Christchurch City Council

Agenda

 

 

Notice of Meeting:

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

 

Date:                                     Thursday 8 December 2016

Time:                                    10am

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

 

 

Membership

Chairperson

Deputy Chairperson

Members

Mayor Lianne Dalziel

Deputy Mayor Andrew Turner

Councillor Vicki Buck

Councillor Jimmy Chen

Councillor Phil Clearwater

Councillor Pauline Cotter

Councillor Mike Davidson

Councillor David East

Councillor Anne Galloway

Councillor Jamie Gough

Councillor Yani Johanson

Councillor Aaron Keown

Councillor Glenn Livingstone

Councillor Raf Manji

Councillor Tim Scandrett

Councillor Deon Swiggs

Councillor Sara Templeton

 

 

1 December 2016

 

 

 

Principal Advisor

Dr Karleen Edwards

Chief Executive

Tel: 941 8554

 

Jo Daly

Council Secretary

941 8581

jo.daly@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

08 December 2016

 

 

 


Council

08 December 2016

 

TABLE OF CONTENTS

 

1.       Apologies................................................................................................................................... 5

2.       Declarations of Interest............................................................................................................ 5

3.       Public Participation.................................................................................................................. 5

3.1       Public Forum....................................................................................................................... 5

3.2       Deputations by Appointment............................................................................................... 5

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

Council

5.       Council Minutes - 2 November 2016....................................................................................... 7

6.       Council Minutes - 10 November 2016................................................................................... 17

7.       Council Minutes - 17 November 2016................................................................................... 23

Banks Peninsula Community Board

8.       Banks Peninsula Community Board Minutes - 31 October 2016........................................ 31

9.       Banks Peninsula Community Board Minutes - 14 November 2016.................................... 37

Coastal-Burwood Community Board

10.     Coastal-Burwood Community Board Minutes - 31 October 2016...................................... 53

Fendalton-Waimairi-Harewood Community Board

11.     Fendalton-Waimairi-Harewood Community Board Minutes - 25 October 2016............... 59

12.     Fendalton-Waimairi-Harewood Community Board Minutes - 14 November 2016........... 65

Halswell-Hornby-Riccarton Community Board

13.     Halswell-Hornby-Riccarton Community Board Minutes - 26 October 2016...................... 73

14.     Halswell-Hornby-Riccarton Community Board Minutes - 8 November 2016.................... 79

Linwood-Central-Heathcote Community Board

15.     Linwood-Central-Heathcote Community Board Minutes - 26 October 2016.................... 85

16.     Linwood-Central-Heathcote Community Board Minutes - 14 November 2016................ 91

Papanui-Innes Community Board

17.     Papanui-Innes Community Board Minutes - 26 October 2016........................................... 99

18.     Papanui-Innes Community Board Minutes - 15 November 2016..................................... 105

Spreydon-Cashmere Community Board

19.     Spreydon-Cashmere Community Board Minutes - 25 October 2016............................... 115

20.     Spreydon-Cashmere Community Board Minutes - 8 November 2016............................. 121

Hagley-Ferrymead Community Board

21.     Proposed Bus Passenger Shelter Installation - Hagley / Ferrymead................................. 129

STAFF REPORTS

22.     Woolston Library and Community Centre - Delegation to Linwood-Central-Heathcote Community Board................................................................................................................. 141

23.     Water Management Zone Committees' Updates............................................................... 143

24.     Christchurch City Council Community Boards................................................................... 147

25.     Approval for a Central City Landmark Heritage Grant for the buildings at 387 Manchester Street known as McLean's Mansion.................................................................................... 475

26.     Request for a covenant to be removed from two titles at 66B and 66C Derby Street, Christchurch.......................................................................................................................... 501

27.     Approval of Limited Conservation Covenant Consent for revised Heritage New Zealand status for the Church of St Saviour, Lyttelton from Category 2 to Category 1.............. 503

28.     Letter of Shareholder Expectations to Christchurch City Holdings Ltd........................... 505

29.     Standing Orders.................................................................................................................... 509

30.     Governance Matters............................................................................................................. 579

31.     Appointment of Recess Committee..................................................................................... 585

32.     Resolution to Exclude the Public......................................................................................... 586  

 

 

 


Council

08 December 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.   Public Participation

3.1  Public Forum

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

3.2  Deputations by Appointment

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

3.2.1

Whaka Inaka Programme

 

Environmental Investigators:  Groups from Waitākiri School and Ōpāwa School will present to the Council on the Whaka Inaka Programme and how they are environmental investigators.

 

4.   Presentation of Petitions

There were no Presentation of Petitions at the time the agenda was prepared.  

 


Council

08 December 2016

 

 

5.        Council Minutes - 2 November 2016

Reference:

16/1351657

Contact:

Jo Daly

Jo.daly@ccc.govt.nz

941 8581

 

 

1.   Purpose of Report

For the Council to confirm the minutes from the Council meeting held 2 November 2016.

 

2.   Recommendation to Council

That the Council confirm the Minutes from the Council meeting held 2 November 2016.

 

 

Attachments

No.

Title

Page

A

Minutes Council - 2 November 2016

8

 

 

Signatories

Author

Jo Daly - Council Secretary

  


Council

08 December 2016

 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


Council

08 December 2016

 

 

6.        Council Minutes - 10 November 2016

Reference:

16/1351683

Contact:

Chris Turner-Bullock

christopher.turner@ccc.govt.nz

941 8233

 

 

1.   Purpose of Report

For the Council to confirm the minutes from the Council meeting held 10 November 2016.

 

2.   Recommendation to Council

That the Council confirm the Minutes from the Council meeting held 10 November 2016.

 

 

Attachments

No.

Title

Page

A

Minutes Council - 10 November 2016

18

 

 

Signatories

Author

Christopher Turner-Bullock - Committee Advisor

  


Council

08 December 2016

 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


Council

08 December 2016

 

 

7.        Council Minutes - 17 November 2016

Reference:

16/1351820

Contact:

Jo Daly

Jo.daly@ccc.govt.nz

941 8581

 

 

1.   Purpose of Report

For the Council to confirm the minutes from the Council meeting held 17 November 2016.

 

2.   Recommendation to Council

That the Council confirm the Minutes from the Council meeting held 17 November 2016.

 

 

Attachments

No.

Title

Page

A

Minutes Council - 17 November 2016

24

 

 

Signatories

Author

Jo Daly - Council Secretary

  


Council

08 December 2016

 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


Council

08 December 2016

 

 

8.        Banks Peninsula Community Board Minutes - 31 October 2016

Reference:

16/1330596

Contact:

Penelope Goldstone        Joan Blatchford

penelope.goldstone@ccc.govt.nz joan.blatchford@ccc.govt.nz

941 5689     941 5643

 

 

1.   Purpose of Report

The Banks Peninsula Community Board held a meeting on 31 October 2016 and is circulating the Minutes recorded to the Council for its information.

 

2.   Recommendation to Council

That the Council receives the Minutes from the Banks Peninsula Community Board meeting held 31 October 2016.

 

 

Attachments

No.

Title

Page

A

Minutes Banks Peninsula Community Board - 31 October 2016

32

 

 

Signatories

Author

Liz Carter - Community Board Advisor

  


Council

08 December 2016

 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


Council

08 December 2016

 

 

9.        Banks Peninsula Community Board Minutes - 14 November 2016

Reference:

16/1401319

Contact:

Penelope Goldstone and Joan Blatchford

penelope.goldstone@ccc.govt.nz and joan.blatchford@ccc.govt.nz

941 5689 and 941 5643

 

 

1.   Purpose of Report

The Banks Peninsula Community Board held a meeting on 14 November 2016 and is circulating the Minutes recorded to the Council for its information.

 

2.   Recommendation to Council

That the Council receives the Minutes from the Banks Peninsula Community Board meeting held 14 November 2016.

 

 

Attachments

No.

Title

Page

A

Minutes Banks Peninsula Community Board - 14 November 2016

38

 

 

Signatories

Authors

Joan Blatchford - Manager Community Governance, Banks Peninsula/Lyttelton

Penelope Goldstone - Community Governance Manager, Banks Peninsula/Akaroa

  


Council

08 December 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


Council

08 December 2016

 

 

10.    Coastal-Burwood Community Board Minutes - 31 October 2016

Reference:

16/1329668

Contact:

Gary Watson

gary.watson@ccc.govt.nz

941 8258

 

 

1.   Purpose of Report

The Coastal-Burwood Community Board held a meeting on 31 October 2016 and is circulating the Minutes recorded to the Council for its information.

 

2.   Recommendation to Council

That the Council receives the Minutes from the Coastal-Burwood Community Board meeting held    31 October 2016.

 

 

Attachments

No.

Title

Page

A

Minutes Coastal-Burwood Community Board - 31 October 2016

54

 

 

Signatories

Author

Gary Watson - Manager Community Governance, Coastal-Burwood

  


Council

08 December 2016

 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


Council

08 December 2016

 

 

11.    Fendalton-Waimairi-Harewood Community Board Minutes - 25 October 2016

Reference:

16/1250404

Contact:

Matt McLintock

Matt.mclintock@ccc.govt.nz

03 941 5008

 

 

1.   Purpose of Report

The Fendalton-Waimairi-Harewood Community Board held a meeting on 25 October 2016 and is circulating the Minutes recorded to the Council for its information.

 

2.   Recommendation to Council

That the Council receives the Minutes from the Fendalton-Waimairi-Harewood Community Board meeting held 25 October 2016.

 

 

Attachments

No.

Title

Page

A

Minutes Fendalton-Waimairi-Harewood Community Board - 25 October 2016

60

 

 

Signatories

Author

Margaret Henderson - Committee Advisor

  


Council

08 December 2016

 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


Council

08 December 2016

 

 

12.    Fendalton-Waimairi-Harewood Community Board Minutes - 14 November 2016

Reference:

16/1323673

Contact:

Matt McLintock

Matt.mcLintock@ccc.govt.nz

03 941 5008

 

 

1.   Purpose of Report

The Fendalton-Waimairi-Harewood Community Board held a meeting on 14 November 2016 and is circulating the Minutes recorded to the Council for its information.

 

2.   Recommendation to Council

That the Council receives the Minutes from the Fendalton-Waimairi-Harewood Community Board meeting held 14 November 2016.

 

 

Attachments

No.

Title

Page

A

Minutes Fendalton-Waimairi-Harewood Community Board - 14 November 2016

66

 

 

Signatories

Author

Margaret Henderson - Committee Advisor

  


Council

08 December 2016

 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


Council

08 December 2016

 

 

13.    Halswell-Hornby-Riccarton Community Board Minutes - 26 October 2016

Reference:

16/1310418

Contact:

Matthew McLintock

matthew.mclintock@ccc.govt.nz

941 5008

 

 

1.   Purpose of Report

The Halswell-Hornby-Riccarton Community Board held a meeting on 26 October 2016 and is circulating the Minutes recorded to the Council for its information.

 

2.   Recommendation to Council

That the Council receives the Minutes from the Halswell-Hornby-Riccarton Community Board meeting held 26 October 2016.

 

 

Attachments

No.

Title

Page

A

Minutes Halswell-Hornby-Riccarton Community Board - 26 October 2016

74

 

 

Signatories

Author

Matthew McLintock - Community Governance Manager

  


Council

08 December 2016

 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


Council

08 December 2016

 

 

14.    Halswell-Hornby-Riccarton Community Board Minutes - 8 November 2016

Reference:

16/1362549

Contact:

Matthew McLintock

matthew.mclintock@ccc.govt.nz

941 5008

 

 

1.   Purpose of Report

The Halswell-Hornby-Riccarton Community Board held a meeting on 8 November 2016 and is circulating the Minutes recorded to the Council for its information.

 

2.   Recommendation to Council

That the Council receives the Minutes from the Halswell-Hornby-Riccarton Community Board meeting held 8 November 2016.

 

 

Attachments

No.

Title

Page

A

Minutes Halswell-Hornby-Riccarton Community Board - 8 November 2016

80

 

 

Signatories

Author

Matthew McLintock - Community Governance Manager

  


Council

08 December 2016

 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


Council

08 December 2016

 

 

15.    Linwood-Central-Heathcote Community Board Minutes - 26 October 2016

Reference:

16/1325411

Contact:

Shupayi Mpunga

shupayi.mpunga@ccc.govt.nz

941 6605

 

 

1.   Purpose of Report

The Linwood-Central-Heathcote Community Board held a meeting on 26 October 2016 and is circulating the Minutes recorded to the Council for its information.

 

 

2.   Recommendation to Council

That the Council receives the Minutes from the Linwood-Central-Heathcote Community Board meeting held 26 October 2016.

 

 

Attachments

No.

Title

Page

A

Minutes Linwood-Central-Heathcote Community Board - 26 October 2016

86

 

 

Signatories

Author

Shupayi Mpunga - Manager Community Governance, Linwood-Central-Heathcote

  


Council

08 December 2016

 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


Council

08 December 2016

 

 

16.    Linwood-Central-Heathcote Community Board Minutes - 14 November 2016

Reference:

16/1336087

Contact:

Shupayi Mpunga

Shupayi.mpunga@ccc.govt.nz

941 6601

 

 

1.   Purpose of Report

The Linwood-Central-Heathcote Community Board held a meeting on 14 November 2016 and is circulating the Minutes recorded to the Council for its information.

 

2.   Recommendation to Council

That the Council receives the Minutes from the Linwood-Central-Heathcote Community Board meeting held 14 November 2016.

 

 

Attachments

No.

Title

Page

A

Minutes Linwood-Central-Heathcote Community Board - 14 November 2016

92

 

 

Signatories

Author

Shupayi Mpunga - Manager Community Governance, Linwood-Central-Heathcote

  


Council

08 December 2016

 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


Council

08 December 2016

 

 

17.    Papanui-Innes Community Board Minutes - 26 October 2016

Reference:

16/1333888

Contact:

Jenny Hughey

jenny.hughey@ccc.govt.nz

941 5412

 

 

1.   Purpose of Report

The Papanui-Innes Community Board held its inaugural meeting on 26 October 2016 and is circulating the Minutes recorded to the Council for its information.

 

 

2.   Recommendation to Council

That the Council receives the Minutes from the Papanui-Innes Community Board Inaugural Meeting held 26 October 2016.

 

 

Attachments

No.

Title

Page

A

Minutes Papanui-Innes Community Board - 26 October 2016

100

 

 

Signatories

Author

Jenny Hughey - Community Governance Manager, Papanui-Innes

  


Council

08 December 2016

 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


Council

08 December 2016

 

 

18.    Papanui-Innes Community Board Minutes - 15 November 2016

Reference:

16/1342017

Contact:

Jenny Hughey

jenny.hughey@ccc.govt.nz

941 5412

 

 

1.   Purpose of Report

The Papanui-Innes Community Board held a meeting on 15 November 2016 and is circulating the Minutes recorded to the Council for its information.

 

 

2.   Recommendation to Council

That the Council receives the Minutes from the Papanui-Innes Community Board meeting held 15 November 2016.

 

 

Attachments

No.

Title

Page

A

Minutes Papanui-Innes Community Board - 15 November 2016

106

 

 

Signatories

Author

Jenny Hughey - Community Governance Manager, Papanui-Innes

  


Council

08 December 2016

 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


Council

08 December 2016

 

 

19.    Spreydon-Cashmere Community Board Minutes - 25 October 2016

Reference:

16/1368853

Contact:

Arohanui Grace

Arohanui.grace@ccc.govt.nz

941 6663

 

 

1.   Purpose of Report

The Spreydon-Cashmere Community Board held a meeting on 25 October 2016 and is circulating the Minutes recorded to the Council for its information.

 

2.   Recommendation to Council

That the Council receives the Minutes from the Spreydon-Cashmere Community Board meeting held 25 October 2016.

 

 

Attachments

No.

Title

Page

A

Minutes Spreydon-Cashmere Community Board - 25 October 2016

116

 

 

Signatories

Author

Arohanui Grace - Manager Community Governance, Spreydon-Cashmere

  


Council

08 December 2016

 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


Council

08 December 2016

 

 

20.    Spreydon-Cashmere Community Board Minutes - 8 November 2016

Reference:

16/1325422

Contact:

Arohanui Grace

Arohanui.grace@ccc.govt.nz

941 6333

 

 

1.   Purpose of Report

The Spreydon-Cashmere Community Board held a meeting on 8 November 2016 and is circulating the Minutes recorded to the Council for its information.

 

2.   Recommendation to Council

That the Council receives the Minutes from the Spreydon-Cashmere Community Board meeting held 8 November 2016.

 

 

Attachments

No.

Title

Page

A

Minutes Spreydon-Cashmere Community Board - 8 November 2016

122

 

 

Signatories

Author

Arohanui Grace - Manager Community Governance, Spreydon-Cashmere

  


Council

08 December 2016

 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


Council

08 December 2016

 

Report from Hagley/Ferrymead Community Board  – 21 September 2016

 

21.    Proposed Bus Passenger Shelter Installation - Hagley / Ferrymead

Reference:

16/1345970

Contact:

Brenda O’Donoghue

CityStreetsTrafficEngineers@ccc.govt.nz

941 8999

 

 

 

1.  Hagley/Ferrymead Community Board Consideration

 

The Hagley/Ferrymead Community Board considered a report on Proposed Bus Passenger Shelter Installation.

The Board noted, as part of its deliberations, that 21 Ferry Road and 132 – 140 Gloucester Street are outside of its delegated authority, and referred these items to the Council.

 

2.   Staff Recommendations

 

That the Hagley/Ferrymead Community Board resolve to approve the installation of a bus shelter at the following locations:

a.         21 Ferry Road (bus stop on St Asaph Street),

b.         250 Gloucester Street, and

c.         132-140 Kilmore Street.  This is subject to the successful approval by the Parking Restrictions Subcommittee to approve the bus stop at the same location.  The approval of this bus stop will be known by 20 September 2016.

 

3.  Hagley/Ferrymead Community Board Decisions Under Delegation

 

Community Board Decisions under Delegation

Part C

The Hagley/Ferrymead Community Board resolved to approve the installation of a bus shelter at the following location:

a.         250 Gloucester Street.

b.         Request staff investigate the installation of a bus shelter in Hereford Street for use of Aspire patrons.

 


 

 

4.  Hagley/Ferrymead Community Board Recommendation to Council

 

Community Board Recommendation to Council

Part A

That the Council;

1.         Approves the installation of a bus shelter at the following locations:

a.            21 Ferry Road (bus stop on St Asaph Street),

b.            132-140 Kilmore Street. 

2.         Reinstate the delegation for bus shelters in the central city to the community board.

Secretarial Note:  Changes to current community board delegations will be considered as part of work underway on localised decision making.

 

 

 

Attachments

No.

Report Title

Page

1

Proposed Bus Passenger Shelter Installation - Hagley / Ferrymead

131

 

No.

Title

Page

a

Bus Shelter Plan for Approval: 21 Ferry Road (bus stop on St Asaph Street)

138

b

Bus Shelter Plan for Approval: 250 Gloucester Street

139

c

Bus Shelter Plan for Approval: 132-140 Kilmore Street

140

 

 


Council

08 December 2016

 

 

Proposed Bus Passenger Shelter Installation - Hagley / Ferrymead

Reference:

16/912696

Contact:

Brenda O'Donoghue

CityStreetsTrafficEngineers@ccc.govt.nz

941 8999

 

 

1.   Purpose and Origin of Report

Purpose of Report

1.1       The purpose of this report is for the Hagley/Ferrymead Community Board to approve the installation of bus passenger shelters at existing bus stops located at 21 Ferry Road (bus stop on St Asaph Street) and 250 Gloucester Street.  To approve the installation of a bus passenger shelter at a bus stop that is proposed to be relocated to 132-140 Kilmore Street.

Origin of Report

1.2       This report is staff generated.  Where no objection (either by approval or no feedback) to the shelter has been presented by the owner or occupier of an affected property, the relevant Community Board for that area has the delegated authority to approve the installation of the proposed shelter.

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 comparing factors relating to this decision against the criteria set out in the Councils Significance and Engagement Policy.

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

 

3.   Staff Recommendations

That the Hagley/Ferrymead Community Board resolve to approve the installation of a bus shelter at the following locations:

a.         21 Ferry Road (bus stop on St Asaph Street),

b.         250 Gloucester Street, and

c.         132-140 Kilmore Road.  This is subject to the successful approval by the Parking Restrictions Subcommittee to approve the bus stop at the same location.  The approval of this bus stop will be known by 20 September 2016.

 

4.   Key Points

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

4.1.1   Activity: Public Transport Infrastructure

·     Level of Service: 10.4.4 Ensure user satisfaction with the number and quality of bus shelters

4.2       The following feasible options have been considered:

·     Option 1 - The preferred option, install a bus passenger shelter at 21 Ferry Road (bus stop on St Asaph Street), 250 Gloucester Street, and 132-140 Kilmore Street, as described in Section 6 of this report.

·     Option 2 - Do nothing.

4.3       Option Summary - Advantages and Disadvantages

4.3.1   The advantages of this option include:

·     Protection from weather,

·     Seating provided within the shelter, and

·     Increase the visibility and legibility of public transport

4.3.2   The disadvantages of this option include:

·     Increase in the number of bus passenger shelters to be maintained by the Council.

·     During the peak times of public transport usage the shelter can only provide shelter for a limited number of people, however this is the case with most bus shelters.

4.4       Consultation has been undertaken with the owners or occupiers of properties adjacent to the proposed shelters.  Only the shelters where the owner or occupier of the adjacent property has provided feedback indicating approval or where there was no response received to the consultation are included within this report

 

5.   Context/Background

5.1       A bus passenger shelter is proposed for the bus stop locations presented in this report due to the average weekday passenger boardings (ave. pax/day), as indicated in the following list:

·   46 ave. pax/day = 21 Ferry Road (bus stop on St Asaph Street),

·   43 ave. pax/day = 250 Gloucester Street, and

·   35 ave. pax/day = 132-140 Kilmore Street.  The bus is currently located under temporary authorisation at 150 Kilmore Street.  Information regarding the relocation of the bus stop to 132-140 Kilmore Street has been prepared as part of a separate report.  Due to location of the bus stop falling within the area that the Parking Restrictions Subcommittee has the delegated authority to approve parking restrictions, the bus stop report has as such been submitted to this committee for approval.

5.2       Environment Canterbury (ECan) is responsible for providing public transport services.  The Christchurch City Council is responsible for providing public transport infrastructure.  The installation of these shelters is supported by ECan.

5.3       Council staff propose to install shelters in the locations outlined in the attached bus passenger shelter plan (refer to Attachments A to C).  Where a shelter is located adjacent to an existing bus stop that has no bus stop road markings or the bus stop road markings are not long enough, a proposal has been made to address these deficiencies.  Further consultation and a separate report has been prepared for the approval of the bus stop road marking installation or modification.  The upgrade of the bus stop road markings will help improve passenger accessibility and bus line operating efficiency

5.4       Under s339 of the Local Government Act (1974), the Council may erect on the footpath of any road a shelter for use by intending public-transport passengers or taxi passengers provided that no such shelter may be erected so as to unreasonably prevent access to any land having a frontage to the road.  The Council is required to give notice in writing to the occupier and owner of property likely to be injuriously affected by the erection of the shelter, and shall not proceed with the erection of the shelter until after the expiration of the time for objecting against the proposal or, in the event of an objection, until after the objection has been determined.

5.5       Staff confirm the shelter will not prevent vehicular or pedestrian access to any land having a frontage to the road, as a result of the proposed shelter installations.

5.6       Consultation has been carried out with the affected properties.  The consultation period for all shelters proposed occurred from Wednesday 10 August 2016 to Friday 26 August 2016.  During this period, and after the consultation period finished feedback has been received from some of the occupants of 250 Gloucester Street indicating approval.  No feedback has been received from the adjacent property owners and/or occupiers of the proposed shelter locations on St Asaph Street or Kilmore Street.

5.7       There is the potential for the proposed shelters on St Asaph Street and Kilmore Street to come under the operation of Adshel, which would mean these shelter would have advertising on them.  If Adshel wish to pursue these sites they are required to submit an application to council that is relevant to the applicable bylaw, and polices concerning structures on street and advertising on bus passenger shelters.  If Adshel are to receive approval, they will cover the cost of the shelter purchase, install, maintenance and repairs.  However, no agreement has been reached with Adshel concerning the St Asaph and Kilmore Street sites.  Consequently this report assumes the shelters will be council owned and operated.


 

6.   Option 1 - Proposed Bus Passenger Shelter Installation

Option Description

6.1       Install a bus passenger shelter at existing bus stops located at 21 Ferry Road (bus stop on St Asaph Street) and 250 Gloucester Street.  To install a bus passenger shelter at a bus stop that is proposed to be relocated to 132-140 Kilmore Street.

Significance

6.2       The level of significance of this option is low consistent with section 2 of this report.  Engagement requirements for this level of significance includes the consultation with occupier and owner of property likely to be injuriously affected by the erection of the shelter.

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       The properties listed below are those specifically affected by this option due to the proximity of the property to the proposed shelter.  A consultation notice and feedback form was mailed or ‘letter dropped’ to each property listed below on 10 August 2016, requesting the owners or occupiers approval or objection to the bus shelter at the bus stop outside the property they own or occupy.  The consultation process closed on 26 August 2016.

·   St Asaph Street shelter:  21 Ferry Road (Christchurch Polytechnic Institute of Technology, and Ministry Of Education),

·   Gloucester Street shelter:  250 Gloucester Street (inclusive of units 1 to 20), and

·   Kilmore Street shelter:  132 to 140 Kilmore Street.

6.5       The only feedback received has come from the tenants of units 6, 9 and 14 of 250 Gloucester Street, who have returned their feedback form indicating approval.  No feedback has been received from the adjacent property owners and/or occupiers of the proposed shelter locations on St Asaph Street or Kilmore Street.

Alignment with Council Plans and Policies

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

Financial Implications

6.7       Cost of Implementation - The estimated cost to supply and install three bus passenger shelters, plus additional bus stop upgrade work will cost about $27,000.  Note, as per Section 5.7, if Adshel were to pursue and receive approval for the St Asaph and Kilmore Street sites, the cost would only be for the Gloucester Street shelter.  This would reduce the cost to about $9,000.

6.8       Maintenance/Ongoing Costs - Costs will be met from the Passenger Transport Maintenance budget.

6.9       Funding source - The cost will be met from the Passenger Transport Infrastructure budget available for the installation of shelters.

Legal Implications

6.10    Where no objection to the shelter has been presented by the owner or occupier of an affected property, the relevant Community Board for that area has the delegated authority to approve the installation of the proposed shelter.

Risks and Mitigations

6.11    The shelter is not installed, leading to a poor level of service for passengers waiting for a bus.

6.12    Increased street clutter. Where street clutter has been identified through site assessments (e.g. rubbish bins located by the kerb edge (i.e. in less than ideal locations), excess number of public transport related poles, etc.), these footpath obstacles will be relocated to an appropriate location in close proximity to the shelter (e.g. the rubbish bin), and the number of poles reduced by maximising the use of the shelter (e.g. attaching the Real Time Information device 'bus finder' to the shelter).  This will help provide a de-cluttered footpath environment by the bus stop and improve the level of service for pedestrians passing the shelter and for passengers waiting for a bus.

Implementation

6.13    Implementation dependencies - approval by the Hagley/Ferrymead Community Board.

6.14    Implementation timeframe - dependant on the contractor's workloads, but the shelter should be installed within three months of being approved.

Option Summary - Advantages and Disadvantages

6.15    The advantages of this option include:

·   Protection from weather,

·   Seating provided within the shelter,

·   Additional seating provided outside shelter,

·   Increase the visibility and legibility of public transport, and

·   Provide a positive contribution to the overall streetscape.

6.16    The disadvantages of this option include:

·   Increase in the number of bus passenger shelters to be maintained by the Council,

·   During the peak times of public transport usage the shelter can only provide shelter for a limited number of people, however this is the case with most bus shelters.

7.   Option 2 - Do Nothing

Option Description

7.1       No bus passenger shelters are installed at the locations identified in section 3 of this report.

Significance

7.2       The level of significance of this option is low consistent with section 2 of this report.  As there is no bus passenger shelter proposed, the engagement requirements for this level of significance does not involve any 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       Not applicable.

Alignment with Council Plans and Policies

7.5       This option is inconsistent with Council’s Plans and Policies

7.5.1   Inconsistency - It does not ensure user satisfaction with the number and quality of bus shelters

7.5.2   Reason for inconsistency - Bus passengers will not be provided shelter to wait for a bus

7.5.3   Amendment necessary - No amendment needed to the Council's Plans and Policies.

Financial Implications

7.6       Cost of Implementation - not applicable.

7.7       Maintenance/Ongoing Costs - not applicable.

7.8       Funding source - not applicable.

Legal Implications

7.9       Not applicable

Risks and Mitigations

7.10    The existing passenger waiting facilities remain, leading to no improvement to the level of service for passengers waiting for a bus.

7.11    It may reduce bus patronage on wet days, as passengers may choose another mode of travel as there is no shelter provided at the bus stop.

Implementation

7.12    Implementation dependencies  - not applicable

7.13    Implementation timeframe - not applicable.

Option Summary - Advantages and Disadvantages

7.14    The advantages of this option include:

·   No advantages to this option.

7.15    The disadvantages of this option include:

·   It is inconsistent with Council's Plans and Policies.

·   It would undermine the approval of the adjacent property owners who have indicated approval to the installation of the bus passenger shelter.

 

Attachments

No.

Title

Page

a 

Bus Shelter Plan for Approval: 21 Ferry Road (bus stop on St Asaph Street)

 

b 

Bus Shelter Plan for Approval: 250 Gloucester Street

 

c 

Bus Shelter Plan for Approval: 132-140 Kilmore Street

 

 

 

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

Authors

Brenda  ODonoghue - Passenger Transport Engineer

Steve Parry - Manager Traffic Operations

Approved By

Steffan Thomas - Operations Manager

Peter Langbein - Finance Business Partner

David Adamson - General Manager City Services

 


Council

08 December 2016

 

PDF Creator


Council

08 December 2016

 

PDF Creator


Council

08 December 2016

 

PDF Creator


Council

08 December 2016

 

 

22.    Woolston Library and Community Centre - Delegation to Linwood-Central-Heathcote Community Board

Reference:

16/1340818

Contact:

Shupayi Mpunga

shupayi.mpunga@ccc.govt.nz

03 941 6605

 

 

1.   Purpose and Origin of Report

Purpose of Report

1.1       The purpose of this report is to seek delegated authority from the Council for the Linwood-Central-Heathcote Community Board for decisions regarding the rebuild and future management of the Woolston Library and Community Centre as resolved at the Hagley/Ferrymead Community Board meeting of 21 September 2016.

1.2       After the Hagley/Ferrymead Community Board resolution, staff have confirmed the budget of $1.6million.  The amount has been added to the original Board resolution for the Council to consider. 

 

2.   Board Recommendation

That the Council:

1.         Delegates the necessary authority to the Linwood-Central-Heathcote Community Board for decision-making regarding the rebuild within the Annual Plan budget of $1.6million and future management of the Woolston Library and Community Centre.

 

 

3.   Key Points

3.1       At its meeting held on 21 September 2016 the Hagley/Ferrymead Community Board received an update from staff about community engagement on the rebuild of the Woolston Library and Toilets, and Community Centre.

3.2       The Board had a discussion on the current delegations and resolved to request Council to delegate the necessary authority to the Linwood-Central-Heathcote Community Board for decisions regarding the rebuild within the Annual Plan budget of $1.6million and the future management of the Woolston Library and Community Centre.

3.3       Under the Local Government Act, Schedule 7, clause 32 the Council may:

... delegate to a committee or other subordinate decision-making body, community board, or member or officer of the local authority the power to do anything precedent to the exercise by the local authority (after consultation with the committee or body or person) of any power or duty specified in subclause (1).

 

4.   Background

4.1       The Woolston Community Library at 689 Ferry Road, was one of the first suburban libraries to open in Christchurch (1871).

4.2       The original Woolston Community Library building, which opened in 1912, was badly damaged in the 2010 and 2011 Canterbury earthquakes and was demolished in June 2011. 

4.3       The Council approved the Communities Facilities Rebuild, Tranche Two Projects (including the Woolston Library rebuild) in June 2015 as part of the Council’s 2015-2025 Long Term Plan and confirmed the build of Woolston Library and Toilets, and Woolston Community Centre in the Council’s Annual Plan 2016/17 with a budget of $1.6million (Project ID 27104).

4.4       The current project is to build a community facility that has a dedicated space for the volunteer library, and public toilets.

4.5       In April 2016 a transitional project completed an outside meeting space on the site with a small building for the Woolston Community Library.  In June 2016 the Woolston Community Library moved onto the Woolston Transitional Site.  Since moving back, the library has recruited new members and new volunteers.

4.6       The former Hagley/Ferrymead Community Board received briefings from staff at both the Board’s formal and seminar meetings.  The Linwood-Central-Heathcote Community Board received an update on the project at its 28 November 2016 Seminar meeting including seeking feedback from the Board on the concept design.

Current Community Engagement

4.7       The Council’s Engagement Team have engaged with the community on possible use of the new facility that would be used to help inform the design.  Twenty-two submissions were received from the engagement process that included:

·   Information gathering and feedback to key stakeholders;

·   Greater Linwood Forum; and

·   Drop In session on Tuesday 11 October at 689 Ferry Road.

4.8       Planning is underway to complete a second round of consultation with a concept design.

 

 

Attachments

There are no attachments to this report.

 

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

Shupayi Mpunga - Manager Community Governance, Linwood-Central-Heathcote

Approved By

Lester Wolfreys - Head of Community Support, Governance and Partnerships

Mary Richardson - General Manager Customer and Community

  


Council

08 December 2016

 

 

23.    Water Management Zone Committees' Updates

Reference:

16/1315931

Contact:

Diane Shelander

diane.shelander@ccc.govt.nz

941 8304

 

 

1.   Purpose of Report

1.1       This report is to provide the Council with the November 2016 update reports from the Banks Peninsula, Christchurch-West Melton and Selwyn-Waihora zone committees.

 

2.   Staff Recommendations

That the Council:

1.         Receive the information in the three water management zone committees’ reports.

 

 

3.   Key Points

3.1       The Banks Peninsula zone committee is a joint committee of the Council and Environment Canterbury, and the Christchurch-West Melton and Selwyn-Waihora zone committees are joint committees of the Council, Selwyn District Council and Environment Canterbury.

3.2       The three zone committees, along with seven other committees across Canterbury, were established to implement the Canterbury Water Management Strategy.

3.3       The attached reports are the latest updates from the three zone committees.

 

Attachments

No.

Title

Page

a

Zone Committees monthly update 8 Dec 2016

144

 

 

Signatories

Author

Diane Shelander - Senior Policy Analyst

Approved By

Helen Beaumont - Head of Strategic Policy

Brendan Anstiss - General Manager Strategy and Transformation

  


Council

08 December 2016

 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


Council

08 December 2016

 

 

24.    Christchurch City Council Community Boards

Reference:

16/1397823

Contact:

Lester Wolfreys

lester.wolfreys@ccc.govt.nz

941 8755

 

 

1.   Purpose of Report

1.1       This report informs the Council of the office holders and membership of the Community Boards established following the 2016 Christchurch City Council Triennial Elections.

1.2       This report also provides the Council with the status report for each Community Board area and informs the Council of future Community Board reporting.

 

2.   Staff Recommendations

That the Council:

1.         Receive the information in this report and note that Community Boards reports will be presented to the Council each month from early 2017.

 

 

3.   Banks Peninsula Community Board

3.1       The Banks Peninsula Community Board held its inaugural meeting on 31 October 2016 and elected Christine Wilson as Chairperson and Pam Richardson as Deputy Chairperson.

3.2       The membership of the Board is as follows:

·   Christine Wilson, Chairperson

·   Pam Richardson, Deputy Chairperson

·   Felix Dawson

·   Janis Haley

·   Jed O’Donoghue

·   Tori Peden

·   Andrew Turner

3.3       The status report for the Banks Peninsula area is attached as attachment A.

4.   Coastal-Burwood Community Board

4.1       The Coastal-Burwood Community Board held its inaugural meeting on Monday 31 October and elected Kim Money as Chairperson and Tim Sintes as Deputy Chairperson.

4.2       The members of the Board is as follows:

·   Kim Money, Chairperson

·   Tim Sintes, Deputy Chairperson

·   Tim Baker

·   David East

·   Glenn Livingstone

·   Linda Stewart

4.3       The status report for the Coastal-Burwood area is attached as attachment B.

5.   Fendalton-Waimairi-Harewood Community Board

5.1       The Fendalton-Waimairi-Harewood Community Board held its inaugural meeting on 25 October 2016 and elected David Cartwright as Chairperson and Sam MacDonald as Deputy Chairperson.

5.2       The membership of the Board is as follows:

·   David Cartwright, Chairperson

·   Sam MacDonald, Deputy Chairperson

·   Aaron Campbell

·   Linda Chen

·   Jamie Gough

·   Aaron Keown

·   Raf Manji

·   Shirish Paranjape

·   Bridget Williams

5.3       The status report for the Fendalton-Waimairi-Harewood area is attached as attachment C.

6.   Halswell-Hornby-Riccarton Community Board

6.1       The Halswell-Hornby-Riccarton Community Board held its inaugural meeting on 26 October 2016 and elected Mike Mora as Chairperson and Helen Broughton as Deputy Chairperson. 

6.2       The membership of the Board is as follows:

·   Mike Mora, Chairperson

·   Helen Broughton, Deputy Chairperson

·   Natalie Bryden

·   Vicki Buck

·   Jimmy Chen

·   Catherine Chu

·   Anne Galloway

·   Ross McFarlane

·   Debbie Mora

6.3       The status report for the Halswell-Hornby-Riccarton area is attached as attachment D.

7.   Linwood-Central-Heathcote Community Board

7.1       The Linwood-Central-Heathcote Community Board held its inaugural meeting on 26 October 2016 and elected Sally Buck as Chairperson and Jake McLellan as Deputy Chairperson

7.2       The membership of the Board is as follows:

·   Sally Buck, Chairperson

·   Jake McLellan, Deputy Chairperson

·   Alexandra Davids

·   Yani Johanson

·   Darrell Latham

·   Tim Lindley

·   Brenda Lowe-Johnson

·   Deon Swiggs

·   Sara Templeton

7.3       The status report for the Linwood-Central-Heathcote area is attached as attachment E.

8.   Papanui-Innes Community Board

8.1       The Papanui-Innes Community Board held its inaugural meeting on 26 October 2016 and elected Ali Jones as Chairperson and Emma Norrish as Deputy Chairperson.

8.2       The membership of the Board is as follows:

·   Ali Jones, Chairperson

·   Emma Norrish, Deputy Chairperson

·   Jo Byrne

·   Pauline Cotter

·   Mike Davidson

·   John Stringer

8.3       The status report for the Papanui-Innes area is attached as attachment F.

9.   Spreydon-Cashmere Community Board

9.1       The Spreydon-Cashmere Community Board held its inaugural meeting on 25 October 2016 and elected Karolin Potter as Chairperson and Melanie Coker as Deputy Chairperson.

9.2       The membership of the Board is as follows:

·   Karolin Potter, Chairperson

·   Melanie Coker, Deputy Chairperson

·   Phil Clearwater

·   Helene Mautner

·   Lee Sampson

·   Tim Scandrett

9.3       The status report for the Spreydon-Cashmere area is attached as attachment G.

10. Community Board Meetings and Reports

10.1    Each Community Board will generally meeting twice a month, during the identified community week and at one other time.  From early 2017 Chairpersons will report monthly to the Council on Board activity and priorities.

 

Attachments

No.

Title

Page

a

Banks Peninsula Community Board Status Report

151

b

Coastal-Burwood Community Board Status Report

213

c

Fendalton-Waimairi-Harewood Community Board Status Report

256

d

Halswell-Hornby-Riccarton Community Board - Status Report - November 2016

293

e

Linwood-Central-Heathcote Community Board Status Report

323

f

Papanui-Innes Community Board Status Report

388

g

Spreydon-Cashmere Community Board Status Report

439

 

 

Signatories

Author

Lester Wolfreys - Head of Community Support, Governance and Partnerships

Approved By

Mary Richardson - General Manager Customer and Community

  


Council

08 December 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

08 December 2016

 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


Council

08 December 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


Council

08 December 2016

 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


Council

08 December 2016

 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


Council

08 December 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


Council

08 December 2016

 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


Council

08 December 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

08 December 2016

 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


Council

08 December 2016

 

PDF Creator


Council

08 December 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


Council

08 December 2016

 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


Council

08 December 2016

 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


Council

08 December 2016

 

PDF Creator


Council

08 December 2016

 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


Council

08 December 2016

 

PDF Creator


Council

08 December 2016

 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


Council

08 December 2016

 

PDF Creator


Council

08 December 2016

 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


Council

08 December 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


Council

08 December 2016

 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


Council

08 December 2016

 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


Council

08 December 2016

 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


Council

08 December 2016

 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


Council

08 December 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


Council

08 December 2016

 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


Council

08 December 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


Council

08 December 2016

 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


Council

08 December 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


Council

08 December 2016

 

PDF Creator


Council

08 December 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


Council

08 December 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


Council

08 December 2016

 

PDF Creator


Council

08 December 2016

 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


Council

08 December 2016

 

PDF Creator


Council

08 December 2016

 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


Council

08 December 2016

 

PDF Creator


Council

08 December 2016

 

 

25.    Approval for a Central City Landmark Heritage Grant for the buildings at 387 Manchester Street known as McLean's Mansion

Reference:

16/1137653

Contact:

Brendan Smyth

brendan.smyth@ccc.govt.nz

941 8934

 

 

1.   Purpose and Origin of Report

Purpose of Report

1.1       The purpose of this report is to recommend to Council a Central City Landmark Heritage Grant for the heritage building at 387 Manchester Street, Christchurch more commonly known as McLean’s Mansion.

Origin of Report

1.2       This report is staff generated in response to dialogue with proposed purchasers of the building who wish to see the building retained on the site, repaired and renovated so that it can function as an Art Gallery.

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.

2.2       The level of significance was determined by the heritage classification of the building and the amount of funding relative to that already approved by Council for allocation in the Long Term Plan.

 

3.   Staff Recommendations

That the Council:

1.         Approve a Central City Landmark Heritage Grant of $1,934,000 for the McLean’s Mansion Building, 387 Manchester Street, subject to the following requirements:

(a)    the Council confirms that the trust deed of the McLean’s Mansion Charitable Trust (proposed owner) is satisfactory to the Council in all respects; and

(b)    the McLean’s Mansion Charitable Trust purchases 387 Manchester Street; and

(c)     the completion of an agreed scope of works for the building which is satisfactory to the Council in all respects; and

(d)    the McLean’s Mansion Charitable Trust enters into a full conservation covenant with the Council to cover the heritage buildings and the heritage setting

2.         Notes that the proposed use of the building is to be an art gallery.  If this proposed use is not confirmed, then the Council reserves the right to cancel the grant.

3.         Resolves that

(a)    in terms of Section 80 of the Local Government Act 2002, the resolution in paragraph 1 is inconsistent with the Council’s Central City Landmark Heritage Grant Policy and the associated Operational Guidelines, and

(b)    the inconsistencies are -

(i)      the applicant (McLean’s Mansion Charitable Trust) is not currently the owner of the building that is the subject of the grant application; and

(ii)     the scope of works has not been fully defined and submitted to Council staff; and

(c)     the reasons for the inconsistencies are that -

(i)      the applicant is seeking approval for the grant prior to being able to complete the purchase so that some initial funds are confirmed for the project to repair, upgrade and re-use this historic building; and

(ii)     the applicant has been in negotiation with the actual owners for a number of months and is hopeful of achieving a purchase very soon; and

(ii)     until the purchase is settled, the applicant is unable to formulate a full scope of works.

(d)    There is no intention on the part of the Council to amend the Central City Landmark Heritage Grant Policy and the associated Operational Guidelines to accommodate this decision.

4.      That the Chief Executive (or her authorised sub-delegate) may exercise the powers of the Council to make decisions under paragraphs 1(a) to (c) and 2.

 

 

4.   Key Points

4.1       Apart from the inconsistencies discussed in the section headed Legal Implications below, this report supports the Council's Long Term Plan (2015 - 2025):

4.1.1   Activity: Heritage Protection

·     Level of Service: 1.4.10 All Central City Landmark Heritage Fund grants meet the policy and guidelines

4.2       The following feasible options have been considered:

·  Option 1 - A Central City Landmark Heritage grant of up to $1,934,000 (preferred option)

·  Option 2 - A Central City Landmark Heritage grant of up to $1,000,000.

4.3       Option Summary - Advantages and Disadvantages (Preferred Option)

1.1.2              The advantages of this option include:

·  It supports the retention of a 'Highly Significant' heritage building in a prominent location;

·  It promotes a type of development to reinforce the Central City as the focus for social and cultural activities;

·  It promotes adaptive re-use of a heritage building to an appropriate use with minimal change to the exterior, minimal changes to the interior spaces and minimal loss of heritage fabric;

·  The proposed use of the building as an art gallery will allow for public access to the restored interior of the building along with the exterior grounds.

·  It will preserves the existing characteristics and qualities of this part of the central city - including the view shafts from Manchester Street to the principal east facing façade of the building;

·  Through a conservation covenant the grant affords protection to the landmark value of the building and to the associated heritage setting.

·  The building will remain in its original location and have its original relationship with the public street preserved.

·  With the grant acting as an incentive the project to restore the building will generate significant private investment into the Christchurch economy.

4.4       The disadvantages of this option include:

·  This would be a very large grant to a single building project and will use up the entire years Central City Landmark Heritage grant fund. However, this is exactly the kind of large scale retention, repair and restoration project that the fund was created for.

 

 

5.   Context/Background

Photograph, McLean’s Mansion, December 2014

McLean’s Mansion Brief History

5.1       The detached residential building is listed in the Operative Christchurch City Plan, Group 1 and as 'Highly Significant' in the proposed Replacement Christchurch District Plan. The buildings are registered by Heritage New Zealand Pouhere Taonga (HNZPT) Category I (register number 300). See attached Statement of Heritage Significance, (Attachment A).

5.2       The buildings were designed by the architect RW England and constructed in 1899-1900. The buildings were designed in a Jacobean Revival style and included exterior elements such as decorated parapets, balustrades and bay windows. The main Manchester Street façade included two ornate bell shaped towers with prominent patterned rolled lead roofing and multiple finials.  The interior of the building was also richly detailed with ornate plaster ceilings and decorative carpentry.  The large scale of the building is a notable factor in giving the building such a high degree of prominence. It has a total of fifty-three separate rooms and includes internal galleries around the grand entrance stair as well as a large glazed skylight. Excluding the numerous chimneys, the building is entirely constructed from timber frame and was reputed to be the largest timber framed residence in New Zealand at the time of its construction.

5.3       Over the years since its completion as a single dwelling, the building has changed use a number of times to function as a dental school and as a music academy.

5.4       The building was damaged in the 2010 and 2011 earthquakes and the building has been vacant since this time. The current owners have secured the building with temporary structural bracing and other measures internally. However they have also taken the initial steps to undertake the demolition of the building. An archaeological authority was sought from Heritage New Zealand as part of the demolition permits required but this was declined by Heritage New Zealand. The court case that followed found in favour of Heritage New Zealand and hence the building is no longer at risk from a consented demolition. However, there is still considerable risk to the building from illegal entry and continuing deterioration from lack of occupation and necessary maintenance. The owners are now seeking to sell the building in its current damaged state and with no insurance payments.

5.5       The applicant for the grant is a newly formed trust, ‘The Mclean’s Mansion Charitable Trust’. This trust aims to purchase the building from the current owners in the very near future and then initiate a fundraising drive. The trust deed (Attachment B) provides that Mr Trevor Lord, Mr David Sheppard, Mr Warren Feeney and Mr Philip Trusttrum are the trustees. The  trust has six defined objects but the relevant ones for this report are:

“To hold the historic building known as McLean’s Mansion (as it is or as it is repaired or replaced); to maintain it as a historic building and permit access to it by the public on such terms as the Trustees deem appropriate.”

“To carry on such activities to raise funds for the preservation and continued operation of the building known as McLean’s Mansion and/or any of the charitable objects of this Trust.”

5.6       The proposed use of the building will be an art gallery.

5.7       The representative and proposed chair of the trust, Mr Trevor Lord, has outlined the likely works required and these include: immediate enhanced security provisions including maintenance of the fire sprinkler system; immediate protection of vulnerable internal  timber components; removal and screening of debris for reuse; releveling and upgrading of the foundation system as required; removal of damaged lath and plaster and installation of bracing in accordance with a structural upgrade scheme; and finally the repair and repainting of the exterior facades.

The Central City Landmark Heritage Grant Funding Scheme

5.8       The series of earthquakes occurring in the Christchurch region since September 2010 has resulted in the most significant loss of Central City heritage and character buildings in the history of Christchurch. This loss of heritage heightens the importance of opportunities to retain, repair and strengthen those remaining buildings having a significant connection to the past. The Council’s “Draft Central City Recovery Plan, December 2011”, provided for increased heritage funding of $27.7 million to be allocated over 10 years via the Annual Plan process.  The plan provided the initiative to take a pro-active approach with owners to achieve the retention of key Central City landmark heritage buildings – including listed buildings and facades. The Tables enclosed in the Options section below summarize the grants programme so far.

6.   Option 1 - Central City Landmark Heritage Funding of up to $1,934,000 (preferred)

Option Description

6.1       This report proposes funding of $1,934,000 from the Central City Landmark Heritage Grant fund. It is envisaged that this grant funding would not cover all of the required repair and upgrade works but it is not yet clear what percentage of the total spend required for the project that this grant would represent. However, the scale of the building and hence the amount of repair is such that the grant would be well below the normal maximum limit for a landmark grant of fifty percent.

6.2       The proposed use of the building as an Art Gallery is likely to trigger the change of use provisions in the Building Act which may include upgrades to structure, fire egress and protection systems, and disabled access.  The architectural repairs required along with the seismic and other upgrade works would most likely be subject to a resource and building consent process.

6.3       Central City Landmark Heritage Grant support to other projects to date is summarised in the table below. The level of grant support proposed for McLean’s Mansion is similar to the early grant awarded to the Christchurch Club. This project has now been completed and illustrates the positive outcomes achieved with landmark grant funding acting as an incentive to the owners to invest substantial amounts of their own funds into a heritage building requiring repairs.

 

Annual Budget 2016/2017 for the Central City Landmark Heritage Grant fund

Funding Year

$1,934,000

The Christchurch Club, Latimer Square

2012/2013

$1,700,000

Former Trinity Congregational Church, 124 Worcester Street

2012/2013

$1,000,000

West Avon Apartments, 279 Montreal Street

2013/2014

$800,000

Victoria Mansions, 91 Victoria Street

2014/2015

$900,000

Old Stone Class Room Building, St Michaels & All Angels

2014/2015

$855,000

Former Community of the Sacred Name, 181 Barbadoes Street

2013/2014

$950,000

Approved grant to the Midland Club, Oxford Terrace

2015/2016

$869,500

Proposed grant to New Regent Street Shops

2015/2016

Confidential

Proposed grant to McLean’s mansion

2016/2017

$1,934,000

Total Available Funds remaining  2016/2017

 

$0

 

Significance

6.4       The level of significance of this option is low consistent with section 2 of this report. There are no engagement requirements in the Operational Guidelines or Policy for this grant scheme.

Impact on Mana Whenua

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

Community Views and Preferences

6.6       The Central City Landmark Heritage Grant scheme is aligned to the Community Outcomes ‘The city’s heritage and taonga are conserved for future generations’ and ‘The central city has a distinctive character and identity’. Central City Landmark Heritage Grants contribute towards the number of protected heritage buildings, sites and objects, which is a measure for these outcomes.

Alignment with Council Plans and Policies

6.7       The recommendations of this report align with the relevant strategies and policies as listed below:

·    Christchurch Central Recovery Strategy

·    Christchurch City Plan and the Proposed Replacement Christchurch District Plan

·    Heritage Conservation Policy (apart from the inconsistencies identified in the Legal Implications section below)

·    Greater Christchurch Urban Development Strategy

·    New Zealand Urban Design Protocol

·    International Council on Monuments and Sites (ICOMOS) New Zealand Charter 1993 for Conservation of Places of Cultural Heritage Value.

Financial Implications

6.8       Cost of Implementation - The cost to the Council of this option would be $1,934,000 taken from the Central City Landmark Heritage fund of $1,934,000 for the financial year.

6.9       2015/2016. Maintenance / Ongoing Costs - There will be no on-going maintenance costs to Council as a result of this grant.

6.10    Funding source - The Central City Landmark Heritage Grant budget is an annual fund provided for in the current Long Term Plan.

Legal Implications

6.11              The Central City Landmark Heritage Grant Policy is as follows:

‘That the Council acknowledges the need to retain and recover those Central City heritage buildings which the community recognises as key built landmarks which contribute to the continuing sense of identity for the Central City.

That the Council provides a Central City Heritage Landmarks Fund to assist with the retention, repair, reconstruction and seismic strengthening of central city heritage landmark buildings which are able to be recovered for continuing use.’

6.12              The ‘Operational Guidelines’ are used in the interpretation and application of this Policy. 

6.13              As it stands, there are two significant inconsistencies with the current application and the Policy and Operational Guidelines.  If the Council wishes to approve the grant on the basis of the current application, the Council will need to follow the process in Section 80 of the Local Government Act 2002.

6.14              Section 80 provides that if a decision of a local authority is significantly inconsistent with, or is anticipated to have consequences that will be significantly inconsistent with, any policy adopted by the local authority or any plan required by this Act or any other enactment, the local authority must, when making the decision, clearly identify:

(a)  the inconsistency;

(b)  the reasons for the inconsistency;

(c)   any intention of the local authority to amend the policy or plan to accommodate the decision.

6.15              The inconsistency in this case is that the applicant is not the owner of the building that is the subject of the grant application, 387 Manchester Street, McLean’s Mansion. There is also an inconsistency in that the scope of works has not been fully defined and submitted to Council staff.

6.16              The applicant is seeking approval for the grant prior to being able to complete the purchase so that at least some initial funds are confirmed for the project to repair, upgrade and re-use this historic building. The applicant has been in negotiation with the actual owners for a number of months and is hopeful of achieving a purchase very soon. The grant funds will only become available to the applicant on completion of the purchase and on confirmation and agreement of the scope of works to make the building reusable as an art gallery.

6.17              In light of this current application, staff are not recommending any change to the current policy to accommodate the Council’s decision on this grant.

 

Risks and Mitigations

6.18              There are a number of risks with the current application but staff anticipate that these risks can be mitigated in the following way:

(a)          As the scope of work and end use of the building has not been defined fully by the applicant this does pose a risk that the proposed scope of works will not be satisfactory to Council. Hence the grant approval should be based on the submission and approval by Council staff of a full scope of works.

(b)          The applicant proposes that the building be used for an art gallery but this use has not been confirmed.  This risk can be mitigated by the Council agreeing on the scope of works that provides for the building to be an art gallery.  Furthermore, if it becomes clear that the building is not to be used as an art gallery, the Council can reserve its position to cancel the grant.

6.19        In addition, the grant scheme only allows funds to be paid out upon completion of the works, certification by Council heritage staff and upon presentation of receipts. This ensures that the grant scheme is effective and that funds are not diverted or lost.

6.20        The Council also requires the owner to enter into conservation covenants.  Covenants also act as a protective mechanism, ensuring the building and setting is retained once the work is undertaken.   Limited conservation covenants are required under the Heritage Conservation Operational Guidelines for properties receiving Central City Landmark Heritage Grants of $15,000 to $149,999.  A full conservation covenant is required for grants of $150,000 or more.

6. 21       Covenants are a comprehensive form of protection of the buildings because they are registered on the property title, ensuring that the Council’s investment is protected. As the grant will be above $150,000 there is a requirement for a full conservation covenant on this property title in association with this grant.

Implementation

6.22    Implementation dependencies - The grant recipient is normally expected to acquire all resource, building and other consents required for the works. 

6.23    Implementation timeframe - The grant recipient has an eighteen month time period to undertake the works and to claim the grant. An application to extend this timeframe can be made to the Council or relevant Committee.

Option Summary - Advantages and Disadvantages

6.24    The advantages of this option include:

·    It supports the retention of a 'Highly Significant' heritage building in a prominent location;

·    It promotes a type of development to reinforce the Central City as the focus for social and cultural activities;

·    It promotes adaptive re-use of a heritage building to an appropriate use with minimal change to the exterior, minimal changes to the interior spaces and minimal loss of heritage fabric;

·    The proposed use of the building as an art gallery will allow for public access to the restored interior of the building along with the exterior grounds.

·    It will preserves the existing characteristics and qualities of this part of the central city - including the view shafts from Manchester Street to the principal east facing façade of the building;

·    Through a conservation covenant the grant affords protection to the landmark value of the building and to the associated heritage setting.

·    The building will remain in its original location and have its original relationship with the public street preserved.

·    With the grant acting as an incentive the project to restore the building will generate significant private investment into the Christchurch economy.

6.25    The disadvantages of this option include:

·    This would be a very large grant to a single building project and will use up the entire years Central City Landmark Heritage grant fund. However, this is exactly the kind of large scale retention, repair and restoration project that the fund was created for.

 

7.   Option 2 - Central City Landmark Heritage Funding of up to $1,000,000

Option Description

7.1       Option 2 would be for a lower level of financial support to the project. This option proposes funding of $1,000,000 from the Central City Landmark Heritage Grant fund. This lower amount of grant funding would possibly be insufficient to give the project initiators the confidence and willingness to embark on the initial steps to purchase the building. Other grant levels are obviously possible between the two options. Apart from the level of financial support, this option has all the same impacts and alignments as Option 1.

 

Annual Budget 2016/2017 for the Central City Landmark Heritage Grant fund

Funding Year

$1,969,500

The Christchurch Club, Latimer Square

2012/2013

$1,700,000

Former Trinity Congregational Church, 124 Worcester Street

2012/2013

$1,000,000

West Avon Apartments, 279 Montreal Street

2013/2014

$800,000

Victoria Mansions, 91 Victoria Street

2014/2015

$900,000

Old Stone Class Room Building, St Michaels & All Angels

2014/2015

$855,000

Former Community of the Sacred Name, 181 Barbadoes Street

2013/2014

$950,000

Approved grant to the Midland Club, Oxford Terrace

2015/2016

$869,500

Proposed grant to New Regent Street Shops

2015/2016

Confidential

Proposed Grant to McLean’s Mansion

2016/2017

$1,000,000

Total Available Funds remaining  2016/2017

 

$934,000

 

Option Summary - Advantages and Disadvantages

7.2       The advantages of this option include:

·    It supports the retention of a 'Highly Significant' heritage building in a prominent location;

·    It promotes a type of development to reinforce the Central City as the focus for social and cultural activities;

·    It promotes adaptive re-use of a heritage building to an appropriate use with minimal change to the exterior, minimal changes to the interior spaces and minimal loss of heritage fabric;

·    The proposed use of the building as an art gallery will allow for public access to the restored interior of the building along with the exterior grounds.

·    It will preserves the existing characteristics and qualities of this part of the central city - including the view shafts from Manchester Street to the principal east facing façade of the building;

·    Through a conservation covenant the grant affords protection to the landmark value of the building and to the associated heritage setting.

·    The building will remain in its original location and have its original relationship with the public street preserved.

·    With the grant acting as an incentive the project to restore the building will generate significant private investment into the Christchurch economy.

7.3       The disadvantages of this option include:

·    The grant may be insufficient to encourage the potential buyers of the building to embark on the process of purchasing and securing the building.

·    Lower grant funds may undermine the ability of the potential buyers to raise funds from other sources.

 

 

Attachments

No.

Title

Page

a

McLean's Mansion Statement of Heritage Significance

485

b

Trust Deed for McLean's Mansion Charitable Trust

489

 

 

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

Brendan Smyth - Team Leader Heritage

Approved By

Vivienne Wilson - Senior Solicitor

Carolyn Ingles - Head of Urban Regeneration, Urban Design and Heritage

Brendan Anstiss - General Manager Strategy and Transformation

  


Council

08 December 2016

 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


Council

08 December 2016

 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


Council

08 December 2016

 

 

26.    Request for a covenant to be removed from two titles at 66B and 66C Derby Street, Christchurch.

Reference:

16/1307452

Contact:

Brendan Smyth

Brendan.smyth@ccc.govt.nz

941 8934

 

 

1.   Purpose and Origin of Report

Purpose of Report

1.1       The purpose of this report is to request that Council approve the revocation of a conservation covenant from the title of two properties at 66B and 66C Derby Street, St Albans, Christchurch.

Origin of Report

1.2       This report is generated from a request from Anderson Lloyd Solicitors acting on behalf of the owners of the property sections at 66B and 66C Derby Street.

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.

2.2       The level of significance was determined by the lack of any heritage classification of the buildings on the two sites, 66B and 66C, and also because the heritage building at 66 Derby Street will not be affected by this process.

 

 

3.   Staff Recommendations

That the Council:

1.         Approve the revocation of a conservation covenant from the title of two properties at 66B and 66C Derby Street, St Albans, Christchurch, leaving the covenant in place at 66 Derby Street.

 

 

4.   Key Points

4.1       The original full conservation covenant was placed on the title of 66 Derby Street in April 2007. As part of the sub-division process, conservation covenants were automatically placed on two newly created titles when the site at 66 Derby Street was sub-divided to form an additional two new sections 66B and 66C in July 2007.

4.2       66B and 66C Derby Street do not contain heritage buildings. The heritage building at 66 Derby Street will remain on its site with the original covenant remaining in place.

 

5.   Context/Background

Explanation of how the covenants came to be on the title and why revocation is supported by the Council heritage staff.

5.1       The building at 66 Derby Street is a heritage building protected as a Group 3 building in the Christchurch City Plan and a ‘Significant’ building in the Proposed Replacement District Plan. The building is also listed with Heritage New Zealand (registration number 3711).

5.2       A Heritage Grant was awarded to the owners of the building at 66 Derby Street in April 2007 for works to the exterior and roof of the building. As part of the requirements for the grant, a full conservation covenant was placed on the title of 66 Derby Street. In July 2007 the site was subdivided to form an additional two new sections at the rear of number 66 Derby Street, being 66B and 66C Derby Street. The conservation covenant was automatically extended onto the newly created titles following this subdivision. The titles have remained in the same ownership until this time but one section 66B has now been sold and the new owners are seeking the revocation of the covenant. 

5.3       As the original heritage building at Number 66 will be unaffected by this request and there is no heritage buildings on either of the two more recently created sections, Officers support the revocation of the covenant from 66B and 66C Derby Street.

 

Attachments

There are no attachments to this report.

 

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

Brendan Smyth - Team Leader Heritage

Approved By

Carolyn Ingles - Head of Urban Regeneration, Urban Design and Heritage

Brendan Anstiss - General Manager Strategy and Transformation

  


Council

08 December 2016

 

 

27.    Approval of Limited Conservation Covenant Consent for revised Heritage New Zealand status for the Church of St Saviour, Lyttelton from Category 2 to Category 1.

Reference:

16/1307973

Contact:

Brendan Smyth

Brendan.smyth@ccc.govt.nz

8934

 

 

1.   Purpose and Origin of Report

Purpose of Report

1.1       The purpose of this report is to request Council approval for a change in status of the Church of St Saviour, Lyttelton for the New Zealand Heritage List maintained by Heritage New Zealand. Heritage New Zealand have carried out a review of the building and believe that it should be changed from a Category 2 building to a Category 1, a higher status on this list.  Council has a limited conservation covenant on the list and written approval of this change is required.

Origin of Report

1.2       This report is generated by a request from Heritage New Zealand to give written approval to the change in status on the New Zealand Heritage List as required by the Limited Conservation Covenant on the property title.

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.

2.2       The level of significance was determined by the nature of the request to change the status of the building on the New Zealand Heritage List with Heritage New Zealand.

 

 

3.   Staff Recommendations

That the Council:

1.         To approve the change in the name on the New Zealand Heritage List from ‘St Saviour’s Anglican Church’ to ‘Church of St Saviour’ and

2.         To grant Conservation Covenant Consent approval for the proposed change in status of the building to be known as the Church of St Saviour, 17 Winchester Street Lyttelton, from Category 2 to Category 1 on the New Zealand Heritage List.

 

 

4.   Key Points

4.1       Heritage New Zealand have carried out a review of the Church of St Saviour in Lyttelton and would like to elevate its status from Category 2 to Category 1 in the New Zealand Heritage List.  

4.2       The Christchurch City Council has an interest in the site through a Limited Conservation Covenant pursuant to Section 77 of the Reserves Act 1977 and written approval is therefore required.

 

5.   Context/Background

5.1       Following relocation of the church formerly known as St Saviour’s Anglican Church from 26 Park Terrace, Christchurch to 17 Winchester Street Lyttelton, Heritage New Zealand has prepared a review report which has found that the building warrants a higher classification on the New Zealand Heritage List. Their report recommends a change from Category 2 to Category 1. The name of the church will also change to the Church of St Saviour.

5.2       Staff support the change in status of the building on the New Zealand Heritage List. The change in status would give the building greater recognition nationally as well as enable access to Heritage New Zealand funding for any future repairs and maintenance works. These are both positive heritage outcomes.

5.3       The building is listed as ‘Significant’ on the current Christchurch City Council District Plan list and will not need any change consideration.

 

Attachments

There are no attachments to this report.

 

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

Brendan Smyth - Team Leader Heritage

Approved By

Carolyn Ingles - Head of Urban Regeneration, Urban Design and Heritage

Brendan Anstiss - General Manager Strategy and Transformation

  


Council

08 December 2016

 

 

28.    Letter of Shareholder Expectations to Christchurch City Holdings Ltd

Reference:

16/1348918

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 draft Letter of Expectations (LOE) to Christchurch City Holdings Ltd (CCHL). 

1.2       The draft LOE will been circulated separately to allow for input from the 29 November briefing to be incorporated.

Origin of Report

1.3       This report is staff generated to give guidance to CCHL of the Council’s expectations of performance which it will then communicate to its individual subsidiaries in its LOE. 

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 the impact of the decisions on the Council and the community.

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

 

3.   Staff Recommendations

That the Council:

1.         Approves the Letter of Expectations to Christchurch City Holdings Ltd.

 

 

4.   Key Points

4.1       The LOE is an administrative tool that allows the Council as shareholder to inform CCHL of the information it is required to provide throughout the course of the forthcoming financial year, its timing and any specific issues they wish the company to address in its business planning. 

4.2       The LOE includes the shareholder’s expectations of performance with respect to commercial profitability, achieving community outcomes, distribution of profits to shareholders, administrative requirements and legal compliance.  CCHL will use the LOE it receives from Council when writing its own LOEs to its subsidiaries.

4.3       The LOE is not the appropriate tool for requesting that CCHL’s subsidiary companies provide a specific set of activities and services over and above its business plans.  It is appropriate however to signal in the LOE that the Council would like to pursue with CCHL the merits of its group achieving particular outcomes.  If the Council wishes to do so, we recommend that a separate conversation is conducted with the board and that it be asked to advise on the extent to which the proposed activity complies with its nature and scope of business, and whether it is in the best interests of the company, the CCHL group and shareholders.

 

 

Timing

4.4       Clause 2 of Schedule 8 of the Local Government Act 2002 requires draft SOIs to be submitted to shareholders by 1 March each year.  In order to allow CCHL’s subsidiary companies to meet this deadline, it is necessary for CCHL to have received its LOE from the Council in sufficient time to:

(i)    engage with the Council if necessary on the content of the LOE to resolve any differences in views about the expectations;

(ii)   develop its LOEs for each of its subsidiaries including expectations the Council advised in CCHL’s LOE;

(iii)  engage with any or all of the subsidiaries that may wish to seek to resolve any differences in views about the expectations;

(iv) complete business planning; and

(v)  complete draft SOIs by 1 March.

 

4.5       In order to provide sufficient time to complete the above processes, we recommend that the Council issues its LOE to CCHL by 9 December 2016.

Key content

4.6       On 29 November, CCHL provided a briefing to Council which included discussion of the high level issues CCHL has signalled it will take forward with the subsidiaries over the course of the next year as well as identifying issues raised by Councillors.  As there are processes in place for reporting back on issues such as a cruise ship berth at Lyttelton Port, value implications for City Care as exposed in the recent divestment process, and the release of capital from CCHL’s balance sheet, they have not been raised specifically in the LOE.

4.7       The key issues in the draft LOE are:

·    the need for continuing focus on improving annual returns that are commensurate with the Council’s equity risk in the companies, allowing for non-commercial objectives that the Council has imposed;

·    the Council’s ongoing focus on compliance of all of its subsidiaries with the Health and Safety at Work Act 2015;

·    the importance of effective implementation of a ‘No Surprises’ policy;

·    encouragement to show leadership by adopting, where practical, environmentally sustainable and innovative business practices;

 

 

5.   Context/Background

CCHL group of companies

5.1       The Council owns 100% of CCHL which in turn ‘owns’ and/or ‘controls’ each of the group’s subsidiaries which are classified as Council controlled trading organisations (CCTOs) and are as follows:

·    Orion NZ

·    Christchurch International Airport

·    Lyttelton Port Company

·    Enable Services

·    City Care

·    Red Bus

·    EcoCentral

·    Development Christchurch.

 

 

Attachments

No.

Title

Page

a

Draft Letter of Expectations (Under Separate Cover)

 

 

 

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

Authors

Linda Gibb - Performance Monitoring Advisor

Patricia Christie - Manager External Reporting and Governance

Approved By

Diane Brandish - Head of Financial Management

Peter Gudsell - General Manager Finance and Commercial

  


Council

08 December 2016

 

 

29.    Standing Orders

Reference:

16/1269239

Contact:

Ian Thomson

ian.thomson@ccc.govt.nz

941 6469

 

 

1.   Purpose of Report

1.1       To recommend to the Council that it replaces its current set of Standing Orders with the new set attached to the report.

 

2.   Staff Recommendations

That the Council:

1.         Receives the information in the report.

2.         Replaces its current Standing Orders with the new set attached to the report, for the conduct of the Council’s meetings and those of its committees.

3.         Authorises the chief executive to approve any non-material changes that may be required before the new Standing Orders are published.

 

 

3.   Key Points

3.1       The Council must adopt a set of Standing Orders for the conduct of its meetings and those of its committees (cl. 27(1), schedule 7 LGA 2002).

3.2       The Council’s current Standing Orders are based on a New Zealand standards model, last revised in 2003.  A number of changes have been made to the document since then.

3.3       In 2015 Local Government NZ set up a working party to review the model and to develop its own template.  This was made available to all local authorities in September 2016.

3.4       Council staff have reviewed the template and made a number of changes they believe best suit the Council’s needs.  Their draft, and an explanatory note, were distributed to elected members and senior staff on 16 November, and are attached to this report.

3.5       The adoption of a new set of Standing Orders requires a vote of not less than 75% of members present.

3.6       Community Boards must also adopt a set of Standing Orders, for their meetings and those of Board committees.  For consistency, it is recommended they adopt the same Standing Orders as the Council, although they may wish to provide a Board chairperson with a casting vote (as is currently the case).

 

 

Attachments

No.

Title

Page

a

Memo to Elected Members re Standing Orders 2016-11-16

511

b

Draft Standing Orders

514

 

 

Signatories

Author

Ian  Thomson - Senior Legal Advisor, Governance

Approved By

Rob Goldsbury - Head of Legal Services

Mary Richardson - General Manager Customer and Community

  


Council

08 December 2016

 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


Council

08 December 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


Council

08 December 2016

 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


Council

08 December 2016

 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


Council

08 December 2016

 

 

30.    Governance Matters

Reference:

16/1348732

Contact:

Ian Thomson

ian.thomson@ccc.govt.nz

941 6469

 

 

1.   Purpose of Report

1.1       To advise Councillors of the Mayor’s exercise of her power to establish a committee under section 41A of the Local Government Act 2002.

1.2       To recommend the Council establishes, on an interim basis, the Major Cycleway Routes Committee for the purpose of progressing the Council’s Major Cycleway Routes programme.

1.3       To recommend the Council appoints representatives to the Urban Development Strategy Implementation Committee.

1.4       To recommend the Council appoints its representative to the Civil Defence Emergency Management Group for the Canterbury region.

 

2.   Staff Recommendations

That the Council:

1.         Receives the information in the report.

2.         Notes the Mayor has re-established the Hearings Panel Committee, comprising the Mayor, Councillors, and Community Board members.

3.         Establishes the Major Cycleway Routes (MCR) Committee for the purpose of progressing the Northern Line and Quarryman’s Trail Major Cycleway Routes.

a.         Appoints the Deputy Mayor (as chairperson), and Councillors Clearwater, Davidson, Cotter, Keown, Buck, Gough, Swiggs, Templeton, Scandrett, and Galloway as members of the MCR Committee.

b.         Delegates to the MCR Committee the authority to make all decisions in connection with the Northern Line and Quarryman’s Trail cycleway routes, including final route selections and anything precedent to the exercise by the Council of its power to acquire any property.

c.         Notes that the MCR Committee and affected community boards have been, or will be, advised prior to any public consultation commencing on any Major Cycleway Route project.

d.         Notes the Council’s adoption in principle of the route selections as recommended by staff and set out in the Council’s resolution 13.7 on 29 January 2015.

e.         Notes that all route selections have been, or will be, referred to the affected community boards for their recommendations prior to and after consultation and prior to approval by the Committee.

f.          Notes that this is an interim measure until the Council’s Committee structure is finalised.

4.         Appoints the Mayor and Councillors Clearwater and Templeton as the Council’s representatives on the Urban Development Strategy Implementation Committee with effect from 9 December 2016.

5.         Appoints the Mayor as the Council’s representative on the Civil Defence Emergency Management Group for the Canterbury region, with the authority to appoint, if necessary, an elected member as the Mayor’s alternate and to delegate authority to that person to act for her.

 

3.   Key Points

Hearings Panel Committee

3.1       The Council’s Hearings Panel Committee was deemed to be discharged following the recent local body elections.

3.2       However the need for the appointment of Hearings Panels has continued, and the availability of Councillors has been confirmed for a number of matters arising within the next two weeks. To enable these to proceed the Committee would have to be re-established before then.

3.3       The earliest opportunity to do that is at the Council meeting of 8 December. Staff therefore sought approval from the Mayor for her to exercise the power she has to establish a committee under section 41A of the Local Government Act 2002.

3.4       The Mayor agreed to this and attached is a written record of her decision establishing the Hearings Panel Committee.  As previously, this is a committee comprising the Mayor, Councillors, and Community Board members.

3.5       Its purpose is to provide a pool of elected members available for appointment to hearings panels as and when required.  Those constituted under the Resource Management Act are appointed by the Mayor and Chief Executive jointly, with the others being appointed by the Team Leader Hearings or the Council Secretary.  This is in accordance with the Delegations Register.

Major Cycleway Routes Committee

3.6       At its meeting on 29 January 2015 the Council agreed to the Major Cycleway Route programme being declared a metropolitan project. All decision-making powers of the Council in connection with the matter were delegated to the Infrastructure, Transport and Environment Committee.

3.7       This committee was also deemed to be discharged following the elections.  This means the Council will have to make those decisions itself until such time as a replacement body is established and given the appropriate delegated authority.

3.8       The indications are that the Council won’t be deciding on its new committee structure until early next year.  Staff have advised they are under pressure of time to progress the project and note that currently there are about 20 people and organisations wishing to be heard in response to the work undertaken by the ITE Committee to date.  Unless alternative arrangements are made, these may need to be dealt with by the Council at its 15 December meeting.

3.9       Staff have proposed an interim solution which, if adopted, would mean the MCR programme could still meet its priority and delivery objectives.  There is a particular concern that any delay in completing the programme may put at risk the availability of the government’s contribution.

3.10    Seven of the Council’s Major Cycleway Routes have attracted a total of $20 million in funding from the government’s Urban Cycleways programme.  Because the government’s focus is on delivery, one of the criteria to be met for receiving this funding is that construction must be completed by 30 June 2018.

3.11    In order to progress the project in a timely manner it is proposed that the Council establishes a Committee, to be called the Major Cycleway Routes Committee with the appropriate delegated authority to make decisions on the Council’s behalf in respect of the Major Cycleway Route programme.  This would be an interim measure until the Council confirms its committee structure.

3.12    It would also mean that staff reports in respect of the Northern Line and Quarryman’s cycleways at present proposed to be on the agenda for the 15 December meeting, could be re-directed to the MCR Committee to be considered along with the public submissions.

3.13    The suggestion is that the Councillors representing the wards affected by the programme be appointed to the MCR Committee.  These are:  the Deputy Mayor (as chairperson), and Councillors Clearwater, Davidson, Cotter, Keown, Buck, Gough, Swiggs, Templeton, Scandrett, and Galloway.

3.14    Staff have signalled a potential need to acquire a number of properties that may encroach onto a proposed route.  They are aware that clause 32(1)(c) schedule 7 of the LGA 2002 prevents the Council from delegating the power to purchase or dispose of assets (which include property) other than in accordance with the long-term plan.

3.15    The Council’s 2015/25 LTP does not make provision for property transactions of this nature. However clause 32(2) allows the Council to delegate to a committee the power to do anything required to be done before the Council considers whether or not to purchase an asset.

3.16    It is therefore recommended that the Council delegates to the MCR Committee the authority to do anything precedent to the exercise by the Council of its power to purchase any property required for the MCR programme.

Urban Development Strategy Implementation Committee

3.17    At its meeting on 22 September 2016 the Council resolved that the Urban Development Strategy Implementation Committee would not be discharged following the recent local body elections.  This is a joint committee established under the Local Government Act 2002 to govern the UDS partnership

3.18    The UDSIC has noted that a number of Committee members will not be returning.  It therefore recommends that partners reflect on their nominated representatives to support a level of consistency in UDSIC membership alongside any desire to foster succession planning.

3.19    With this in mind, it is recommended that the Mayor and Councillor Clearwater continue as members of the Committee and that Councillor Templeton be appointed to replace Councillor Lonsdale.

Civil Defence Emergency Management Group for the Canterbury Region

3.20    A Civil Defence Emergency Management Group has been established for the Canterbury region (CDEM Group).  As required by the Civil Defence Emergency Management Act (CDEM Act), this is a joint committee of the participating local authorities for the purposes of the Local Government Act 2002.

3.21    The CDEM Group cannot be discharged, either as permitted by the LGA 2002, or by a decision of the participating Councils (s. 12(2) of the CDEM Act).

3.22    Under s. 13(4) of the CDEM Act, the Council can only have one representative on the CDEM Group, either the Mayor or an elected member who has delegated authority to act for the Mayor.

3.23    In accordance with this provision, the Mayor is currently the Council’s representative.  It is suggested the Council gives the Mayor the authority to appoint, if necessary, an elected member as an alternate with delegated authority to act for the Mayor.

 

 

Attachments

No.

Title

Page

a

Establishment of a Hearings Panel Committee

583

 

 

Signatories

Author

Ian  Thomson - Senior Legal Advisor, Governance

Approved By

Rob Goldsbury - Head of Legal Services

Mary Richardson - General Manager Customer and Community

  


Council

08 December 2016

 

PDF Creator


Council

08 December 2016

 

 

31.    Appointment of Recess Committee

Reference:

16/1349915

Contact:

Jo Daly

jo.daly@ccc.govt.nz

941 8581

 

 

1.   Purpose of Report

1.1       This seeks the Council resolve to appoint a Council Recess Committee to consider any issues that require a Council decision from the period of 9 December 2016 to 25 January 2017.

 

2.   Staff Recommendations

That the Council:

1.         Appoint a Recess Committee comprising the Mayor or Deputy Mayor and a minimum of any three Councillors (quorum Mayor or Deputy Mayor and three Councillors) to be authorised to make any decisions of the Council for the period between 16 December 2017 and 25 January 2017 (both days inclusive).

2.         Agree that notice of the any meeting of the Recess Committee be publicised and forwarded to all Councillors.

3.         Note that any decisions made will be reported to the Council for record purposes.

 

 

3.   Key Points

3.1       There is a period of approximately six weeks between the last ordinary Council meeting of 2016 and the first ordinary Council meeting of 2017.  It is recommended, as is standard practice, that the Council establish a Recess Committee with the power to act be appointed to deal with any issues requiring a Council decision that cannot wait until the first ordinary meeting of 2017 on 26 January 2017.

3.2       It is proposed that the Recess Committee be appointed comprising the Mayor or Deputy Mayor and a minimum of any three Councillors, with the quorum of the Recess Committee being the Mayor or Deputy Mayor and three Councillors.  Notice of any meeting of the Recess Committee will be publicised and forwarded to all Councillors.  Any decisions made by the Recess Committee will be reported to the Council for record purposes.

 

Attachments

There are no attachments to this report.

 

Signatories

Author

Jo Daly - Council Secretary

Approved By

Lester Wolfreys - Head of Community Support, Governance and Partnerships

Mary Richardson - General Manager Customer and Community

   

 


Council

08 December 2016

 

 

32.  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

08 December 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

33

Public Excluded Council Minutes - 2 November 2016

 

 

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

 

34

Public Excluded Council Minutes - 10 November 2016

 

 

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

 

35

Public Excluded Council Minutes - 17 November 2016

 

 

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

 

36

Public Excluded Papanui-Innes Community Board Minutes - 15 November 2016

 

 

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

 

37

Christchurch City Holdings Limited Update

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

Prejudice Commercial Position, Commercial Activities, Conduct Negotiations

Prejudice Commerical Position

When the information is no longer commerically sensitive.

38

Report from Christchurch City Holdings Limited

s7(2)(h)

Commercial Activities

Ongoing contract negotiations

Successful completion of contract negotiations

39

Christchurch City Holdings Limited - Appointment of Councillor Directors

s7(2)(a)

Protection of Privacy of Natural Persons

To protect the privacy of the applicants.

On confirmation of the appointments

40

Council Controlled Organisations - Councillor Director Appointments

s7(2)(h)

Commercial Activities

The companies discussed in this report undertake commercial operations. The issues discussed in this report could affect these operations.

The appointment of the Councillor Directors will be made public

41

Isaac Construction Company Appeal Mediation

s7(2)(g)

Maintain Legal Professional Privilege

To keep legal advice confidential

When the Council's role as a party ends.

42

Christchurch City Council as Submitter on Isaac Quarry Deepening Appeal

s7(2)(g)

Maintain Legal Professional Privilege

Keep legal advice confidential

When the Council's role as party ends.

43

Naval Point bulk liquid storage facility risk mitigation options

s7(2)(i)

Conduct Negotiations

The Council needs to enter into negotiations with Lyttelton Port Company  and the builk liquid fuel storage lessees about mitigation and engage with potentially affected parties.

30 December 2016

Once key affected parties have been informed at public meeting after Council meeting.