option due to the strategy providing high level direction aimed at regaining market share.  Their views are noted in Attachment B: Consultation Feedback.

Alignment with Council Plans and Policies

7.5          This option is not inconsistent with Council’s Plans and Policies.

Financial Implications

7.6          Cost of Implementation – there is no direct cost to the Council of not adopting the strategy, however there is a lost opportunity to provide leadership, and a collaborative sector-wide approach to regaining market share of a growth industry.

7.7          Maintenance / Ongoing Costs – N/A

7.8          Funding source – N/A

Legal Implications

7.9          There are no legal implications if the Council does not adopt the ‘Christchurch Visitor Strategy – Setting the Direction 2016’.

Risks and Mitigations

7.10       There is a risk that the sector has an expectation that the Council will show leadership in the visitor sector / economic development space.  A mitigation, if this option is chosen, would be to communicate the range of ongoing activities the Council undertakes that support the visitor sector including, amongst others, the Botanic Gardens and Visitor Centre, the Art Gallery, the Heritage Tram, the New Zealand Women’s Open golf event as well as the Economic Development Coordination and Leadership budget.

Implementation

7.11       Implementation dependencies  - N/A

7.12       Implementation timeframe – N/A

Option Summary - Advantages and Disadvantages

7.13       The advantages of this option include:

·      There is no direct cost to the Council of not adopting the strategy.

7.14       The disadvantages of this option include:

·      The lost opportunity to provide leadership, and a collaborative sector-wide approach to regaining market share.

Attachments

No.

Title

Page

a 

Attachment A: Visitor Strategy Consultation Feedback

 

b 

Attachment B: draft Christchurch Visitor Strategy (post submissions)

 

 

 

Confirmation of Statutory Compliance

Compliance with Statutory Decision-making Requirements (ss 76 - 81 Local Government Act 2002).

(a) This report contains:

(i)  sufficient information about all reasonably practicable options identified and assessed in terms of their advantages and disadvantages; and

(ii) adequate consideration of the views and preferences of affected and interested persons bearing in mind any proposed or previous community engagement.

(b) The information reflects the level of significance of the matters covered by the report, as determined in accordance with the Council's significance and engagement policy.

 

Signatories

Author

Claire Bryant,           Team Leader Policy

Approved By

Helen Beaumont,  Head of Strategic Policy

Brendan Anstiss,    General Manager Strategy and Transformation

 


Council

28 July 2016

 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


Council

28 July 2016

 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


Council

28 July 2016

 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


Council

28 July 2016

 

 

8.        Communities, Housing and Economic Development Committee Minutes - 7 July 2016

Reference:

16/813827

Contact:

Liz Ryley

liz.ryley@ccc.govt.nz

941 8153

 

 

1.   Purpose of Report

The Communities, Housing and Economic Development Committee held a meeting on 7 July 2016 and is circulating the Minutes recorded to the Council for their information.

 

2.   Recommendation to Council

That the Council receives the Minutes from the Communities, Housing and Economic Development Committee meeting held 7 July 2016.

 

 

Attachments

No.

Title

Page

A

Minutes Communities, Housing and Economic Development Committee - 7 July 2016

84

 

 

Signatories

Author

Liz Ryley,                   Committee Advisor

  


Council

28 July 2016

 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


Council

28 July 2016

 

 

9.        Infrastructure, Transport and Environment Committee Minutes – 12 July 2016

Reference:

16/822554

Contact:

Samantha Kelly

samantha.kelly@ccc.govt.nz

941 6227

 

 

1.   Purpose of Report

The Infrastructure, Transport and Environment Committee held a meeting on 12 July 2016 and is circulating the Minutes recorded to the Council for their information.

 

 

2.   Recommendation to Council

That the Council receives the Minutes from the Infrastructure, Transport and Environment Committee meeting held 12 July 2016.

 

 

Attachments

No.

Title

Page

a

Minutes Infrastructure, Transport and Environment Committee - 12 July 2016

90

 

 

Signatories

Author

Samantha Kelly,     Hearings Advisor

  


Council

28 July 2016

 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


Council

28 July 2016

 

Report from Strategy and Finance Committee  – 12 July 2016

 

10.    Business Improvement District Policy

Reference:

16/821428

Contact:

Gavin Thomas

Gavin.thomas@ccc.govt.nz

941 8834

 

 

 

 

1.  Strategy and Finance Committee Consideration

 

The Committee considered a report seeking its recommendation to the Council that it adopt the Business Improvement Policy and the introduction of a contestable grant fund.

The Committee supported the request from the deputation, Val Carter, Chairperson of the Fendalton/Waimairi Community Board (Clause 4.1 of the Minutes refers) and asked that the Community Boards work with the Council in leading this policy.

The Committee considered that the requirement regarding the minimum establishment ballot return of 33 percent return and at least 66 percent of votes in favour, be raised to 50 percent return and 66 percent in favour, and that the wording in 10.4 of the policy regarding the minimum targeted rate revenue, be amended to reflect a flexible rate revenue threshold.

 

2.   Staff Recommendations

 

1.         That the Strategy and Finance Committee:

a.         Receives this report and the supporting documents including public submissions made to the draft Business Improvement District Policy and proposed contestable grant fund.

b.         Agrees to recommend to the Council:

i.          The adoption of the Business Improvement District Policy (Attachment 1)

ii.         The introduction of a contestable grant fund of $50,000 from the 2017/18 year

iii.        That the Chief Executive be delegated authority to approve the Business Improvement District Standard Operations manual, and the criteria for the Business Improvement District Contestable Grant Fund.

iv.        That the General Manager, Strategy and Transformation, be delegated authority to approve Business Improvement District establishment grants of up to $15,000.

 

3.  Strategy and Finance Committee Recommendation to Council

 

Part A

1.         That the Council:

a.         Receive this report and the supporting documents including public submissions made to the draft Business Improvement District Policy and proposed contestable grant fund.

b.         Note that the policy clause 10.4 Minimum Targeted Rate Revenue is intended to have city-wide appeal and that the wording be changed to reflect a flexible rather than fixed rate revenue threshold.

c.         Change the ballot to reflect 50 percent return and 66 percent in favour.

d.         Subject to b and c. above: 

i.          Adopt of the Business Improvement District Policy (Attachment D)

ii.         Introduce of a contestable grant fund of $50,000 from the 2017/18 year

iii.        Delegate authority to the Chief Executive to approve the Business Improvement District Standard Operations manual, and the criteria for the Business Improvement District Contestable Grant Fund.

iv.        Delegate authority to the General Manager, Strategy and Transformation, to approve Business Improvement District establishment grants of up to $15,000.

 

 

Secretarial Note:    The Business Improvement Policy 2016 (final tracked changes post Strategy and Finance Committee meeting) (Attachment D) includes changes made following the Strategy and Finance Committee meeting on 12 July 2016.

 

 

 

 

Attachments

No.

Report Title

Page

1

Business Improvement District Policy

97

 

No.

Title

Page

a

Business Improvement District Policy (final tracked changes)2016

108

b

Stats on BID polls - Auckland 2006-2012.xls

124

c

Stakeholder Feedback - BID Policy

125

d

Business Improvement Policy 2016  (final tracked changes post Strategy and Finance Committee meeting)

142

 

 


Council

28 July 2016

 

 

Business Improvement District Policy

Reference:

16/608379

Contact:

Gavin Thomas

Gavin.thomas@ccc.govt.nz

941-8834

 

 

1.       Purpose and Origin of Report

Purpose of Report

1.1          The purpose of this report is for the Strategy and Finance Committee to recommend to the Council the adoption of the Business Improvement District Policy and the introduction of a contestable grant fund to the Council.

Origin of Report

1.2          This report is provided in response to Council resolution 2016/00192 from the Council meeting of 14 April 2016. This resolution approved the draft Business Improvement District policy and a proposal to introduce a contestable grant fund of $50,000 each year. This report provides the Council with the information received from the consultation and recommendations for proceeding.

2.       Significance

2.1          The decision(s) in this report are of low significance in relation to the Christchurch City Council’s Significance and Engagement Policy.

2.1.1     The level of significance was determined by using the Council's significance assessment tool. The adoption of this policy does not commit the Council to any course of action or expenditure and any future decision to establish a specific Business Improvement District would be assessed for significance at that time. 

2.1.2     The community engagement and consultation outlined in this report reflect the assessment.

 

3.       Staff Recommendations

1.         That the Strategy and Finance Committee:

d.             Receives this report and the supporting documents including public submissions made to the draft Business Improvement District Policy and proposed contestable grant fund.

e.             Agrees to recommend to the Council:

i.                The adoption of the Business Improvement District Policy (Attachment 1)

ii.              The introduction of a contestable grant fund of $50,000 from the 2017/18 year

iii.             That the Chief Executive be delegated authority to approve the Business Improvement District Standard Operations manual, and the criteria for the Business Improvement District Contestable Grant Fund.

iv.            That the General Manager, Strategy and Transformation, be delegated authority to approve Business Improvement District establishment grants of up to $15,000.

 

 

4.       Key Points

4.1          This report supports the Council's Long Term Plan (2015 - 2025):

4.1.1     Activity: Strategic Planning and  Policy

·           Level of Service: 17.0.9 Provision of strategic advice on the social and economic issues facing the city.

4.2          The following feasible options have been considered:

·           Option 1 – Adopt the Business Improvement District Policy (Attachment 1) which has been amended from the draft policy to reflect points raised through submissions; and to agree to the establishment of a contestable grant fund of $50,000 per year from the 2017/18 year (preferred option).

·           Option 2 - Adopt the Business Improvement District Policy (Attachment 1) which has been amended from the draft policy to reflect points raised through submissions. 

·           Option 3 – Do nothing.

4.3          Option Summary - Advantages and Disadvantages (Preferred Option)

4.3.1     The advantages of this option include:

·           A BID programme is expected to provide the following benefits to the business community and the Council:

-          More cohesive and sustainable business associations

-          Improvements in business environment and performance

-          Stronger relationships between the Council and business associations

-          Sustainable funding model for business associations - BIDs are self-funding

-          Active programmes in place to improve business environments, create more interesting and vibrant business areas, increase business profitability, and enhance property values.

·           Grant funding will assist business associations to move more rapidly and effectively towards a BID programme.

4.3.2     The disadvantages of this option include:

·           There may be no take-up of the BID programme - policy not implemented.

·           Some businesses may be opposed to the introduction of a BID programme in their area.

 

5.       Context/Background

Business Improvement District (BID) Programmes

5.1          Information regarding the BID Programme concept was presented in the report to the Council on 14 April 2016. The BID concept has been used for over 40 years with many successful BID programmes operating around the world and in New Zealand.

5.2          A BID programme involves businesses in a defined area agreeing to impose a targeted rate on property in the area to fund their working together to improve facilities and services in their business district. A BID is governed by a Board elected by the members.

5.3          A BID can only provide services over and above what the Council has committed to provide and fund from general rates. BID initiatives might include:

·           Public safety and hospitality - public safety officers, visitor assistance

·           Business development, marketing, promotions

·           Capital improvements - custom street furniture, signage, planting trees and flowers

·           Maintenance over and above that provided by the Council.

5.4          BID funding comes largely from a targeted rate paid by all businesses within the defined area (excluding residential and some other property types). The Council passes the rate revenue to the BID programme, which delivers the services. BIDs may raise additional revenue to supplement targeted rate income and most councils encourage the development of additional revenue streams.

5.5          Before establishing a new rating area a ballot of affected business and property owners is undertaken to determine support for the BID programme and the targeted rate.

5.6          From 2006 until February 2011 Christchurch City Council worked with the Central City Business Association (CCBA) to look at establishing a BID in the central city. The CCBA wrote to the Council in 2015 asking it to consider introduction of a BID programme in Christchurch. BID programmes have also been explored through the Council's Suburban Master Plans (some of which include explicit business development and promotion actions).

5.7          The BID Policy will provide a framework within which a BID programme can be established. This will facilitate discussions about prospective BID programmes and provide a transparent process to progress a proposed BID programme. The Policy requires a robust community and stakeholder engagement process to be undertaken by the proponent group. Central to this engagement is a ballot of affected business and property owners to ensure appropriate support for the BID programme and the use of a targeted rate to fund its operation.

5.8          A set of standard operating procedures for implementing the policy and grant criteria for the contestable grant scheme have been drafted and are currently being circulated to relevant officers for comment. It is recommended that the Chief Executive be delegated by the Council to approve these documents.

Key features of the BID Policy

5.9          The policy is to be applicable anywhere in the District and is enabling rather than requiring. BID programmes must be initiated and run by local businesses.

5.10       The policy provides for a broad scope of activity to enable a BID to operate in the best interests of its membership. The BID must produce a three – five year strategic plan detailing its intended direction over the period and an annual plan detailing its work programme and budget for the year. Both documents are to be provided to the Council.

5.11       The policy allows for the type of targeted rate to be decided on a case by case basis to ensure the type of rate best suits the profile of businesses within the BID area. The three options for how the targeted rate can be set and assessed are:

·           Capital value rate – rates set according to the capital value of the property

·           Fixed rate – all properties pay the same amount

·           Combination of a capital value rate and a fixed rate.

5.12       The following decisions require a ballot of affected property and business owners to be undertaken to seek a mandate:

·           Establishing a new BID - known as the Establishment Ballot

·           Increasing or decreasing the BID area boundary

·           Dissolving or disestablishing a BID.

5.13       To succeed, a ballot must deliver at least a 33 percent vote return, with at least 66 percent of votes received being in favour of the proposition.

Contestable grant fund

5.14       Business associations are likely to require seed funding to assist them to work towards establishing a BID programme. In the early stages of this process business associations are likely to need to improve their administrative and communication functions and build membership. Further on there are costs such as holding a ballot, incorporation, and developing appropriate monitoring and reporting systems. The grant is available to provide funding assistance for these processes.

5.15       The funding clearly shows the Council's partnership approach to the BID programme and the commitment the Council has to a thriving business sector.

5.16       A budget of $50,000 per year is proposed to be added to the Strategic Planning activity budget from the 2017/18 year.

5.17       Council Officers will prepare grant fund criteria to guide the use of the fund and that grants, up to $15,000, are recommended to be approved by the General Manager, Strategy and Transformation.

6.       The engagement process and submissions analysis

6.1          Preparation of the draft BID Policy included a reference group to contribute to policy direction and provide feedback from a business perspective. The reference group included representatives from business associations, business representative organisations and the Council. Two workshops were held with the reference group which were valuable sources of a business perspective and a Christchurch business context.

6.2          Consultation on the draft Business Improvement District (BID) Policy was undertaken from 20 April 2016 to 17 May 2016, although submissions were received through to the end of May 2016.

6.3          Targeted engagement was undertaken with 45 key stakeholders, which included representatives of the business sector, commercial property investors and business associations.  The document was also distributed to all Community Boards and placed on the Councils Have Your Say website.

6.4          A total of 17 submissions were received and an analysis of these submissions is detailed below. A summary of all submissions and comments from staff are included in Attachment 3.

Analysis of key submission points

6.5          Minimum targeted rate revenue of $100,000. There are two views expressed by submitters on this provision of the draft policy. Some agree the minimum rate is required to ensure a BID has sufficient revenue to be viable. Others believe the minimum rate revenue is too high for the Christchurch context and could see potentially successful BID programmes not get established.

6.6          The rationale for a minimum revenue requirement is twofold: to provide sufficient revenue for the BID programme to achieve the benefits sought for its members and; to promote the efficient use of Council resources in terms of providing assistance in establishing a BID programme and the ongoing support required to maintain the targeted rate and provide monitoring and reporting functions.

6.7          While there are risks associated with a BID programme potentially being too small to be viable, the policy could provide flexibility for the Council to make decisions on a case by case basis.

6.8          The draft policy does not preclude smaller areas joining together as a single BID programme and sharing resources to ensure a viable level of revenue and to keep their individual costs down. This option could be explicitly provided for in the policy.

6.9          It is recommended that the minimum rate revenue requirement of $100,000 be retained but that provision be made in the policy for the Council to consider applications for a BID programme from areas with an expected rate revenue of less than $100,000 on a case by case basis. This will enable prospective BIDs with either other revenue streams or lower costs (if members are committed to undertaking the work themselves) to make a case to be considered.

6.10       Minimum establishment ballot return of 33 percent and at least 66 percent of votes in favour is required before the Council will consider agreeing to a BID programme. Some submitters agreed with the provisions in the draft policy, while some submitted that the thresholds should be higher.

6.11       The thresholds included in the draft policy are higher than those in other BID policies in New Zealand (which tend to be 25 percent return and 50 percent in favour). Attachment 2 shows BID ballot results in Auckland over the 2006-2012 period during which time there were 18 establishment or expansion ballots held. Of these, two had a return of 50 percent or more and 12 had 66 percent or more of returned votes in favour. The respective councils approved all but three of the proposals.  Two of these areas now have a BID operating. This suggests there may need to reasonable expectations regarding both the return rate and the support vote received.

6.12       It is recommended that the proposed policy provisions relating to the ballot threshold and mandate are reasonable and should be retained.

6.13       Compulsory targeted rate. Some submissions proposed that a BID, and the accompanying targeted rate, should not be compulsory for businesses and non-residential properties within the BID area. Enabling an opt-out undermines a key plank of the BID programme rationale. Business associations tend to struggle to get all businesses in an area involved in voluntary programmes and to pay subscriptions sufficient for the business association to undertake initiatives that deliver meaningful benefit to members. Business associations may then turn to their local authority to provide financial support to remain operative.

6.14       The use of a targeted rate ensures all business in the BID area contribute, eliminating the free rider problem and ensuring all businesses have a stake in the success of the BID programme. It is recommended that the policy not provide for the ability for business and property owners within a BID area to opt out of a BID programme.

6.15       Winding up a BID programme. One submitter commented there didn’t appear to be a way to wind up a BID Programme. The draft policy includes provisions to disestablish a BID programme through a ballot of members and the Council can wind up a BID due to performance issues.

6.16       In the United Kingdom BIDs are covered by specific legislation that requires a mandate ballot to be undertaken every five years. No evidence has been found that this approach is used in other countries (including New Zealand). Requiring a mandate ballot every 5 years would be possible but would impose a significant ongoing cost relative to the cost of the BID programme.

6.17       It is recommended that the current provisions in the BID policy relating to the winding up of a BID programme be retained.

6.18       Community board involvement in decision-making. Some community boards submitted that they should have delegated authority to make decisions regarding BID programmes in their ward. This provision was included in early policy drafts but was removed following engagement with boards in November 2015 when some expressed a view that they did not believe this was role they should have.

6.19       It is recommended that community boards should be encouraged to have a close relationship with BID programmes operating in their ward. This could include community boards having a recommendatory function and that community boards provide support through advising and advocating on behalf of BIDs operating in their ward. This could be achieved by adding two responsibilities for community boards in section 6.2 of the policy:

·         Recommend to the Council that a BID proponent group be supported in progressing to a BID programme if the community board believes this to be appropriate.

·         Recommend to the Council that a new BID programme is established and a targeted rate be introduced following a successful ballot return and the community board being satisfied the BID programme has appropriate support in the community and is considered capable of operating a BID programme successfully.

6.20       It is also recommended that references throughout the policy to “the Council” be amended where appropriate to include community boards.

6.21       It recommended that community boards do not have final decision-making delegation on the establishment of a new BID or on any decision related to a targeted rate as it is the Council that is the rating authority.

6.22       Ensuring all eligible voters received the information and have the opportunity to vote. The provisions in the policy are aimed at ensuring all business owners and non-residential property owners in a proposed BID area, who are eligible voters, are on the voters list and receive all information and ballot papers. It is not practicable to verify that 100 percent of eligible voters receive the voting packs as this would require each one to be hand delivered and signed for. There are constant changes in business and property ownership that also make this a problematic goal.

6.23       It is recommended that the proposed policy provisions for distribution of information and ballot papers are retained.

6.24       Negotiated levels of service. The draft policy included provision for the possible negotiation of changes to existing levels of service. One submitter suggested this could be “privatisation by stealth” and that if service levels are changed it may be difficult to restore them if the BID is disestablished.

6.25       The clause was included as a prompt and to specifically enable the Council and BID programmes to work together to establish the optimal service delivery approach based on community preferences. If any changes to levels of service were contemplated this would need to include consideration of any risks associated with change.

6.26       It is also important that BID programmes and BID proponents are given clear information that while the Council will act in good faith and look to be as responsive as it can to levels of service and the rate required to fund these, the Council will not be bound solely by the wishes of one particular organisation or community and that it has an obligation to act in the best interests of community as a whole.

6.27        It is recommended that the current provisions be retained and that the Council’s ultimate decision-making prerogative is more clearly stated.

7.       Option 1 – Adopt the Business Improvement District Policy and establish a contestable grant fund (preferred)

Option Description

7.1          The Council adopts the Business Improvement District Policy (Attachment 1) and agrees to the establishment of a contestable grant fund of $50,000 per year, available from 2017/18.

Significance

7.2          The level of significance of this option is low and is consistent with section 2 of this report.  Engagement requirements for this level of significance are as required under section 82 of the Local Government Act 2002. The engagement undertaken has been consistent with these requirements.

Impact on Mana Whenua

7.3          This option does not involve a significant decision in relation to ancestral land or a body of water or other elements of intrinsic value, therefore this decision does not specifically impact Ngāi Tahu, their culture and traditions.

Community Views and Preferences

7.4          A cross-sectoral reference group was established at the outset of the policy development process to provide feedback on proposed policy approaches and to give a business view to policy proposals. The reference group had representatives from peak business organisations, business associations and the Council. The reference group met for two workshops in Novembers 2015.

7.5          Consultation on the draft Business Improvement District (BID) Policy was undertaken from 20 April 2016 to 17 May 2016, although submissions were received through to the end of May 2016.

7.6          Targeted engagement was undertaken with 45 key stakeholders, which included representatives of the business sector, commercial property investors and business associations.  The document was also distributed to all Community Boards and placed on the Councils Have Your Say website.

7.7          A total of 17 submissions were received and an analysis is included in Section 6 of this report. A summary of all submissions and comments from staff are included in Attachment 3.

Alignment with Council Plans and Policies

7.8          This option is consistent with Council plans and policies.

Financial Implications

7.9          Cost of Implementation – Direct cost of $50,000 per year for the contestable grant fund.

7.10       Maintenance / Ongoing Costs - There will be some costs associated with staff time required to brief business associations on the BID programme and to liaise with and assist business associations to assess the suitability of a BID programme and to work towards having BID programme.

7.11       Funding source - $50,000 per year for contestable grant fund to be a new item in the Strategic Planning and Policy activity budget. Other costs (staff time) will be funded from existing Strategic Planning and Policy activity budgets.

Legal Implications

7.12       The Legal Services Unit of the Council has reviewed the policy and made changes at the draft policy stage and prior to the final policy being included in this report.

Risks and Mitigations

7.13       Introduction of a targeted rate. It is important that any new targeted rate introduced to fund a BID programme is fair and reasonable for affected ratepayers. It is unlikely all will be happy with the introduction of a targeted rate and the benefits to be provided from the rate need to be clearly explained by the BID proponent group. There will need to be a clear rationale that shows a positive cost-benefit outcome for affected businesses. Council officers will work with any BID proponent group to ensure this is undertaken.  

Implementation

7.14       Implementation dependencies - the Council's Revenue and Financing Policy must be amended to provide for a targeted rate to be used as a funding mechanism for the Economic Development activity of Council. A change to the Revenue and Financing Policy will require consultation that meets the requirements of section 82 of the Local Government Act 2002. It is recommended this is undertaken in conjunction with other consultation, such as for the draft Annual Plan 2017/18, rather than as a standalone process.

7.15       Implementation timeframe – Once the policy is adopted officers will arrange to meet with business associations to explain the BID programme in detail and establish contacts and relationships. It is planned to meet with all known business associations by the end of 2016.

7.16       The contestable grant fund would be in place for the 2017/18 year.

Option Summary - Advantages and Disadvantages

7.17       The advantages of this option include:

·      More cohesive and sustainable business association entities.

·      Stronger relationships between the Council and business promotion entities.

·      Sustainable funding model - BIDs are self-funding.

·      The ability to access grant funding to assist in progressing to a BID programme will assist business associations to move more rapidly and effectively towards a BID programme.

·      Active programmes in place to improve business environments, create more interesting and vibrant business areas, increase business profitability, and enhance property values.

7.18       The disadvantages of this option include:

·      Some businesses may be opposed to the introduction of a BID programme in their area.

8.       Option 2 - Adopt the Business Improvement District Policy only

Option Description

8.1          The Council adopts the Business Improvement District Policy (Attachment 1) but does not establish a contestable grant fund of $50,000 per year.

Significance

8.2          The level of significance of this option is low which is consistent with section 2 of this report.  Engagement requirements for this level of significance are as required under section 82 of the Local Government Act 2002. The engagement undertaken has been consistent with these requirements.

Impact on Mana Whenua

8.3          This option does not involve a significant decision in relation to ancestral land or a body of water or other elements of intrinsic value, therefore this decision does not specifically impact Ngāi Tahu, their culture and traditions.

Community Views and Preferences

8.4          A cross-sectoral reference group was established at the outset of the policy development process to provide feedback on proposed policy approaches and to give a business view to policy proposals. The reference group had representatives from peak business organisations, business associations and the Council. The reference group met for two workshops in Novembers 2015.

8.5          Consultation on the draft Business Improvement District (BID) Policy was undertaken from 20 April 2016 to 17 May 2016, although submissions were received through to the end of May 2016.

8.6          Targeted engagement was undertaken with 45 key stakeholders, which included representatives of the business sector, commercial property investors and business associations.  The document was also distributed to all Community Boards and placed on the Councils Have Your Say website.

8.7          A total of 16 submissions were received and an analysis of these submissions is detailed in Section 6 of this report.

Alignment with Council Plans and Policies

8.8          This option is consistent with Council’s Plans and Policies.

Financial Implications

8.9          Cost of Implementation – Nil.

8.10       Maintenance / Ongoing Costs - There will be some costs associated with staff time required to brief business associations on the BID programme and to liaise with and assist business associations to assess the suitability of a BID programme and to work towards having BID programme.

8.11       Funding source – Any costs will be met from existing budgets.

Legal Implications

8.12       The Legal Services Unit of the Council has reviewed the policy and made changes at the draft policy stage and prior to the final policy being included in this report.

Risks and Mitigations

8.13       Introduction of a targeted rate. It is important that any new targeted rate introduced to fund a BID programme is fair and reasonable for affected ratepayers. It is unlikely all will be happy with the introduction of a targeted rate and the benefits to be provided from the rate need to be clearly explained by the BID proponent group. There will need to be a clear rationale that shows a positive cost-benefit outcome for affected businesses. Council officers will work with any BID proponent group to ensure this is undertaken.

Implementation

8.14       Implementation dependencies - the Council's Revenue and Financing Policy will need to be amended to provide for a BID Programme targeted rate to be used as a funding mechanism for the Economic Development activity of Council. A change to the Revenue and Financing Policy will require consultation that meets the requirements of section 82 of the Local Government Act 2002. Unless this becomes urgent it is recommended that amending the Revenue and Financing Policy is undertaken in conjunction with other consultation rather than as a standalone process.

8.15       Implementation timeframe – Once the policy is adopted officers will arrange to meet with all business associations in the district to explain the BID programme in detail and establish contacts and relationships. It is planned to meet with all business associations by the end of 2016.

The policy timeline could enable a BID to be introduced at the beginning of the 2017/18 year if supported by affected businesses.

Option Summary - Advantages and Disadvantages

8.16       The advantages of this option include:

·      More cohesive and sustainable business association entities.

·      Stronger relationships between the Council and business promotion entities.

·      Sustainable funding model - BIDs are self-funding.

·      Active programmes in place to improve business environments, create more interesting and vibrant business areas, increase business profitability, and enhance property values.

8.17       The disadvantages of this option include:

·      Some businesses may be opposed to the introduction of a BID programme in their area.

·      Not having a grant fund may mean it takes business associations longer to progress to a BID programme. Some may find the pathway too difficult without some financial assistance.

9.       Option 3 – Do nothing

Option Description

9.1          Do not adopt a Business Improvement District policy and do not introduce a contestable grant fund for business associations to apply to.

Significance

9.2          The level of significance of this option is low which is consistent with section 2 of this report.  Engagement requirements for this level of significance are not applicable.

Impact on Mana Whenua

9.3          This option does not involve a significant decision in relation to ancestral land or a body of water or other elements of intrinsic value, therefore this decision does not specifically impact Ngāi Tahu, their culture and traditions.

Community Views and Preferences

9.4          Consultation on the draft Business Improvement District (BID) Policy was undertaken from 20 April 2016 to 17 May 2016, although submissions were received through to the end of May 2016.

9.5          Targeted engagement was undertaken with 45 key stakeholders, which included representatives of the business sector, commercial property investors and business associations.  The document was also distributed to all Community Boards and placed on the Councils Have Your Say website.

9.6          A total of 17 submissions were received and an analysis of these submissions is detailed in Section 6 of this report.

Alignment with Council Plans and Policies

9.7          This option is consistent with Council’s Plans and Policies

Financial Implications

9.8          Cost of Implementation – Nil.

9.9          Maintenance / Ongoing Costs – Nil.

9.10       Funding source – Not applicable.

Legal Implications

9.11       Not applicable.

Risks and Mitigations

9.12       The potential benefits to businesses, the Council and the community from having a successful BID programme operating will not be realised. It is not possible to mitigate this risk. 

Implementation

9.13       Implementation dependencies - Not applicable.

9.14       Implementation timeframe – Not applicable

Option Summary - Advantages and Disadvantages

9.15       The advantages of this option include:

·      No resourcing required to work with business associations towards their running a BID programme.

·      No cost to the Council.

9.16       The disadvantages of this option include:

·      The potential benefits of a successful BID programme are not realised. These would be expected to include:

·           More cohesive and sustainable business association entities.

·           Stronger relationships between the Council and business promotion entities.

·           Sustainable funding model - BIDs are self-funding.

·           Active programmes in place to improve business environments, create more interesting and vibrant business areas, increase business profitability, and enhance property values.

 

Attachments

No.

Title

Page

a 

Business Improvement District Policy (final tracked changes)2016

 

b 

Stats on BID polls - Auckland 2006-2012.xls

 

c 

Stakeholder Feedback - BID Policy

 

 

 

Confirmation of Statutory Compliance

Compliance with Statutory Decision-making Requirements (ss 76 - 81 Local Government Act 2002).

(a) This report contains:

(i)  sufficient information about all reasonably practicable options identified and assessed in terms of their advantages and disadvantages; and

(ii) adequate consideration of the views and preferences of affected and interested persons bearing in mind any proposed or previous community engagement.

(b) The information reflects the level of significance of the matters covered by the report, as determined in accordance with the Council's significance and engagement policy.

 

Signatories

Author

Gavin Thomas

Senior Policy Analyst

Approved By

Helen Beaumont

Brendan Anstiss

Head of Strategic Policy

General Manager Strategy and Transformation

 


Council

28 July 2016

 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


Council

28 July 2016

 

PDF Creator


Council

28 July 2016

 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


Council

28 July 2016

 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


Council

28 July 2016

 

 

11.    Strategy and Finance Committee Minutes - 12 July 2016

Reference:

16/822385

Contact:

Margaret Henderson

margaret.henderson@ccc.govt.nz

941 8185

 

 

1.   Purpose of Report

The Strategy and Finance Committee held a meeting on 12 July 2016 and is circulating the Minutes recorded to the Council for their information.

 

2.   Recommendation to Council

That the Council receives the Minutes from the Strategy and Finance Committee meeting held 12 July 2016.

 

 

Attachments

No.

Title

Page

A

Minutes Strategy and Finance Committee - 12 July 2016

160

 

 

Signatories

Author

Margaret Henderson,       Committee Advisor

  


Council

28 July 2016

 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


Council

28 July 2016

 

 

12.    Partial review of the Freedom Camping Bylaw

Reference:

16/644459

Contact:

Ruth Littlewood

Ruth.littlewood@ccc.govt.nz

941-5574

 

 

1.   Purpose and Origin of Report

Purpose of Report

1.1       The purpose of this report is for the Council to consider the draft amendments to the Freedom Camping Bylaw and to approve the proposed Bylaw for consultation.

Origin of Report

1.2       This report is provided to fulfil parts (2) and (4) of Council resolution 2016/00220 to:

2. Carry out a partial review of the Freedom Camping Bylaw 2015 to consider amendments to   provisions related to non-self-contained freedom camping in the Bylaw, to be implemented by 1 December 2016.

          4.  Instruct staff to prepare a report on the partial and full reviews and present the consultation `               documents to Council for approval.

2.   Significance

2.1       The decision(s) in this report are of medium significance in relation to the Christchurch City Council’s Significance and Engagement Policy.

2.1.1   The level of significance was determined by assessing the criteria in the Council’s policy.

2.1.2   There is no community engagement and consultation required for the decisions in this report.  If the recommendations are accepted, community consultation will follow.

 

3.   Staff Recommendations

That the Council:

1.         Resolves that it is satisfied that the proposed amendments to the Christchurch City Council Freedom Camping Bylaw 2015 meet the requirements of section 11 of the Freedom Camping Act.

2.         Approves the attached Statement of Proposal (Attachment B) which includes the proposed amended bylaw.

3.         Resolves that the Statement of Proposal is adopted for public consultation (from 15 August to 15 September 2016).

4.         Resolve that a hearings panel be appointed to hear submissions, deliberate on those submissions and report back to the Council on the final form of the bylaw.

5.         Note that a full review of the Freedom Camping Bylaw will be brought forward to 2017 with staff due to report to Council on progress of the review by May 2017.

 

4.   Key Points

4.1       This report supports the Council's Long Term Plan (2015 - 2025):

4.1.1   Activity: Strategic Planning and  Policy

·     Level of Service: 17.0.19 Bylaws and regulatory policies are reviewed to meet statutory timeframes and changing needs

4.2       The following feasible options have been considered:

·     Option 1 – the preferred option. To amend the Freedom Camping Bylaw so that:                 (a) only self-contained freedom camping is allowed through-out the district, i.e. to prohibit non-self- contained camping and;                                                     

(b) all freedom camping is prohibited in the following areas : Addington Park, Windsport Park, Lower Styx River Mouth, French Farm and Wainui.                        (Note: These areas are temporarily closed to all freedom camping until May 2017.)

 

·     Option 2 – to amend the bylaw so that only self-contained freedom camping is allowed through-out the district, i.e. to prohibit non-self- contained camping. (This option is the same as 1(a) above.)

·     Option 3 – to amend the bylaw so that only self-contained camping is permitted in Addington Park, Windsport Park, Lower Styx River Mouth, French Farm and Wainui. (This option is the least restrictive option.  Non-self-contained freedom camping is permitted in rural areas e.g. on Banks Peninsula and the fringes of the city beyond the airport.)

 

4.3       Option Summary - Advantages and Disadvantages (Preferred Option)

4.3.1   The advantages of Option 1 include:

·    This option will address problems associated with freedom camping in Addington Park, Windsport Park, Lower Styx River Mouth, French Farm and Wainui relating to access, inadequate facilities, damage to the environment and the health and safety of both visitors and residents.

·    This option will also close rural areas on the edge of the City and on Banks Peninsula to non-self-contained freedom camping where such camping may cause adverse environmental effects and put at risk the health and safety of both visitors and residents.  This restriction will address the potential for non-self-contained campers to migrate to ‘new’ locations.

·    This option provides for simple and clear messages as to where all camping is prohibited and where it is restricted to self-contained camping only.  The ability to communicate clearly and simply is especially relevant because many freedom campers have English as a second language and/or are accessing information via an app on a mobile phone.

·    Community members can easily identify those places where non-compliant camping is taking place and Council resources can be targeted directly to those locations.

4.3.2   The disadvantages of this option include:

·     The decision only takes into account the freedom camping activity which occurred over one summer season immediately after the implementation of the bylaw.

·     Effective monitoring and enforcement of a ban on non-self-contained camping will be required over a large area of the district.  Depending on the severity of any issues, monitoring may be via periodic visits and response to specific complaints.

·     The proposal will negatively impact on non-self-contained freedom campers by preventing them from freedom camping unless they are able to obtain Council’s prior approval under clause 9. 


 

·     While not directly relevant to the criteria under the bylaw, the amendments may have some negative impact on economic and other benefits of tourism.  Tourists who prefer ‘free’ camping options are likely to make fewer or shorter visits to Christchurch.

·     The timelines associated with undertaking consultation and any potential changes are likely to provide little time for effective implementation prior to the 2016-2017 summer camping season.

 

5.   Context/Background

5.1       Freedom Camping occurs in various places in the Christchurch urban area and around Banks Peninsula (particularly in waterfront areas).  The Freedom Camping Act 2011 allows freedom camping to take place in New Zealand but also provides for territorial authorities to make bylaws placing restrictions on freedom camping.  The Act does not allow councils to completely ban freedom camping.  In March 2015 this Council resolved to address concerns about freedom camping e.g. at New Brighton and Akaroa by commencing the process to make a Freedom Camping Bylaw and in December 2015 the Freedom Camping Bylaw came into effect.

5.2       The current Freedom Camping Bylaw 2015 takes a four-level approach to restrictions on freedom camping:

5.2.1   Prohibited areas (no freedom camping allowed - e.g. City Centre, Lyttelton and Akaroa town centres, and other specific spots)

5.2.2   Restricted self-contained (permitted in certified self-contained vehicles only, with a maximum stay restriction - e.g. most of residential Christchurch and other residential parts of Banks Peninsula)

5.2.3   Restricted non-self-contained (permitted in non-self-contained vehicles with a maximum stay). Five areas are specified in this category:

·     French Farm (up to two nights' stay in any 30 day period)

·     Wainui (up to two nights' stay in any 30 day period)

·     Addington Park (up to five nights' stay in any 30 day period)

·     Lower Styx River Mouth(up to five nights' stay in any 30 day period)

·     Windsport Park (up to five nights' stay in any 30 day period).

 

5.2.4   No restrictions (no limits e.g. rural areas on Banks Peninsula and fringes of the city such as beyond the airport).

5.3       The number of visitors using the designated non-self-contained sites rose steadily from December 2015 through January and February 2016 and put additional pressure on the five sites – particularly Addington, Windsport Park and French Farm.  There were environment impacts and other problems including overloaded facilities, overcrowding, parking congestion and a lack of access to adjacent areas/foreshore for residents and others.  The majority of vehicles using those sites were privately owned and non-self-contained and the numbers utilising the sites placed intense pressure on existing facilities.  Monitoring showed that the number of campers using these sites was significantly higher than in the previous 2014-2015 summer season. 

5.4       By March staff assessed that the continued use of those sites for freedom camping activities was unsustainable, from a health and environmental perspective and the Chief Executive temporarily closed the designated ‘non-self-contained‘ sites at Addington Park, Windsport Park, Lower Styx River Mouth, French Farm and Wainui.  Following a staff report to the Regulation and Consents Committee on the operation of the bylaw, the Chief Executive extended the closure to May 2017.

5.5       On 12 May 2016 the Council resolved to bring forward a partial bylaw review to address for next summer and beyond, the non-self-contained camping issues which prompted the temporary ban.  With regard to the full bylaw review, staff were requested to report back on progress by May 2017 and to work with other councils and Local Government New Zealand to explore collective solutions to freedom camping problems.

Comments

5.6       Staff have taken into account the following matters in recommending amendments to the bylaw:

5.6.1   The problems associated with non-self-contained freedom camping last summer were largely due to increasing numbers of (freedom camping) tourists visiting Christchurch and freedom camping as per allowed under the original bylaw.  This increase was caused by a range of factors, including a return of Christchurch as a popular travel destination and relatively affordable air fares which encouraged ‘free independent travellers’ who prefer freedom-camping to visit New Zealand.    MBIE forecasts are that overall visitor numbers to New Zealand are expected to grow 5.4 per cent per year from 3.1 million in 2015 to 4.5 million visitors in 2022.  While (non-self-contained) freedom campers are a small proportion of total visitors, their numbers are expected to increase in line with the overall growth forecast.  As the problems associated with non-self-contained freedom camping are likely to be present over the longer term, there is a need to address the effects of the activity through the bylaw. 

(See http://www.mbie.govt.nz/info-services/sectors-industries/tourism/tourism-research-              data/international-tourism-forecasts/2016-2022-forecasts)

5.6.2   The (temporary) closure of the designated non-self-contained sites to all camping has been effective in addressing community concerns and the negative environmental, health and safety effects of freedom camping.  Staff recommend that the five sites are permanently closed to prevent a reoccurrence of last summer’s problems.  However, closure of the five sites is unlikely to address potential issues for the wider district.  Experience shows that as sites are closed to non-self-contained camping (e.g. New Brighton, Akaroa), campers disperse to other areas where their activities are not restricted.  Staff therefore recommend that the bylaw is amended so that the areas which currently have no restrictions (e.g. rural areas on Banks Peninsula and fringes of the city such as beyond the airport) are restricted to self-contained camping only.

5.6.3   Finally, in recommending specific amendments to the bylaw, staff have considered the need to communicate the rules clearly and simply to the ‘target’ freedom campers through their preferred media. The majority of vehicles at the sites over last summer were both privately owned and non-self-contained; their occupants were young foreign tourists who prefer to camp (and socialise) close to other like-minded campers in informal camp grounds. These campers learnt about campsites from fellow campers, via social media and through mobile phone apps such as Campermate.  They made little use of ‘traditional’ information sources such as vehicle hire companies, ‘i-site’ information centres or websites. 

Requirements of Section 11(2) of the Freedom Camping Act

5.6.4   Under the Act, the Council is required to determine that any (amendment to the) bylaw is the most appropriate and proportionate response to identified problems and is not inconsistent with the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act.  In particular, the Council must be satisfied that a bylaw provision is needed to protect the local authority area(s) including access to the area(s) and/or the health and safety of residents and visitors.  The following subsection of the report summarises the perceived problem with the current bylaw provisions and how the proposed amendments meet the requirements of Section 11 of the Act. (A Section 11 analysis of this proposal is Attachment C to this report.) Once the Council determines to proceed with the bylaw amendments, it then consults the community using the special consultation procedure. 

5.6.5   What are the perceived problems?

A perceived problem is that the current Freedom Camping Bylaw does not adequately protect local authority areas from the adverse effects of non-self-contained freedom camping.  A summary of the evidence of adverse effects on five sites camping is provided, (Attachment A). A second and related problem is that as some areas are closed to non-self-contained camping, campers are likely to seek out other unrestricted areas where the impacts of their activities may be even greater, given the lack of facilities and other impacts.

 

5.6.6   Is a bylaw amendment necessary for one or more of the following purposes: to protect the area, to protect the health and safety of people who visit the area and/or to protect access to the area?

It is concluded that a bylaw amendment is necessary given the evidence of significant adverse impacts of non-self-contained freedom camping and the fact that non-regulatory methods proved ineffective.  By contrast the regulatory response, of closing designated non-self-contained camping areas, successfully resolved the problems.

5.6.7   Is the proposed bylaw amendment in the most appropriate form?

Three bylaw options are identified and analysed below.  The most appropriate and proportionate form of amendment is assessed to be option 1.

5.6.8   Is the proposed bylaw amendment consistent with the Bill of Rights Act?

The right to camp on public land is not a ‘right’ in terms of the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990 and the proposed amendments are considered consistent with the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990.  The amendments only seek to impose justifiable and reasonable limits on people in the interests of reducing the impacts on the natural environment, public health and safety and public access. 

5.6.9   Once it has made the above determinations the Council then consults the community using the special consultation procedure.  In conclusion the proposed amendment to the bylaw meets the required standards of Section 11 of the Freedom Camping Act.


 

6.   Option 1 -  (preferred) amend to allow only self-contained camping and extend prohibited areas

Option Description

6.1       Option 1 – (preferred option) To amend the Freedom Camping Bylaw so that                

(a) Freedom camping is restricted to self-contained camping only, i.e. to prohibit non-self- contained camping throughout the district, and;                                                              

(b) All freedom camping is prohibited in the following areas previously designated as locations where camping was permitted: Addington Park, Windsport Park, Lower Styx River Mouth, French Farm and Wainui. (Note: These areas are temporarily closed to freedom camping until May 2017)

Significance

6.2       The level of significance of this option is medium consistent with section 2 of this report.  The Freedom Camping Act requires the Council to undertake the special consultative procedure in order to amend the bylaw.

Impact on Mana Whenua

6.3       This option does involve a significant decision in relation to ancestral land or a body of water or other elements of intrinsic value, therefore this decision does specifically impact Ngāi Tahu, their culture and traditions.

Community Views and Preferences

6.4       Staff discussed and invited feedback on the likely preferred options at the July meeting of the Chairs of the Community Boards.  Overall the chairs supported the preferred proposal, both the permanently closure of the five sites and the ‘ban’ on non-self-contained freedom camping.  The Council also has an awareness of community views in relation to freedom camping as a result of complaints and other publicity on freedom camping over the summer.  The community will be further consulted through the special consultative procedure.

Alignment with Council Plans and Policies

6.5       This option is consistent with Council’s Plans and Policies

Financial Implications

6.6       Cost of Implementation – Amending the bylaw less than a year since its introduction will result in the requirement for public consultation and additional costs involved in that process and in implementation of the amendments.

6.7       Maintenance / Ongoing Costs – The amendment of the bylaw may reduce the monitoring and maintenance costs for those areas where non-self-contained camping is currently allowed.

6.8       Funding source – Funding for the review and consultation process will come from existing Unit budgets.

Legal Implications

6.9       As outlined above in section 5 of this report a review is done by making the determinations required under s11(2)of the Act.  Following this review, the Council must consult by carrying out a special consultative procedure under section 83 of the Local Government Act 2002.

Risks and Mitigations

6.10    The amendments to the bylaw may not adequately deal with developing trends in tourism.  However this risk should be addressed through the full review of the bylaw in 2017.


 

6.11    Providing no free sites for non-self-contained camping may result in dispersal of campers to sites with no facilities (or more ideally, to formal camp grounds).  It is proposed to mitigate this risk through good communication about the bylaw and other opportunities for camping in Christchurch – including the location and availability of sites at formal camp grounds.

Implementation

6.12    Implementation dependencies and timeframe -the Council will have to carry out the requirements of the special consultation procedure over a short period and immediately preceding or following an election.

Option Summary - Advantages and Disadvantages

6.13    The advantages of this option include:

This option will address identified problems in the five designated sites relating to access, inadequate facilities, damage to the environment and the health and safety of both visitors and residents. Local residents generally support these closures.

6.13.1 This option will close rural areas on the edge of the City and on Banks Peninsula to non-self-contained freedom camping where such camping may cause adverse environmental effects and put at risk the health and safety of both visitors and residents.  This restriction will address the potential for non-self-contained campers to migrate to ‘new’ locations.

6.13.2 This option provides for simple and clear messages, as to where all camping is prohibited and where it is restricted to self-contained camping only.  Clear and simple communication is especially relevant because many freedom campers have English as a second language and/or are accessing information via an app on a mobile phone.

6.13.3 Community members can easily identify those places where non-compliant camping is taking place and Council resources can be targeted directly to those locations.

6.14    The disadvantages of this option are:

6.14.1 The option only takes into account the freedom camping activity which occurred over one summer season immediately after the implementation of the bylaw.

6.14.2 The proposal will negatively impact on non-self-contained freedom campers by preventing them from free camping (unless they are able to obtain Council’s prior approval under clause 9). 

6.14.3 While not directly relevant to the criteria under the bylaw, the amendments may be seen as ‘unfriendly’ towards free non-self-contained campers and are likely to result in fewer or shorter visits to Christchurch from those tourists who prefer ‘free’ camping options.

6.14.4 The timelines associated with undertaking consultation and any potential changes are likely to prove challenging for fully and most effectively implementation prior to the 2016-2017 summer camping season.

6.14.5 The Council’s capacity to monitor and enforce the bylaw may be limited (to periodic visits and response to specific complaints) because of the extent of the area subject to the prohibition on non-self-contained freedom camping.


 

7.   Option 2 – amend to allow self-contained only

Option Description

7.1       Non self-contained freedom camping is prohibited throughout the district (only self-contained camping is allowed).

Significance

7.2       The level of significance of this option is medium consistent with section 2 of this report.  The Freedom Camping Act requires the Council to undertake the special consultation procedure in order to amend the bylaw.

Impact on Mana Whenua

7.3       This option does involve a significant decision in relation to ancestral land or a body of water or other elements of intrinsic value, therefore this decision does specifically impact Ngāi Tahu, their culture and traditions.

Community Views and Preferences

7.4       Feedback from the local communities suggests that the community preference is for Addington Park, Windsport Park, Lower Styx River Mouth, French Farm and Wainui to be closed to all freedom camping. Staff discussed and invited feedback on the likely options at the July meeting of the Chairs of the Community Boards.  Overall the chairs supported the closure of these designated sites and therefore this option is not consistent with that feedback. 

Alignment with Council Plans and Policies

This option is consistent with Council’s Plans and Policies

Financial Implications

7.5       Cost of Implementation – Amending the bylaw less than a year since its introduction will result in the requirement for public consultation and additional costs involved in that process and in implementation of the amendments.

7.6       Maintenance / Ongoing Costs – The amendment of the bylaw may reduce the monitoring and maintenance costs for those areas where non-self-contained camping is currently allowed.

7.7       Funding source – Funding for the review and consultation process will come from existing Unit budgets.

Legal Implications

7.8       As outlined above in section 5 of this report a review is done by making the determinations required under s11(2)of the Act.  Following this review, the Council must consult by carrying out a special consultation under section 83 of the Local Government Act 2002.

Risks and Mitigations

7.9       The amendments to the bylaw may not adequately deal with developing trends in tourism.  However this risk should be addressed through the full review of the bylaw in 2017.

7.10    Closing the 5 sites for non-self-contained camping may result in dispersal of non-self-contained campers to other sites with no facilities.  However a district wide ban on non-self-contained camping is likely to be more effective and easier to communicate than non-regulatory approaches.

Implementation

7.11    Implementation dependencies and timeframe -the Council will have to carry out the requirements of the special consultation procedure over a short period and immediately preceding or following an election.

Option Summary - Advantages and Disadvantages

7.12    The advantages of this option include that it addresses the wider issues of non-self- contained camping and provides a simple clear message; non-self -contained freedom camping is not permitted in Christchurch City.  The district wide ban will also address the specific environmental problems caused by non-self-contained camping at the five sites. 

7.13    Compared to the preferred option which closes the five sites to all camping, this option allows self- contained campers to camp at the five designated sites.  However as self-contained camping is permitted in many locations close to the designated sites, the advantage to freedom campers (in terms of choice of campsite) is small.    

7.14    In terms of disadvantages, this option is considered to potentially have negative social impacts for both campers and residents.  Local residents are likely to oppose re-opening the sites to any freedom camping given the problems they experienced over the summer.  Staff consider that re-opening the sites to self-contained campers could lead to conflict between (complying) freedom campers and residents and will complicate the monitoring and enforcement of the bylaw.

7.15    In addition, staff consider that three (Addington, Windsport and French Farm) of the five designated sites were adversely affected by large visitor volumes and are not yet suitable for use as campsites.  This option may create difficulties in presenting consistent and clear messaging for these particular sites.


 

8.   Option 3 – amend to prohibit non-self-contained in the five areas

Option Description

8.1       Non-self-contained freedom camping is prohibited in the following areas: Addington Park, Windsport Park, Lower Styx River Mouth, French Farm and Wainui. (This option does not address broader issues around non-self-contained freedom camping.)

Significance

8.2       The level of significance of this option is medium consistent with section 2 of this report.  The Freedom Camping Act requires the Council to undertake the special consultative procedure in order to amend the bylaw.

Impact on Mana Whenua

8.3       This option does involve a significant decision in relation to ancestral land or a body of water or other elements of intrinsic value, therefore this decision does specifically impact Ngāi Tahu, their culture and traditions.

Community Views and Preferences

8.4       Staff discussed and invited feedback on the likely options at the July meeting of the Chairs of the Community Boards.  Overall the chairs supported the preferred option.  The Council has an awareness of community views in relation to non-self-contained freedom camping as a result of complaints and other publicity on freedom camping over the summer and it is likely that the community would not support option 3.  The community will be further consulted through the special consultative procedure.

Alignment with Council Plans and Policies

8.5       This option is consistent with Council’s Plans and Policies

Financial Implications

8.6       Cost of Implementation – Amending the bylaw less than a year since its introduction will result in the requirement for public consultation and additional costs involved in that process and in implementation of the amendments.

8.7       Maintenance / Ongoing Costs – The amendment of the bylaw may reduce the monitoring and maintenance costs for those areas where non-self-contained camping is currently allowed.

8.8       Funding source – Funding for the review and consultation process will come from existing Unit budgets.

Legal Implications

8.9       As outlined above in section 5 of this report a review is done by making the determinations required under s11(2)of the Act.  Following this review, the Council must consult by carrying out a special consultative procedure under section 83 of the Local Government Act 2002.

Risks and Mitigations

8.10    The amendments to the bylaw may not adequately deal with developing trends in tourism.  However this risk may be addressed through the full review of the bylaw in 2017.

8.11    Staff consider closing the five sites to non-self-contained camping is likely to result in dispersal of campers to sites with no facilities.  Non-regulatory approaches have not to-date proved successful with dealing with this problem and so this sort of measure is unlikely to be effective. 

Implementation

8.12    Implementation dependencies and timeframe -the Council will have to carry out the requirements of the special consultation procedure over a short period and immediately preceding or following an election.

Option Summary - Advantages and Disadvantages

8.13    The advantages of this option include the permanent closure to non-self-contained camping of five sites where there is clear evidence of problems associated with non-self-contained freedom camping. (See attachment A)

The disadvantages of this option include:

8.14    In terms of disadvantages, this option is considered to potentially have negative social impacts for both campers and residents.  Local residents are likely to oppose re-opening the sites to any freedom camping given the problems they experienced over the summer.  Staff consider that re-opening the sites to self-contained campers could lead to conflict between (complying) freedom campers and residents and will complicate the monitoring and enforcement of the bylaw.

8.15    In addition staff consider that three (Addington, Windsport and French Farm) of the five designated sites were adversely affected by large visitor volumes and are not yet suitable for use as campsites.  This option may create difficulties in presenting consistent and clear messaging for these sites.

8.16    By continuing to allow non-self-contained freedom camping in rural zones on the edge of the city and on most of Banks Peninsula, the campers are likely to disperse to areas where there are no facilities and lead to significant environmental and health and safety effects for both visitors and residents.

8.17    This option does not address the broader issues relating to non-self- contained freedom camping.

Financial Implications

8.18    Cost of Implementation – Amending the bylaw less than a year since its introduction will result in the requirement for public consultation and additional costs involved in that process and in implementation of the amendments.

8.19    Maintenance / Ongoing Costs – The amendment of the bylaw may reduce the monitoring and maintenance costs for those areas where non-self-contained camping is currently allowed.

8.20    Funding source – Funding for the review and consultation process will come from existing Unit budgets.

Legal Implications

8.21    As outlined above in section 5 of this report a review is done by making the determinations required under s11(2)of the Act.  Following this review, the Council must consult by carrying out a special consultation under section 83 of the Local Government Act 2002.

Risks and Mitigations

8.22    The amendments to the bylaw may not adequately deal with developing trends in tourism.  However this risk should be addressed through the full review of the bylaw in 2017.

8.23    Closing the 5 sites for non-self-contained camping is likely to result in dispersal of non-self-contained campers to sites with no facilities.  Staff assess that it will be difficult to mitigate this risk through communications and other non-regulatory approaches.

Implementation

8.24    Implementation dependencies and timeframe -the Council will have to carry out the requirements of the special consultation procedure over a short period and immediately preceding or following an election.

 

Attachments

No.

Title

Page

a

Evidence Table for Bylaw Amendments

177

b

Statement of proposal including Bylaw

180

c

Section 11 Analysis table

193

 

 

Confirmation of Statutory Compliance

Compliance with Statutory Decision-making Requirements (ss 76 - 81 Local Government Act 2002).

(a) This report contains:

(i)  sufficient information about all reasonably practicable options identified and assessed in terms of their advantages and disadvantages; and

(ii) adequate consideration of the views and preferences of affected and interested persons bearing in mind any proposed or previous community engagement.

(b) The information reflects the level of significance of the matters covered by the report, as determined in accordance with the Council's significance and engagement policy.

 

Signatories

Author

Ruth Littlewood

Senior Policy Analyst

Approved By

Helen Beaumont

Brendan Anstiss

Head of Strategic Policy

General Manager Strategy and Transformation

  


Council

28 July 2016

 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


Council

28 July 2016

 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


Council

28 July 2016

 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


Council

28 July 2016

 

 

13.    Tuam Limited - Dividend Payment

Reference:

16/781975

Contact:

Patricia Christie

Patricia.christie@ccc.govt.nz

941 8113

 

 

1.   Purpose and Origin of Report

Purpose of Report

1.1       The purpose of this report is for the Council to approve the payment of a cash dividend by Tuam Limited to Council in accordance with the major transactions provisions of the Companies Act 1993.

Origin of Report

1.2       This report is staff generated.

2.   Significance

2.1       The decision(s) in this report is of low significance in relation to the Christchurch City Council’s Significance and Engagement Policy.

2.1.1   The level of significance was determined by the impact of the proposed dividend on the community.

2.1.2   The community engagement and consultation outlined in this report reflect the assessment.

 

3.   Staff Recommendations

That the Council:

1.         Approve the payment by Tuam Limited of a $45,999,563.50 dividend on 29 July 2016. Noting that:

a.         a dividend of this size is a major transaction under section 129 of the Companies Act 1993 which requires shareholder approval; and

b.         that this dividend was included in the Council’s financial budgets.

2.         Delegate to the Chief Executive and Chief Financial Officer the authority to sign the shareholder resolution approving the dividend on behalf of the Council.

 

 

4.   Key Points

4.1       Tuam Limited had indicated in its Statement of Intent (SOI) for 2016 and draft 2017 SOI that it was going to pay a dividend. At present Tuam Limited is considering investment opportunities which will use the tax depreciation earthquake rollover relief from the disposal of its pre-earthquake property investments.

4.2       Section 129 of the Companies Act 1993 requires a company to obtain shareholder approval prior to entering into a major transaction. For the purposes of the Companies Act a major transaction is one which affects more than 50% of a company’s assets. At 30 June 2016 Tuam Limited had net assets of $46.755 million. It is proposing the payment of a $45,999,563.50 dividend to Council. As such, the major transaction threshold is met and shareholder approval is required.

4.3       Tuam Limited are proposing to pay this dividend as soon as Council approval is obtained.

 

5.   Context/Background

5.1       Tuam Limited is owned 100% by the Council. Prior to the earthquakes it owned the former Council offices in Tuam Street and a number of smaller buildings opposite on the south side of Tuam Street. These buildings were sold to the CCDU as part of the blueprint for the city.

5.2       The final sales price for these transactions was only agreed in February 2016, when the Council settled its insurance claims arising from the earthquakes.

Dividend

5.3       With the insurance settlement in February 2016, the company has been able to determine its current available surplus cash to pay a dividend to Council.

5.4       At 30 June 2016 Tuam has net assets of $46.755 million. Allowing for expected future costs a cash dividend of $45,999,563.50 can be paid.

5.5       The Companies Act 1993 provides that a company cannot enter into a transaction in which it will acquire or dispose of assets which are more than 50% of the value of the company’s assets prior to the transaction without a special resolution of the shareholders approving the transaction.

5.6       A $45,999,563.50 dividend represents 98% of Tuam’s asset value at 30 June 2016. As such the payment of the dividend is considered to be a major transaction and Council’s approval as shareholder is required.

5.7       The shareholder resolution approving the dividend is at Attachment A. The solvency of Tuam immediately after payment of the dividend has been assessed and the company will have sufficient cash to meet its liabilities as they fall due.

Council had anticipated the receipt of a dividend from Tuam in its Annual Plan.

 

Attachments

No.

Title

Page

a

Tuam 2016 Dividend -shareholder resolution

199

 

 

Confirmation of Statutory Compliance

Compliance with Statutory Decision-making Requirements (ss 76 - 81 Local Government Act 2002).

(a) This report contains:

(i)  sufficient information about all reasonably practicable options identified and assessed in terms of their advantages and disadvantages; and

(ii) adequate consideration of the views and preferences of affected and interested persons bearing in mind any proposed or previous community engagement.

(b) The information reflects the level of significance of the matters covered by the report, as determined in accordance with the Council's significance and engagement policy.

 

Signatories

Author

Patricia Christie,     Manager External Reporting & Governance

Approved By

Diane Brandish,      Head of Financial Management

Peter Gudsell,         General Manager Finance & Commercial

  


Council

28 July 2016

 


Council

28 July 2016

 

 

14.    Greater Christchurch Urban Development Strategy Update

Reference:

16/656509

Contact:

Helen Beaumont

helen.beaumont@ccc.govt.nz

941 5190

 

 

1.   Purpose of Report

1.1       This report seeks Council ratification of the Greater Christchurch Urban Development Strategy Update: He Rautaki Whakawhanake-ā-tāone mō Waitaha.

 

2.   Staff Recommendation

That the Council:

1.         Ratifies the Greater Christchurch Urban Development Strategy Update: He Rautaki Whakawhanake-ā-tāone mō Waitaha.

 

 

3.   Key Points

3.1       The updated Urban Development Strategy incorporates the recovery efforts of the partner agencies following the Canterbury Earthquake Sequence. It was developed to coordinate planning across Greater Christchurch and complements both the 2007 Strategy and the Resilient Greater Christchurch Plan.

3.2       The Urban Development Strategy Implementation Committee (UDSIC), comprising the strategy partners, has agreed to work collaboratively with and on behalf of the wider community to achieve the vision and shared goals of the Greater Christchurch Urban Development Strategy 2007 (2007 Strategy). The partners have a statutory responsibility for, or significant interest in, the future development of Greater Christchurch.

3.3       The Recovery Strategy adopted in 2012 provided guidance for the recovery from 2012 to April 2016.

3.4       In 2015 UDSIC agreed to update the 2007 Strategy to reflect the changes in Greater Christchurch and the range of planning activity and community consultation undertaken by the strategy partners since 2007. They also wanted to ensure the goals and integrated responses to the earthquakes were carried forward.

3.5       The Strategy Update has been informed by:

3.5.1   the views of strategy partners

3.5.2   feedback from a stakeholder focus group

3.5.3   community views expressed in the many consultation processes over the past few years including the consultation on the 2007 Strategy and other topics since 2007, namely:

·     the Christchurch City Health and Wellbeing Profile consultation

·     Share-an-Idea consultation in 2011 in preparation for the CCC's development of the draft Central City Plan

·     consultation on the development of other Recovery Plans and Programmes (such as the LURP (Land Use Recovery Programme), Christchurch Central City Recovery Plan, Accessible and Liveable City chapters, and the NERP (Natural Environment Recovery Programme)

·     consultation on 100 Resilient Cities project, its Greater Christchurch Preliminary Resilience Assessment (2015) and Resilient Greater Christchurch Plan (2016)

·     consultation on the partner Councils' 2015-2025 Long Term Plans and 30-year infrastructure strategies.

3.6       The extent of this consultation demonstrates that the UDSIC and strategy partners are well aware of and have taken into account the views of the public on the various issues that inform this Update. The extent of the consultation is therefore considered to be sufficient.

3.7       The principles and strategic goals in the Strategy have been updated to reflect the significant changes in Greater Christchurch since 2007. The Strategy Update also incorporates relevant material from recent consultation and planning processes, and identifies priorities for partnership collaboration in the short to medium term.

3.8       Maintaining and strengthening the partnership, and providing visible and collaborative leadership, are critical for ensuring regeneration over the next few years and beyond. The partners remain committed to the vision in the Strategy Update.

3.9       Under its terms of delegation the UDSIC is able to review and recommend adjustments to the Greater Christchurch Urban Development Strategy. On 8 July 2016 the UDSIC endorsed the Strategy Update and recommended it to the partner councils for ratification.

 

Attachments

No.

Title

Page

a

Urban Development Strategy Update

203

 

 

Signatories

Author

Helen Beaumont

Head of Strategic Policy

Approved By

Brendan Anstiss

General Manager Strategy and Transformation

  


Council

28 July 2016

 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


Council

28 July 2016

 

 

15.    Resilient Greater Christchurch Plan

Reference:

16/840655

Contact:

Mike Gillooly

mike.gilloly@ccc.govt.nz

941 6599

 

 

1.   Purpose and Origin of Report

Purpose of Report

1.1       The purpose of this report is to present the Resilient Greater Christchurch's Plan (Attachment A) to Council for ratification.  The plan was endorsed by the Urban Development Strategy Implementation Committee (UDSIC) on 8 July 2016, and is now being presented to the relevant governing body for each agency.

1.2       The recommendation that UDSIC agreed to was:

1.2.1   That the report be received

1.2.2   That the Committee endorses the Resilient Greater Christchurch Plan subject to minor

1.2.3   Modifications by the Chief Resilience Officer

1.2.4   That the UDSIC recommends that individual partner governance meetings ratify the Plan

1.2.5   That ongoing governance oversight of the Plan rest with UDSIC

1.3       This endorsement is a critical step in concluding phase two of the project to develop a resilience plan for Greater Christchurch as part of the 100 Resilient Cities (100RC) initiative.

Origin of Report

1.4       This report is staff generated.

2.   Significance

2.1       The decision in this report is of low significance in relation to the Christchurch City Council’s Significance and Engagement Policy.

2.1.1   The reasons for this level of significance are:

·     There are no unbudgeted costs or risks to the Council, ratepayers or wider community

·     There is no detrimental impact on the capacity of the Council to carry out its role and functions, and

2.1.2   The community engagement and consultation outlined in this report reflect the assessment.  Targeted consultation has been undertaken and is reflected in the final version of the plan.  Extensive engagement with partner UDS agencies and other stakeholders has been undertaken throughout the two year period while the Resilient Greater Christchurch's Plan has been in development.

 

3.   Staff Recommendations

That the Council:

1.         Ratify the Resilient Greater Christchurch Plan

 

 

4.   Key Points

4.1       This report supports the Council's Long Term Plan (2015 - 2025):

4.1.1   Activity: Public Participation in Community and City Governance and Decision-making

·     Level of Service: 4.1.1 Develop and embed 100RC Christchurch Resilience Strategy

4.2       The following feasible options have been considered:

·     Option 1 – Endorse the plan (preferred option)

·     Option 2 – Do nothing (Don’t endorse the plan.)

4.3       Option 1 Summary – Endorse the Plan Advantages and Disadvantages (Preferred Option)

4.3.1   The advantages of this option include:

·     Fulfils Greater Christchurch’s obligation as a member of the 100 Resilient Cities Network to produce a resilience plan. This obligation was set out in the Grant Agreement between Rockefeller Philanthropy Advisers and the Christchurch City Council (as Grantee) and signed by the Mayor of Christchurch on 5 February 2014.

·     The resilience plan is an enabling document that will allow city and district leaders to visibly and collaboratively work together to review the urban development strategy.

4.3.2   The disadvantages of this option include:

4.4       There are no disadvantages to this option.

 

5.   Context/Background

5.1       The second phase of the resilience project began in September 2015 with research into the four focus areas identified in the preliminary resilience assessment. The four focus areas have become the resilience goals in the final plan:

·   Connected neighborhoods and communities (Focus area led by Canterbury District Health Board)

·   Participative leadership and governance (Focus area led by Christchurch City Council)

·   Securing a prosperous future (Focus area led by Canterbury Development Corporation)

·   Understanding and responding to future challenges (Focus area led by  New Zealand Transport Agency and Canterbury Civil Defense Emergency Management)

5.2       The resilience project has worked closely with the strategic partners as part of the UDS update project and was endorsed by UDSIC at their meeting of 8 July. The UDSIC resolved as follows:

·      That the Committee endorses the Resilient Greater Christchurch Plan subject to minor

modifications by the Chief Resilience Officer.

·      That the UDSIC recommends that individual partner governance meetings ratify the Plan.

·      That ongoing governance oversight of the Plan rest with UDSIC.

·   That the role of the Chief Resilience Officer as an advocate for coordination, ongoing development and implementation of the Plan across UDS partners is supported.

5.3       This phase of the project was guided by an advisory group comprising representatives from Environment Canterbury, Central Government, Canterbury University, Massey University, Te Runanga o Ngai Tahu, community leaders, Land Care Research and Resilient Organisations. The advisory group was chaired by Dr. John Vargo whose endorsement comprises part of the foreword to the plan.

Plan Content

5.4       The plan identifies four goals to help us become a more resilient Greater Christchurch. Each goal is framed to build capacity in our people, places, organisations and systems. Sitting across the goals and implicit to a greater or lesser degree in each programme are two overarching principles. The four interconnecting goals contain a series of programmes which are the building blocks for improving our resilience and within each programme are a defined set of actions. Detailed projects and initiatives that will implement these actions are outlined in the implementation plan.

 

Plan Implementation

5.5       Development of new projects will be driven by the ongoing commitment to having a dedicated Chief Resilience Officer who will advocate for coordination across the UDS partners, broker solutions within technical disciplines, negotiate funding and work directly with community representatives helping to develop and sustain initiatives. At an institutional level, the members of the UDS Partnership – Councils, local Iwi, health board and government agencies – will leverage and maximise existing sources of funding to achieve resilience benefits. New projects will emerge from the programmes which will integrate with future UDS projects and priorities.

 

 


 

6.   Option 1 – Endorse the Resilient Greater Christchurch Plan (preferred)

Option Description

6.1       Resilient Greater Christchurch is the first resilience plan for Greater Christchurch. The plan is a collaborative approach to resilience-building covering three territorial authorities and six Ngāi Tahu hapū (sub-tribes). It encompasses four goals supported by a series of programmes under which practical actions can be implemented.

Significance

6.2       The level of significance of this option is low consistent with section 2 of this report. 

6.3       This option does not involve a significant decision in relation to ancestral land or a body of water or other elements of intrinsic value.  This option supports and strengthens Ngāi Tahu, their culture and traditions.  This option is supported by Ngāi Tahu. 

Community Views and Preferences

6.4       No communities are specifically affected by this option.

Alignment with Council Plans and Policies

6.5       This option is consistent with Council’s Plans and Policies

Financial Implications

6.6       Cost of Implementation will be within existing approved budgets.

Legal Implications

6.7       There are no legal implications arising as a result of this plan.


 

7.   Option 2 - Do nothing

Option Description

7.1       Don’t endorse the plan

Significance

7.2       The level of significance of this option is low consistent with section 2 of this report. 

Impact on Mana Whenua

7.3       This option does not involve a significant decision in relation to ancestral land or a body of water or other elements of intrinsic value, therefore this decision does not specifically impact Ngāi Tahu, their culture and traditions.  However, Ngāi Tahu are supportive of option 1. 

Community Views and Preferences

7.4       No communities are specifically affected by this option.

Alignment with Council Plans and Policies

7.5       This option is not consistent with Council’s Plans and Policies.

Financial Implications

7.6       There would be no implementation costs associated with this option.

Legal Implications

7.7       There are no legal implications associated with this option.

Risks and Mitigations

7.8       Reputation risk with community and stakeholders including 100RC who have been anticipating this plan for two years. There is no obvious way to mitigate the risk.

Option Summary - Advantages and Disadvantages

7.9       The advantages of this option include:

·   There are no material advantages to this option given the 2 years of work that has been invested already.

7.10    The disadvantages of this option include:

·   We would be reneging on our obligation as a member of the 100 Resilient Cities Network to produce a resilience plan. This obligation was set out in the Grant Agreement between Rockefeller Philanthropy Advisers and Council and signed by the Mayor on 5 February 2014.

·   Foregoing an opportunity to allow city and district leaders to visibly and collaboratively work together to review the urban development strategy.


 

 

Attachments

No.

Title

Page

a

Resilient Greater Christchurch Plan

267

 

 

Confirmation of Statutory Compliance

Compliance with Statutory Decision-making Requirements (ss 76 - 81 Local Government Act 2002).

(a) This report contains:

(i)  sufficient information about all reasonably practicable options identified and assessed in terms of their advantages and disadvantages; and

(ii) adequate consideration of the views and preferences of affected and interested persons bearing in mind any proposed or previous community engagement.

(b) The information reflects the level of significance of the matters covered by the report, as determined in accordance with the Council's significance and engagement policy.

 

Signatories

Author

Mike Gillooly,          Chief Resilience Officer

Approved By

Brendan Anstiss,    General Manager Strategy and Transformation

  


Council

28 July 2016

 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


Council

28 July 2016

 

PDF Creator


Council

28 July 2016

 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


Council

28 July 2016

 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


Council

28 July 2016

 

PDF Creator


Council

28 July 2016

 

 

16.    Public Transport Committee Report

Reference:

16/822587

Contact:

Rae-Anne Kurucz

Rae-Anne.Kurucz@ccc.govt.nz

5084

 

 

1.   Purpose of Report

 

1.1       To receive the report of the Greater Christchurch Public Transport Joint Committee (Committee) meeting held on 6 July 2016.

1.2       The Council are also requested to agree to the amendments proposed by the Committee in relation to the Agreement in relation to the Greater Christchurch Public Transport Joint Committee (the Agreement).

 

2.   Staff Recommendations

That the Council:

1.         Receive the decisions of the Greater Christchurch Public Transport Committee

2.         Agree to the amendments proposed by the Committee to the wording of the Agreement as follows:

a.         Change all references in the Agreement to “non-voting Observer” to “non-voting member”

b.         In clause 4.(c) replacing the reference to “Parties” with “Committee” and clarify that the Committee approval for any additional independent observer members be unanimous, as marked on the attached copy of the Agreement; and

c.         In clauses 4. (d) and 7 (f), which are consequential changes, to allow any independent observer members to change their representatives to the Committee.

 

 

3.   Decisions Made by the Greater Christchurch Transport Committee

 

3.1       Formal Establishment of the Greater Christchurch Public Transport Joint Committee

 

The Committee:

1.    Noted the appointment of Alister James QSO as independent chair of the Greater Christchurch Public Transport Joint Committee as per clause 5.1 of the Agreement;

2.    Appointed Cr Kevin Felstead from Waimakariri District Council as deputy chair of the Greater Christchurch Public Transport as per clause 5.3 of the Agreement; and

3.    Noted the delegations made to the Committee by Environment Canterbury and its connection to the development of a joint work programme for the Greater Christchurch Public Transport Joint Committee.

 

3.2       An overview of the Public Transport System

 

         The Committee received the paper on the Public Transport System.

               


 

 

3.3       Development of a Draft Work Programme

The Committee:

1.      Noted the advantages of developing a joint work programme for which the Committee will have oversight

2.      Noted the programme will necessarily feature statutory and non-statutory tasks delegated to it by Environment Canterbury as well as committed and planned tasks of the individual member organisations

3.      Noted the importance of the Committee establishing a strategic vision, outcomes and objectives in the short term, so that a draft work programme can be presented to the incoming joint committee after local body elections

4.      Noted the proposal for a joint committee visioning workshop to achieve 3.

5.      Advised staff on further actions and areas of priority to focus on in the development of the draft joint work programme

 

3.4       Public Transport Advisory Group

 

The Committee:

1.      Noted the correspondence related to Membership and the Terms of Reference for the Public Transport Advisory Group

2.      Noted the relationship and overlap between the Public Transport Advisory Group and the Active and Public Transport Working Group of the Regional Transport Committee

3.      Received the feedback from youth representatives relating to their input into the Joint Committee and the Public Transport Advisory Group

4.      Agreed to:

a.      establish the Youth Reference Group for Sustainable Transport, as a formal sub-group of the Public Transport Advisory Group, and

b.     formalise the roles on the Public Transport Advisory Group (number of seats that youth hold), and

c.      document the agreement in the form of an Terms of Reference,

d.     consider how the Youth Reference Group for Sustainable Transport should be resourced.

5.      Advised of any other changes required to the Terms of Reference for the Public Transport Advisory Group

 

3.5       Reporting Requirements

 

The Committee:

1.      Received the draft dashboard on service performance

2.      Directed staff to amend the dashboard for the next meeting of the Greater Christchurch Public Transport Joint Committee if required.

 

The full minutes of the meeting will be available on the Environment Canterbury Council’s website once they have been confirmed at the next meeting on 10 August 2016.

 

 

Attachments

No.

Title

Page

a

Amended Agreement

372

 

 

Signatories

Author

Rae-Anne Kurucz, Team Leader Transport

Approved By

Richard Osborne,   Head of Planning & Strategic Transport

Brendan Anstiss,    General Manager Strategy and Transformation

  


Council

28 July 2016

 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


Council

28 July 2016

 

 

17.    Notice of Motion

Reference:

16/856494

Contact:

Councillor Yani Johanson

Yani.Johanson@ccc.govt.nz

941 8999

 

 

Pursuant to Section 3.10.1 of Christchurch City Council’s Standing Orders, the following Notice of Motion was submitted by Councillor Yani Johanson.

 

1.   Recommendation to Council

That the Council:

1.         Accepts the Notice of Motion from Councillor Johanson regarding North Avon Road Street Renewal Funding.

2.         That the Christchurch City Council seek a report to the next Council meeting on how North Avon Road Street Renewal Project can be funded to include the footpath renewal and an extension of the overall project from North Parade to the Flesher Avenue intersection.

 

 

Attachments

There are no attachments to this report.

  

 


Council

28 July 2016

 

 

18.  Resolution to Exclude the Public

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 items listed overleaf.

 

Reason for passing this resolution: good reason to withhold exists under section 7.

Specific grounds under section 48(1) for the passing of this resolution: Section 48(1)(a)

 

Note

 

Section 48(4) of the Local Government Official Information and Meetings Act 1987 provides as follows:

 

“(4)     Every resolution to exclude the public shall be put at a time when the meeting is open to the public, and the text of that resolution (or copies thereof):

 

             (a)       Shall be available to any member of the public who is present; and

             (b)       Shall form part of the minutes of the local authority.”

 

This resolution is made in reliance on Section 48(1)(a) of the Local Government Official Information and Meetings Act 1987 and the particular interest or interests protected by Section 6 or Section 7 of that 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:


Council

28 July 2016

 

 

ITEM NO.

GENERAL SUBJECT OF EACH MATTER TO BE CONSIDERED

SECTION

SUBCLAUSE AND REASON UNDER THE ACT

PLAIN ENGLISH REASON

WHEN REPORTS CAN BE RELEASED

19

Public Excluded Council Minutes - 14 July 2016

 

 

Refer to the previous public excluded reason in the agendas for these meetings.

 

20

Knights Drain Enhanced Storage Option

s7(2)(b)(ii), s7(2)(i)

Prejudice Commercial Position, Conduct Negotiations

The option presented in this paper involves significant property purchase, which has not been discussed with the affected landowners.  Publically releasing this report prior to these property negotiations (i.e. before market valuations can be undertaken) could affect future negotiations.

Completion of construction of the propsoed works or completion of property transactions, whichever comes first.

21

Public Excluded Infrastructure, Transport and Environment Committee Minutes - 12 July 2016

 

 

Refer to the previous public excluded reason in the agendas for these meetings.

 

22

Development Contributions Policy Amendments

s7(2)(g)

Maintain Legal Professional Privilege

The Council is being asked to consider an option which will require legal advice regarding legislative compliance.

Council resolution to release.

23

Port Hills Leisure Ltd - Appointment of Director

s7(2)(a)

Protection of Privacy of Natural Persons

Paper discusses a potential candidate for a Council directorship.

Upon approval by Council of appointments.

24

Public Excluded Strategy and Finance Committee Minutes - 12 July 2016

 

 

Refer to the previous public excluded reason in the agendas for these meetings.

 

25

World Buskers' Festival Trust Appointment of Trustees

s7(2)(a)

Protection of Privacy of Natural Persons

Paper discusses potential candidates for a Council appointed Trustee

Approval by Council of appointments

26

Council submission on Local Government Act 2002 Amendment Bill (No.2)

s7(2)(g)

Maintain Legal Professional Privilege

The report and draft submission includes legal advice about potential council structures under the proposals in the Local Government Act 2002 Amendment Bill (No.2)

When the submission is made public by the Select Committee

27

Events Funding

s7(2)(h)

Commercial Activities

Commercially sensitive information is within this report

13 July 2020