Christchurch City Council

Agenda

 

 

Notice of Meeting:

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

 

Date:                                     Thursday 15 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

 

 

9 December 2016

 

 

 

Principal Advisor

Dr Karleen Edwards

Chief Executive

Tel: 941 8554

 

Christopher Turner-Bullock

Committee Advisor

941 8233

christopher.turner@ccc.govt.nz

www.ccc.govt.nz

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

 


Council

15 December 2016

 

 

 


Council

15 December 2016

 

TABLE OF CONTENTS

 

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

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

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

3.1       Public Forum....................................................................................................................... 4

3.2       Deputations by Appointment............................................................................................... 4

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

Coastal-Burwood Community Board

5.       Breezes Road - School Patrol at Chisnallwood Intermediate School................................... 5

STAFF REPORTS

6.       Lancaster Park Status Report................................................................................................. 13

7.       High Street Tree Removal Request ....................................................................................... 51

8.       Annual Report for the year ending 30 June 2016 - Christchurch City Holdings Ltd and subsidiaries.............................................................................................................................. 65

9.       Item 9 is a public excluded report

10.     Annual Report for the year ending 30 June 2016 - Council Controlled Organisations... 205

11.     Strategic Assets..................................................................................................................... 489

Te Hononga Council - Papatipu Rūnanga Committee

12.     Revised draft Relationship Agreement between Christchurch City Council and Nga Papatipu Rununga................................................................................................................................. 495

13.     Resolution to Exclude the Public......................................................................................... 511  

 

 

 


Council

15 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.

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

4.   Presentation of Petitions

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

 


Council

15 December 2016

 

Report from Coastal-Burwood Community Board  – 5 December 2016

 

5.        Breezes Road - School Patrol at Chisnallwood Intermediate School

Reference:

16/1418164

Contact:

Megan Reid

megan.reid@ccc.govt.nz

941 8999

 

 

 

 

1.   Staff Recommendations

 

That the Coastal-Burwood Community Board recommends that Council approves:

1.         In pursuance of the powers vested in it by Section 8.3(1) of the Land Transport Rule- Traffic Control Devices 2004 (Rule 54002), and pursuant to the powers vested in it by the Local Government Act 1974 and 2002, the Christchurch City Council hereby authorises the head teacher of Chisnallwood Intermediate School to appoint appropriately trained persons to act as school patrols at the existing pedestrian refuge island crossing on Breezes Road, located at a point more or less 6 metres northwest of its intersection with Eglinton Street.

2.         In pursuance of the powers vested in it by Section 8.3(1) of the Land Transport Rule- Traffic Control Devices 2004 (Rule 54002), and pursuant to the powers vested in it by the Local Government Act 1974 and 2002, the Christchurch City Council hereby revokes authorisation for Avondale Primary School to operate a school patrol at the existing zebra crossing on Breezes Road, located at a point more or less 240 metres southeast of its intersection with Eglinton Street.

 

 

2.  Coastal-Burwood Community Board Recommendation to Council

 

Part A

That the Council approves:

1.         In pursuance of the powers vested in it by Section 8.3(1) of the Land Transport Rule- Traffic Control Devices 2004 (Rule 54002), and pursuant to the powers vested in it by the Local Government Act 1974 and 2002, the Christchurch City Council hereby authorises the head teacher of Chisnallwood Intermediate School to appoint appropriately trained persons to act as school patrols at the existing pedestrian refuge island crossing on Breezes Road, located at a point more or less 6 metres northwest of its intersection with Eglinton Street.

2.         In pursuance of the powers vested in it by Section 8.3(1) of the Land Transport Rule- Traffic Control Devices 2004 (Rule 54002), and pursuant to the powers vested in it by the Local Government Act 1974 and 2002, the Christchurch City Council hereby revokes authorisation for Avondale Primary School to operate a school patrol at the existing zebra crossing on Breezes Road, located at a point more or less 240 metres southeast of its intersection with Eglinton Street.

 

 

Attachments

No.

Report Title

Page

1

Breezes Road - School Patrol at Chisnallwood Intermediate School

7

 

No.

Title

Page

a

tg130701 Appendix A kea crossing Breezes Road

12

 

 


Council

15 December 2016

 

 

Breezes Road - School Patrol at Chisnallwood Intermediate School

Reference:

16/1290761

Contact:

Megan Reid

Megan.reid@ccc.govt.nz

941 8999

 

 

1.   Purpose and Origin of Report

Purpose of Report

1.1       The purpose of this report is to seek the approval of the Coastal-Burwood Community Board for its recommendation to Council to:

1.1.1   Approve a school patrol for Chisnallwood Intermediate School on Breezes Road in accordance with the Local Government Act 1974 and 2002, and accordance with the Land Transport Rule 54002, Traffic Control Devices Rule 2004.

1.1.2   Revoke authorisation to operate the school patrol for Avondale Primary School on Breezes Road in accordance with the Local Government Act 1974 and 2002, and accordance with the Land Transport Rule 54002, Traffic Control Devices Rule 2004.

Origin of Report

1.2       This report is staff generated following discussions with Chisnallwood Intermediate School management and as a result of the closure of Avondale Primary School.

2.   Significance

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

2.1.1   The level of significance was determined by the project being low cost and affecting a limited group of residents. The decision is easily reversible.

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

 

3.   Staff Recommendations

That the Coastal-Burwood Community Board recommends that Council approves:

1.         In pursuance of the powers vested in it by Section 8.3(1) of the Land Transport Rule- Traffic Control Devices 2004 (Rule 54002), and pursuant to the powers vested in it by the Local Government Act 1974 and 2002, the Christchurch City Council hereby authorises the head teacher of Chisnallwood Intermediate School to appoint appropriately trained persons to act as school patrols at the existing pedestrian refuge island crossing on Breezes Road, located at a point more or less 6 metres northwest of its intersection with Eglinton Street.

2.         In pursuance of the powers vested in it by Section 8.3(1) of the Land Transport Rule- Traffic Control Devices 2004 (Rule 54002), and pursuant to the powers vested in it by the Local Government Act 1974 and 2002, the Christchurch City Council hereby revokes authorisation for Avondale Primary School to operate a school patrol at the existing zebra crossing on Breezes Road, located at a point more or less 240 metres southeast of its intersection with Eglinton Street.

 

4.   Key Points

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

4.1.1   Activity: Road Operations

·     Level of Service: 10.0.31 Protect vulnerable users - minimise the number of fatal crashes involving pedestrians and cyclists

4.2       The following feasible options have been considered:

·     Option 1 - Install a school patrol for Chisnallwood Intermediate School and revoke the authorisation to operate the school patrol at Avondale Primary School (preferred option) Refer Attachment A.

·     Option 2 – Do nothing

4.3       Option Summary - Advantages and Disadvantages (Preferred Option)

4.3.1   The advantages of this option include:

·     Provides supervision and priority for children of all school ages, when needing to cross Breezes Road.

·     Cost effective solution to providing road safety for school children.

·     Removes the authorisation for a redundant school patrol as Avondale Primary School is closing at the end of 2016.

4.3.2   The disadvantages of this option include:

·     Short delay in traffic flow as vehicles have to stop to allow children to cross the road.

 

5.   Context/Background

Background

5.1       The Ministry of Education is restructuring a number of schools in Christchurch City. As part of this restructure, four existing schools are merging into one school, Haeata Community Campus, at the site of the existing Aranui High School.

5.2       The four schools that are merging are: Avondale Primary, Aranui Primary, Wainoni Primary, and Aranui High School.

5.3       Chisnallwood Intermediate is remaining open.

5.4       On 26 September 2002 Council formally resolved a school patrol at Avondale Primary School on Breezes Road 250 metres away from the proposed kea crossing for Chisnallwood Intermediate School. It is now proposed to revoke the authorisation for the Avondale Primary school patrol as this school is closing at the end of 2016. Chisnallwood Intermediate School doesn’t have authorisation to operate a school patrol at the Avondale Primary crossing facility.

5.5       It is proposed that at this stage the zebra crossing 240 metres south east of Eglinton Street would remain.

Proposal

5.6       The proposed school patrol for Chisnallwood Intermediate School will be in the form of a ‘kea crossing’. This consists of swing out stop signs, no zebra crossing, but additional temporary fluorescent orange flags located five metres in advance of the crossing point. This will operate at the existing pedestrian refuge island crossing facility that was installed in mid-2000.

5.7       The authorisation to operate the school patrol outside Avondale Primary School is proposed to be revoked as Chisnallwood Intermediate School doesn’t have authorisation to operate a school patrol at this crossing facility. The crossing facility is also away from the pedestrian desire line for many Chisnallwood Intermediate School students.


 

6.   Option 1 – Install School Patrol for Chisnallwood Intermediate School and revoke the authorisation to operate a school patrol at Avondale Primary School (preferred)

Option Description

6.1       Install school patrol at Breezes Road outside Chisnallwood Intermediate School.

6.2       Revoke authorisation to operate the school patrol at Avondale Primary School.

Significance

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

Impact on Mana Whenua

6.4       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

6.5       A letter was sent to the property owner of 77 Breezes Road on 3 November 2016 explaining the proposed installation of the school patrol on the existing pedestrian island outside their property. They were asked to respond with any questions or concerns by 16 November 2016. No feedback from the property owner was received at the time this report was written.

6.6       Chisnallwood Intermediate School supports this option.

Alignment with Council Plans and Policies

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

Financial Implications

6.8       Cost of Implementation - $5,000

6.9       Maintenance / Ongoing Costs - approved Council Maintenance budget.

6.10    Funding source – Safe Routes to School budget as part of the wider Haeata School improvements project.

Legal Implications

6.11    The installation of any signs and/or markings associated with traffic control devices must comply with the Land Transport Rule: Traffic Control Devices 2004.

Risks and Mitigations    

6.12    None identified.

Implementation

6.13    Implementation dependencies - dependent on approval by Council to legalise the school patrol operation and training of the school patrollers and staff by the Police Community Education Officer.

6.14    Implementation timeframe - required to be commissioned for the start of February 2017, for the start of the Chisnallwood Intermediate School year.

Option Summary - Advantages and Disadvantages

6.15    The advantages of this option include:

·   Provides supervision and priority for children when needing to cross Breezes Road.

·   Cost effective solution to providing road safety for school children.

·   Removes the authorisation for a redundant school patrol as Avondale Primary School is closing at the end of 2016.

6.16    The disadvantages of this option include:

·   Short delay in traffic flow as vehicles have to stop to allow children to cross the road.

7.   Option 2 – Do nothing

Option Description

7.1       Situation remains as is.

Significance

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

Impact on Mana Whenua

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

Community Views and Preferences

7.4       As per 6.5 there were no views expressed on this option from the property owner of 77 Breezes Road at the time this report was written.

7.5       Chisnallwood Intermediate School does not support this option.

Alignment with Council Plans and Policies

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

7.6.1   Inconsistency - Does not provide an additional crossing facility for school children.

Financial Implications

7.7       Cost of Implementation – cost of staff time investigating the proposal.

7.8       Maintenance / Ongoing Costs – not applicable

7.9       Funding source - Safe Routes to School budget as part of the wider Haeata School improvements project.

Legal Implications

7.10    Not applicable.

Risks and Mitigations   

7.11    Ongoing concern from the local community about road safety.

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 additional cost to Council.

·   No delays in traffic flow as vehicles don’t have to stop to allow children to cross the road at the existing pedestrian refuge island.

7.15    The disadvantages of this option include:

·   Does not respond to the needs of the school community.

 

Attachments

No.

Title

Page

a 

tg130701 Appendix A kea crossing Breezes Road

 

 

 

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

Megan Reid - Junior Project Manager

Michael Thomson - Transport Engineer

Sharon O'Neill - Team Leader Project Management Transport

Approved By

Lynette Ellis - Manager Planning and Delivery Transport

David Adamson - General Manager City Services

 


Council

15 December 2016

 

PDF Creator


Council

15 December 2016

 

 

6.        Lancaster Park Status Report

Reference:

16/1296687

Contact:

Peter Vause

peter.vause@ccc.govt.nz

027 707 8226

 

 

1.   Purpose and Origin of Report

Purpose of Report

1.1       The purpose of this report is to inform Council of the current state of Lancaster Park and the estimated cost to recommission Lancaster Park as an operating venue.

Origin of Report

1.2       This report is staff generated.

2.   Significance

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

2.1.1   The level of significance was determined in accordance with Council’s Significance and Engagement Policy.

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

 

1.         Staff Recommendations

That the Council:

2.         Note

a.         Lancaster Park cannot be recommissioned as an operating venue for $50 million

b.         The cost of recommissioning Lancaster Park as a venue capable of hosting tier 1 World Rugby test matches is in the order of $255 - $275 million.

c.         The Christchurch City Council (Lancaster Park) Land Vesting Act 2008 places limitations on the uses of Lancaster Park.

3.         Instruct

a.         Staff to prepare a report on options for demolition of the existing structures and future use of Lancaster Park.

 

 

3.   Key Points

3.1       Lancaster Park was severely damaged in the 2010/11 Canterbury Earth Quake sequence.

3.2       Lancaster Park cannot be recommissioned as an operating venue for $50 million.

3.3       The cost of recommissioning Lancaster Park as a venue capable of hosting tier 1 World Rugby test matches is in the order of $255 - $275 million.

3.4       Council has included $252 million in the 2015-2025 Long Term Plan for AMI Stadium rebuild.

3.5       Council is now in a position to consider demolition of the existing structures and options for the future of Lancaster Park.

3.6       Future options should consider the needs of the City, its sporting community and stakeholders, particularly in relation to size, playing surface shape, flexibility, and affordable whole of life costs.

3.7       Lancaster Park is a significant and visible symbol of the disruption caused by the earthquakes.  A decision on the future of Lancaster Park provides further tangible evidence to the Community that the City is moving forward.

3.8       The facilities at Lancaster Park are situated on land vested in the Council by the Christchurch City Council (Lancaster Park) Land Vesting Act 2008.  The Council's interests in the land is subject to a number of restrictions

4.   Context/Background

4.1       Ownership Structure

The Christchurch City Council (Lancaster Park) Land Vesting Act 2008 vested Lancaster Park land in the Christchurch City Council to be held in trust for the following purposes:

(a) rugby union:

(b) cricket:

(c) all other sports:

(d) recreation:

(e) entertainment:

(f) public assembly:

(g) ancillary purposes.

 

The Council has leased the land to Vbase.  Vbase own the buildings, stands and equipment that comprise the former AMI stadium.

Further information about the terms of the trust is set out later in this report.

4.2       Lancaster Park was severely damaged in the 2010/11 Canterbury Earth Quake sequence.

The most severe shaking at Lancaster Park Stadium occurred during the 22 February 2011 earthquake. The earthquake epicentre was shallow and very close – approximately 6 km south-east of the stadium.  The recorded ground motions exceeded the 1 in 2,500 year acceleration expectations.  The building was designed to resist 1 in 1,000 year ground accelerations.

Surveys showed that substantial earthquake induced settlements occurred and the structures are no longer vertical.  The surveyed settlements are as follows:

·     Deans Stand - 150 to 500mm settlement (with up to 350mm differential settlement in the middle third)

·     PKMC Stand - 200 to 300mm settlement (with very little differential settlement)

·     Tui Stand – 340 to 460mm settlement (with up to 120mm differential settlement)

·     Hadlee Stand – 120 to 400mm settlement and now demolished.

 

Extensive liquefaction occurred under the buildings and liquefaction material was ejected from the ground surface around the foundations. The stone column ground improvement constructed beneath the two major stand structures (Paul Kelly and Deans) suffered damage due to bulging, loosening and contamination with silty sand. This damage was investigated using physical investigations and theoretical assessment. It was concluded that the ground improvement was no longer effective or reliable under strong earthquake shaking.

The ‘above ground’ portions of the structures have also suffered extensive damage from direct earthquake shaking and differential settlements.  The damage includes extensive cracking of reinforced concrete elements, separation of adjacent structures and widespread plastic strain damage to steel reinforcing including fracturing of bars at a number of locations.


 

Post earthquake engineering assessments included mapping the observed damage, material testing and analytical damage predictions. The earthquake damage was assessed to have left the structures and foundations with a loss of capacity, reduced performance and an uncertain future.  The Hadlee Stand was considered to be unsafe and was demolished.  Damage to the main stands includes:

·    Widespread and severe damage to the primary reinforced concrete structures (ground level shear walls and upper level moment framing).

·    Widespread cracking to radial shear walls and framing.

·    Cracking and opening up of construction/movement joints in the ground floor slab.

·    Damage of varying extent and severity to Level 1, 2, 3 and 4 suspended floor slabs including cracking, spalling and splitting in topping, hollow core units and in situ slab areas.

·    Widespread severe damage to radial raking beams at bleacher support locations, damage to bleachers diamond joints at support locations, spalling and cracking in bleacher units.

·    Cracking and spalling in columns.

·    Global and differential settlement.

Analysis of the structures and testing of samples, indicated that reinforcement in the primary reinforced concrete structures would have yielded during the 22 February 2011 earthquake.  Reinforcement that has yielded has sustained permanent and irreversible strain.

4.3       A range of repair estimates were produced.

As part of the Insurance process, various repair methodologies were proposed and a range of cost estimates were prepared by Council, its advisors and the Insurers.  Estimates ranged from $15 million - $300million.  The wide range demonstrates the high level of uncertainty surrounding the scope of work, and differing views on extent of damage attributable to the earthquake events.  Generally these estimates excluded items of an operational nature such as:

·    Demolition

·    Pitch reinstatement

·    Light Towers and power supply

·    Turnstiles

·    Scoreboards

·    Advertising and promotional signage

·    Site works and parking

·    Furniture Fittings &Equipment

·    IT infrastructure and peripheral devices

·    Security and access control

·    Kitchen Equipment and Appliance

4.4       Independent Cost Review.

An RFP was issued to two independent Quantity Surveying Firms; WT Partners [QS for Eden Park re-development] and Rawlinsons [QS for Forsyth Barr Stadium]. These firms were chosen so that an independent cost review could be provided to Council, by a suitably qualified company. 

Rawlinsons were appointed and were provided with electronic files of the many insurance related structural, geotechnical, dilapidation reports and cost estimates prepared for both CCC and the insurance underwriters.  Rawlinsons were asked to review all of the work to date, by both Council, its advisors and the Insurers and to provide an opinion on the likely order of magnitude ‘of an all-inclusive costs to re-commission Lancaster park as a venue capable of hosting tier 1 World Rugby  Test Matches.  The scope was to include everything which needs to be in place before the ref blows the whistle, including but not limited to:

i.      Essential Repairs to structure – not an as new

ii.     Services upgrades

iii.    Repairs to turf and playing surface

iv.   Turnstiles

v.    Scoreboards

vi.   Advertising and promotional signage

vii.  Lighting upgrade to current broadcast standards.

viii. Food and Beverage services

ix.   Building services

Rawlinsons reviewed all the information provided and adopted the data provided by CCC advisors/consultants as being the most appropriate to use and the estimates accompanying those reports are the ones they have used in their report.  In Rawlinsons view these are the most robust estimates that cover worst case scenarios and which are the most appropriate basis for investment decision making.

Rawlinsons have prepared a high level assessment of the cost to re-commission Lancaster Park as a venue capable of host a tier 1 World Rugby test match.  Details of their estimate are provided in Attachment A.

4.5       Can Lancaster Park be re- commissioned as a venue capable of host a tier 1 World Rugby test match for $50 million?

No – The cost of repairing the foundations alone is estimated by two specialist contractors, Mainmark and Brian Perry, to be in the order of $39 - $49million.

 

4.6       How much would Council/Vbase need to spend on re-commissioning Lancaster Park as a venue capable of host a tier 1 World Rugby test match.

Rawlinsons have reviewed the documentation produced to date.  Their best estimate of the cost to re-commission Lancaster Park as a venue capable of host a tier 1 World Rugby test match is in the order of $255 - $275 million.  Council has included $252 million in the 2015-2025 Long Term Plan.

4.7       Council is now in a position to consider demolition of the existing structures and options for the future of Lancaster Park.

4.8       Future options should consider the needs of the City, its sporting community and stakeholders, particularly in relation to size, playing surface shape, flexibility, and affordable whole of life costs.

4.9       Lancaster Park is a significant and visible symbol of the disruption caused by the earthquakes.  A decision on the future of Lancaster Park will provide further tangible evidence to the Community that the City is moving forward.

4.10    Christchurch City Council (Lancaster Park) Land Vesting Act 2008

The purpose of the Act was to facilitate the development of Lancaster Park as a modern sports stadium.

After initially being privately owned, the Victory Park Act 1919 had vested title to the land in the Crown, to be used for cricket, rugby, and other sports, amusements, entertainment, and events.  The land was to be held in trust for those activities in commemoration of the Canterbury soldiers who died in World War I.

Eventually, re-development of the park to meet the demands of the public and the sports using it were beyond the financial resources of the Victory Park Board, the administering body.  In return for the Council agreeing to fund the development required, the Board agreed to hand over its assets to the Council.

Te Runanga o Ngai Tahu has first right of refusal to purchase the land from the Crown, under the Ngai Tahu Claims Settlement Act 1998.  In the interests of the Christchurch community, Ngai Tahu agreed to the proposed legislation and the deferral of its rights.

The Christchurch City Council (Lancaster Park) Land Vesting Act 2008 vested title to the land in the Council, to be held in trust for the purposes of rugby union, cricket, and all other sports, recreation and public assembly, and ancillary purposes.

“ancillary purposes” are defined in the Act as being purposes ancillary to those specified above, including “any commercial development and use on the land that generate income for the benefit of, and do not detract from,” those purposes.

The Act provides that the Ngai Tahu Claims Settlement Act applies to the land as if the Council were the Crown.  The Council will therefore be treated as if it had disposed of the land, if it uses it for a purpose that is not one of those specified.

Clearly this will need to be taken into account when the Council considers the future of Lancaster Park.

 

 

Attachments

No.

Title

Page

a

Lancaster park Rawlinsons Cost Report

18

 

 

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

Peter Vause - Development Director

Approved By

Liam Nolan - Head of Vertical Capital Delivery and Professional Services

Peter Langbein - Finance Business Partner

David Adamson - General Manager City Services

  


Council

15 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


Council

15 December 2016

 

 

7.        High Street Tree Removal Request

Reference:

16/1382847

Contact:

Craig Taylor

craig.taylor@ccc.govt.nz

941 8867

 

 

1.   Purpose and Origin of Report

Purpose of Report

1.1       The purpose of this report is for council to approve/decline the removal of the trees located at 143-157 High Street between Tuam Street and St Asaph Street.

Origin of Report

1.2       This report is staff generated in response to a request by Duncans Lane Ltd, owners of the Duncan Buildings, for the removal of the five Quercus robur fastigiata (Upright English Oak) outside the proposed redevelopment of the Duncan Buildings at 143-157 High Street, City. These buildings are classed as heritage buildings and the request for removal is on the following grounds;

·     A temporary scaffolding construction is to be erected in the carriageway to support the installation of a cantilever veranda over the footpath. The trees sit in the path of erecting this scaffolding and work cannot proceed until the trees have been removed.

·     These buildings are classed as heritage buildings and have a historical significance to Christchurch.

·     These heritage buildings are only a small number of heritage buildings left in Christchurch after the earthquake of 2011.

·     The trees obscure the façade of the building.

·     The trees create and will create future shading issues and leaf debris for future tenants.

·     The trees are inappropriate species of trees to be planted outside heritage buildings due to their size and that the trees hold their leaves most of the year creating shading issues.

2.   Significance

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

2.1.1   The level of significance was determined with a score of 23.

2.1.2   Community engagement and consultation – No CCC consultation for High Street Tree Removal Request was undertaken due to the late inclusion into the council agenda for the 15 December 2016. A CCC Significance and Engagement Policy assessment was carried out which showed the level of significance with these trees being medium as per section 2.1.1 of this report.

 

3.   Staff Recommendations

That the Council

1.         Remove the trees due to the uniqueness of the Duncan Buildings and their heritage status. The removal will allow works to proceed on these important heritage buildings and allow High Street to re-open to the public.

2.         Approval of the removal is based on an agreement by the developer with Section 6 Option 1 of this report.

 

4.   Key Points

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

4.1.1   Activity: Roads and Footpaths

·     Level of Service: 16.0.11 Maintain Street Trees

4.2   The following feasible options have been considered:

·     Option 1 - Remove all the trees and replant trees of an appropriate species.

·     Option 2 - Retain the trees.

4.3   Option Summary - Advantages and disadvantages of the staff recommendation.

4.3.1   The advantages of the staff recommendation include;

·   Developer satisfaction with outcome as redevelopment will be able to progress allowing the opening of this section of High Street.

·   These buildings are classed as heritage buildings and have a historical significance to Christchurch and are only a small number of heritage buildings left in Christchurch after the earthquake of 2011.

·   Potential for good publicity as CCC could be seen to be working pro-actively with developers to re-generate Christchurch.

·   Council takes opportunity of the removal and replanting costs to be borne by the developer.

4.3.2   The disadvantages of this option include;

·   The trees are healthy and structurally sound and are not a threat to public safety.

·   The trees have an amenity value to the local area/community.

·   The removal of healthy trees could set a precedence for all future requests for the removal of healthy trees city wide. This option could set a precedence for all future enquiries.

·   We get a number of requests by developers for the removal of healthy trees in the      central city. This option could set a precedence for all future enquiries.

Consultation.

4.3.3   Community engagement and consultation – No CCC consultation for High Street Tree Removal Request was undertaken due to the late inclusion into the council agenda for the 15 December 2016. A CCC Significance and Engagement Policy assessment was carried out which showed the level of significance with these trees being medium as per section 2.1.1 of this report.

 

 

5.   Context/Background

Initial communication

5.1       Duncans Lane Ltd (developer), contacted the CCC customer call centre to request the removal of the trees outside the proposed re-development of the Duncan Buildings at 143-157 High Street, City.

5.2       The trees were inspected by council staff and were deemed to be healthy and structurally sound at the time of inspection. In a meeting between the developer and council staff all options were explored to retain and work around the trees including:

·    The lifting of the canopies and the pruning back to allow the works to proceed.

·    Every other tree to be removed to allow the install of the scaffolding.

These options didn’t resolve the issue of the location of the scaffold framing which, in some instances, still ran through the trunks of the remaining trees.

5.3       The developer was advised that the removal of healthy trees can only be authorised by council and not council staff.

5.4       A report was requested to be submitted to council as an emergency agenda for the 15 December 2016. 

5.5       The trees are Quercus robur fastigiata (Upright English Oak) which the CCC tree asset data indicates were planted in 1994.

5.6       The trees are approx. 30 years in age and are 10-14m in height. The assessment found that the subject trees could potentially have a useful life expectancy of at least another 50+ years.  However, the life expectancy of the tree is likely to be reduced by site constraints due to the narrow width of the planting pits which the trees are located. I would expect the trees to grow to a height of 17m+ in this location.

5.7       The subject trees are located within a planting pit 1m in depth and 1m in width. The trees do not impede the footpath or carriageway.

5.8       The trees were assessed using the table below and four of the subject trees scored 3 (fair) for health and 3 (fair) for form giving an overall condition rating for the four trees as 3 (fair). One tree located at the southern end of the row of trees was classed as 4 (poor) for health and 3 (fair) for form giving an overall condition rating for this tree as 4 (poor). (See attachment 1 High Street, City. Tree Assessment).

5.9       The trees currently shows no obvious defects that would affect the structural integrity of the trees.

5.10    The overall condition of trees is assessed using the table below:          

 

             Condition                  Score

Very Good

1

Good

2

Fair

3

Poor

4

Very Poor

5

 


 

·    The score relates to the health and form of a tree.

·    Form includes the structural integrity (the ability to hold together under load) and the shape of the tree.

·    Health (vigour and vitality) is generally measured through branch growth increments, foliage colour/discolouration, bud size etc.

·    The overall condition rating for a tree is calculated by taking the highest score from either health or form to give you the overall assessment rating e.g. if a tree scores 2 (good) for health and 4 (poor) for form then the condition rating will be 4 (poor) overall for the tree.

 


 

6.   Option 1 - Remove all the trees and replant.

Option Description

6.1       Remove all the trees and replant. All costs are to be borne by the applicant. The trees are to be replaced on the completion of the redevelopment with an appropriate species of tree for the uniqueness of the location and in keeping with the heritage status of the buildings. All affected units will be consulted on an appropriate species including Urban Planners and Heritage Planners.

Significance

6.2       The decision in this report is of medium significance in relation to the CCC Significance and Engagement Policy which is consistent with Section 2 of this report.

6.2.1   Community engagement and consultation – No CCC consultation for High Street Tree Removal Request was undertaken due to the late inclusion into the council agenda for the 15 December 2016. A CCC Significance and Engagement Policy assessment was carried out which showed the level of significance with these trees being medium as per section 2.1.1 of this report.

Impact on Mana Whenua

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

Community View and Preferences

6.4       Community engagement and consultation – No CCC consultation for High Street Tree Removal Request was undertaken due to the late inclusion into the council agenda for the 15 December 2016. A CCC Significance and Engagement Policy assessment was carried out which showed the level of significance with these trees being medium as per section 2.1.1 of this report.

6.4.1   A CCC Significance and Engagement Policy assessment was carried out which showed the level of significance with these trees being medium as per section 2.1.1 of this report.

Alignment with Council Plans and Policies

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

         Financial Implications

6.6       Cost of Implementation - Tree removal of five trees including stump grinding and traffic management approx. $3899.85. Approximate costs for the replanting of five 4m high trees of an appropriate species including 3 years established maintenance of a juvenile tree to ensure survival - $3210.85. Total cost $7110.254.

6.7      Maintenance / Ongoing Costs - $3.16 every 3 years per tree (after the first 3 years of maintenance under the established maintenance period has ended. This initial establish maintenance cost is paid for by the applicant).

6.8       Funding source - All costs would need to be borne by the applicant as no provisions are made available under the Streets Operational/Capital budgets for the removal of healthy trees.


 

Legal Implications

6.9       The trees are not protected trees and the arboriculture assessment concludes that they are not a threat to public safety. However, an application to prune or remove the trees may be made to the District Court under The Property Law Act 2007 and the said Court can order the pruning or removal of a trees under the said Act.

6.10    The trees are located in the Christchurch City Central City District and so are exempt from requiring resource consent approval under the CCC District Plan.

Risks and Mitigations   

6.11    Risk CCC reputation/image caused by;

6.11.1       Removing healthy trees to allow development to proceed. This could set a precedence city wide for requests for the removal of healthy trees.

6.11.2       Treatment: Media coverage of the removal will minimise the public reaction and could possibly create good publicity for the CCC as it is seen to been working with developers to revitalise the central city.

6.11.3       Residual risk rating: the rating of the risk is medium. The removal of these trees could set a precedence for future requests for trees removals city wide however these trees would be removed due to the redevelopment of heritage buildings which are only a small number of heritage buildings left in Christchurch after the earthquake of 2011.

Implementation

6.12    Implementation timeframe for tree removal and stump grinding - This could be undertaken at any time, subject to weather, traffic management and public notification.

6.13    Implementation timeframe for replacement planting - The replacement planting is preferable during the autumn/winter planting season May to August after completion of the development.

Option Summary - Advantages and Disadvantages

6.14    The advantages of this option include:

·     Potential for good publicity as CCC could be seen to be working with developers to come to a mutually beneficial outcome and not holding up the Christchurch rebuild with bureaucracy.

·     Council will bear no costs from the removals, replanting and establish maintenance as all costs are to be borne by the developer.

·     Five 4m trees of an appropriate species replanted to improve the streetscape after completion of the works.

·     Developer satisfaction with outcome as redevelopment will be able to progress so allowing the re-opening of High Street.

·     High Street becoming a hive of activity after re opening after the development is complete.

·     Council will not receive ongoing requests for the removal or maintenance of the trees.

·     The buildings are classed as heritage buildings and have a historical significance to Christchurch and are only a small number of heritage buildings left in Christchurch after the earthquake of 2011. Removing the trees would expose the façade/buildings allowing visitors to enjoy the heritage status of these unique buildings.

6.15       The disadvantages of this option are:

·     The trees are healthy and structurally sound and are not currently a threat to public safety.

·      The trees have an amenity value to the local area/community.

·     We get a number of requests by developers for the removal of healthy trees in the central city. This option could set a precedence for all future enquiries. However these trees would be removed due to the re-development of heritage buildings which are only a small number of heritage buildings left in Christchurch after the 2011 earthquakes.

7.   Option 2 - Decline the request to remove the trees.

Option Description

7.1       Decline the request to remove the trees.

Significance

7.2       The decision in this report is of medium significance in relation to the CCC Significance and Engagement Policy which is consistent with Section 2 of this report.

7.3       Community engagement and consultation – No CCC consultation for High Street Tree Removal Request was undertaken due to the late inclusion into the council agenda for the 15 December 2016. A CCC Significance and Engagement Policy assessment was carried out which showed the level of significance with these trees being medium as per section 2.1.1 of this report.

Impact on Mana Whenua

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

Community Views and Preferences

7.5       Community engagement and consultation – No CCC consultation for High Street Tree Removal Request was undertaken due to the late inclusion into the Council agenda for the 15 December 2016. A CCC Significance and Engagement Policy assessment was carried out which showed the level of significance with these trees being medium as per section 2.1.1 of this report.

Alignment with Council Plans and Policies

7.6       This option is consistent with CCC’s Plans and Policies.

Financial Implications

7.7       Cost of Implementation - Nil

7.8       Maintenance / Ongoing Costs – $1148.75 every 5 years for ratepayers.

7.9      Funding source - Street Tree Maintenance (OPEX) budget for continued maintenance.

Legal Implications

7.10    The trees are not protected trees and the arboriculture assessment concludes that they are not a threat to public safety. However, an application to prune or remove the trees may be made to the District Court under The Property Law Act 2007 and the said Court can order the pruning or removal of a trees under the said Act.

Risks and Mitigations

7.11    Council will continue to manage the trees as part of its Street Tree Maintenance programme in accordance with its Activity Management Plans and Levels of Service, and, in accordance with industry best practice.

7.12    Risk - CCC reputation/image caused by retaining the trees.  Potential for poor publicity as CCC could be seen to be holding the rebuild up in Christchurch with bureaucracy.

7.12.1          Treatment: None.

7.12.2          Residual risk rating: The rating of the risk is very high.

Implementation

7.13    Implementation dependencies - not applicable.

7.14    Implementation timeframe - not applicable.

Option Summary - Advantages and Disadvantages

7.15    The advantages of this option include:

·     The trees are healthy and structurally sound and are not a threat to public safety.

·     The trees have an amenity value to the local area/community.

·     The removal of healthy trees could set a precedence for all future requests for the removal of healthy trees city wide. Retention will not set that precedents.

·     We get a number of requests by developers for the removal of healthy trees in the central city. This option will not set a precedence for all future enquiries.

7.16    The disadvantages of this option include:

·   Developer dissatisfaction with the outcome as redevelopment will not be able to procede holding up the opening of this section of High Street.

·   These buildings are classed as heritage buildings and have a historical significance to Christchurch and are only a small number of heritage buildings left in Christchurch after the earthquake of 2011

·   The trees obscure the façade of the building and the trees will create future shading issues and leaf debris for tenants.

·   Potential for poor publicity as CCC could be seen to be holding the rebuild up in Christchurch with bureaucracy.

·   Council will receive continuing requests for maintenance and/or removal over the years.

·   Council will lose the opportunity for the removal and replanting costs to be borne by the developer.


 

8.   Additional information.

Further advice and opinions were sought on the heritage status of the buildings and this advice was sought from Brendan Smyth (Team Leader Heritage) and Hugh Nicholson (CCC Principal Advisor Urban Design).

 

‘The Duncan's Building is made up of a series of two storey, brick terraced retail units and was constructed in 1905 .The building includes a continuous cantilevered veranda over the High Street pavement.  It is one of the last remaining buildings of its type in the city. The building is listed as a 'Significant' building under the proposed Christchurch City Plan. The building is also Category 2 on Heritage New Zealand’s ‘New Zealand Heritage List' (register number 1864).

 

The existing trees along the south west side of High Street between St Asaph and Tuam Street are located directly in front of The Duncan's Building. A couple of the trees were damaged by falling masonry in the earthquakes and have now been removed leaving five trees remaining, evenly spaced along the edge of the pavement. It is believed that the trees were planted in the 1980's and they have now grown to have substantial canopies. The canopies spread just above the veranda level and obscure from view large parts of the upper façade of the Duncan's Building from most parts of the street. Though they are deciduous trees, the tree type does not completely lose its leaves in the winter so the façade is hidden to a substantial extent all the time rather than just in the summer. The upper floors of the buildings are the highest quality and best preserved parts of these facades with, decorative brick and plasterwork and large arched frame timber sash windows. These features are all now very rare in Christchurch and it would be desirable from a heritage perspective to have them visible to a greater degree than they are currently. Also, while the trees are not doing any physical damage to the façade e.g. branches growing against windows or leaf fall to block high level gutters, the canopies are dense enough to limit views and light entry in the upper floors of the buildings. This lowers the desirability of these upper parts of the buildings for commercial use and makes it more challenging for the owners to find a viable economic use the buildings’.

 

Brendan Smyth (Heritage team leader). Nov 2016

 

"The Urban Design team have confirmed that High Street is included in the Central Christchurch Streets and Spaces Design Guide (http://resources.ccc.govt.nz/assets/the-rebuild/StreetsAndSpacesDesignGuideJune2015.pdf).  An indicative cross-section for the

Street is included in the design guide however the detailed design including the location of the trees would need to be confirmed and is likely to be affected by the major cycleway route down High Street and location of any underground services.

 

The Streets and Spaces Design Guide identifies Quercus robur fastigiata (Upright English Oak) as the recommended choice of tree species.  Given that there are no immediate plans to upgrade the High Street the Urban Design team recommends that the trees should either be retained or replanted after repairs to the Duncan Building have been completed.  It would be possible to work with the Heritage Team and the building owner to reduce the number of trees (possibly replant three or four trees rather than five trees) in order to improve the visibility of the repaired Duncans Building if the Council considered this to be appropriate."

 

Hugh Nicholson (CCC Principal Advisor Urban Design). Nov 2016


 

 

Attachments

No.

Title

Page

a

High St Tree Assessment Nov 2016

61

 

 

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

Craig Taylor - Arborist East

Approved By

Jo Hart - Manager Technical Support

Andrew Rutledge - Head of Parks

David Adamson - General Manager City Services

Mary Richardson - General Manager Customer and Community

  


Council

15 December 2016

 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


Council

15 December 2016

 

 

8.        Annual Report for the year ending 30 June 2016 - Christchurch City Holdings Ltd and subsidiaries

Reference:

16/1213001

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 note the annual report for Christchurch City Holdings Ltd (CCHL) and its subsidiaries for the year ending 30 June 2016.

Origin of Report

1.2       This report is staff generated to inform the Council of the annual results of CCHL and its subsidiaries for 2015/16.

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.

·        The level of significance was determined by the impact of the decisions on the Council and the community.

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

 

3.   Staff Recommendations

That the Council:

1.         Notes the Christchurch City Holdings Ltd 2015/16 Annual Report and those of its subsidiary companies.

 

 

4.   Key Points

4.1       The Council’s financial statements in its 2015/16 Annual Report include the consolidated financial results from CCHL and its subsidiaries - Orion NZ Ltd, Christchurch International Airport Ltd (CIAL), Enable Services Ltd, Lyttelton Port Company Ltd, Red Bus Ltd, City Care Ltd, EcoCentral Ltd and Development Christchurch Ltd.

CCHL

4.2       The Council’s investment in the group of subsidiaries (the Group) is held by CCHL on behalf of the Council.  CCHL is charged with undertaking the functions of ownership such as monitoring and reporting performance and compliance with legal, regulatory and policy settings, developing accountability requirements, ensuring shareholder value is maximised and consistency with the Council’s strategic direction. 

4.3       The Council’s relationship is with CCHL, and it is CCHL that conveys the Council’s preferences and expectations to its subsidiaries.  Nevertheless it is the activities and performance of the subsidiaries that is important to the Council, as well as the effective and efficient execution of CCHL’s governance over the Group.

4.4       The financial results of the CCHL entity (i.e. the parent) comprise dividend revenue it receives from the subsidiaries, less its operating costs and net interest from raising debt and on-lending to the subsidiaries.  Other than its investments in the subsidiaries CCHL does not own assets of material value.

4.5       For the year ending 30 June 2016, CCHL made an after tax profit of $82.3 million from the $88 million ordinary dividends from the Group (CIAL and Orion accounted for 91% of the dividend paid to CCHL) and asset revaluation gains of $8.5 million.  Offset against this were the costs of CCHL’s operations, including the net financing cost from the Group’s debt.  CCHL also received $90 million from Orion as a special dividend. 

4.6       CCHL made dividend distributions to the Council of $132 million, including the special dividend from Orion of $90 million.  The distributions made by the individual companies are noted in the table below.

Snapshot of key business highlights for the Group

Orion NZ

Net profit after tax $53.4 million

Distribution to CCHL $136 million (including buy back of shares of $90 million)

Continuing to build capacity and resilience into its network with the following key projects completed in 2015/16:

·    replacing the damaged 66kV cables in the eastern suburbs; and

·    the $60 million sub-transmission ‘northern loop’ cable project which was a key part of its post-quake repair and resilience programme.  Among other benefits it provides Orion with the ability to restore power more quickly in an emergency.

Installation of 12 electrical vehicle charging stations at its head office which are available to the public during business hours.  Further public charging stations are to be rolled out in 2016/17.

Christchurch International Airport

Net profit after tax $43.06 million

Distribution to CCHL $22 million

An increase in passengers through the airport to 6.3 million from 5.9 million the previous year, and 800,000 more than the post-quake low.

Net profit before tax has increased 14.6% on the previous year, which has included a $9.2 million revaluation gain on investment property. 

The dividend payout ratio has been increased to 90% of after tax profit, reflecting the end of the development and investment phase for the company.

New international services commenced including direct long haul to China, and increased trans-Tasman and domestic capacity.

Ongoing development of its precincts - successful opening of Spitfire Square (retail), announcement of a new 200 room hotel, and anchor tenants contracted for Dakota Park (logistics), and Mustang Park (tourism transport hub).


 

 

Lyttelton Port Company

After tax loss ($59.8 million)

Distribution to CCHL $2.6 million

The after tax loss is a result of an impairment charge taken against the assets of $78.5 million (after tax).

The relationship between Timaru and Tauranga ports is contributing pressure to an already tight pricing environment.  Productivity gains will continue to be a key focus for Lyttelton Port.  

Approval of the Lyttelton Port Recovery Plan providing for developing the port as the South Island’s major international trade gateway.

MidlandPort at Rolleston opened on 1 June 2016 providing a rail connection for container freight with Lyttelton Port.

The $85 million Cashin Quay wharf redevelopment was opened, doubling container berth capability, boosting container trade capacity and helping to future proof for predicted freight growth.

Enable Services

Net profit after tax $3.3 million

Distribution to CCHL – nil

Full ownership of Enable Networks Ltd was acquired from Crown Fibre Holdings, with a gain on reorganisation of the business of $11.8 million.  Ultra-fast broadband income increased by 71%.

By year end, total connections on the network increased by 13,522 new connections to a total of 25,817 business, school and home broadband users.  It extended its network reach by more than 31,000 homes and businesses to 117,988.

City Care

Net profit after tax $6.8 million

Distribution to CCHL $4.1 million

Profitability was adversely impacted by disruption to business as a result of the sale process and a very competitive construction marketplace.

Awarded new contract from Waikato District Council for open space maintenance for a term of up to 10 years. 

A joint venture with John Fillmore Contracting Ltd was awarded a number of construction contracts for the city rebuild including the construction of the Margaret Mahy Family Playground and the Avon River Precinct – Advanced Works.

Red Bus

Net profit after tax $0.1 million

Distribution to CCHL $1.3 million

Commitment to acquire eight mid-size urban buses with a view to matching bus size with customer demand and reduce costs.

Strong growth and profitability of Red Travel coach services.  Commitment to purchase four coaches adding scale and capacity to Red Travel.

Continued investment in new equipment, technology and ongoing training.


 

EcoCentral

Net profit after tax $1.588 million

Distribution $0.2 million

Peak of activity post-earthquake has been reached.

Strong focus on health and safety.

Development Christchurch Ltd

Distribution – nil.

Ongoing establishment activities including development of accountability documentation, governance requirements, strategic frameworks, organisation design and resourcing, work programme, funding platform and reporting framework.

Profitability of the subsidiaries

4.7       Consolidated net profit after tax (NPAT) for the Group was $38.8 million which was $44.6 million lower than forecast and $93.5 million lower than the prior year’s NPAT.

4.8       The following table compares the Group’s 2015/16 consolidated NPAT with the previous year’s NPAT, and forecast NPAT as per its Statement of Intent (SOI).

 

Forecast NPAT

2015/16

 

$m

Actual NPAT

2015/16

 

$m

Variance

Actual NPAT vs. forecast

$m

Actual prior year

NPAT

2014/15

$m

Variance

Actual NPAT vs. prior year

$m

Group total

83.4

38.8

(44.6)

132.3

(93.5)

4.9       Actual NPAT vs. forecast NPAT - the variance of $44.6 million reflects the impairment expense incurred by Lyttelton Port of $78.5 million, offset by increased profitability for CIAL (improved operating results and asset revaluation and gains on disposal of assets), Enable and Lyttelton Port (asset revaluation and gains on disposal of assets). 

4.10    Actual NPAT vs. prior year NPAT - the variance of $93.5 million has resulted from the asset impairment expense for Lyttelton Port of $78.5 million and for Orion, a $29 million reduction in revenue reflecting one-off insurance receipts received in 2014/15.

4.11    The key contributors to the Group’s 2015/16 NPAT of $38.8 million were Orion ($53.4 million) and CIAL ($43.1 million).  This was reduced by the impairment expense incurred by Lyttelton Port which led to its $59.8 million after-tax loss for the year.

4.12    After adjusting for the one-off items (impairment expense, asset revaluation gains and insurance receipts), the Group’s underlying profit before tax (i.e. profits from business operations only) was $138.4 million.  This was an increase of $7.5 million over the prior year and $19.7 million over forecast.  The improved underlying profit before tax was largely due to increased profitability from CIAL’s business operations that included growth in passenger numbers, one-off gains on asset sales and productivity gains.

Capital financing

 

Total Assets

2015/16

 

 

 

$m

Change in Total Assets over 2014/15

 

$m

Equity

 

 

 

 

$m

Return on
Equity

Return on Equity prior year

Return on equity

Prior 10 year average*

Group

3,418

+117

1,813

2.1%

6.8%

6.3%

*excluding 2013/14 when the return was around 4 times higher than the average as a result of insurance receipts.

4.13    The Group’s total assets have increased by $117 million in the 2015/16 year largely as a result of capital expenditure programmes of Orion and Lyttelton Port, offset by the impairment taken by Lyttelton Port.  Asset value gains by CIAL and Enable have also contributed to this increase in value.

4.14    Total liabilities have increased by $232 million in 2015/16 reflecting increased debt to fund the Enable and Orion capital programmes.  Around 35% of the Group’s total assets are financed by debt which is largely held by CIAL and Orion (external debt) and CCHL which has borrowed from the Council and on-lent to Enable to finance its capital requirements. City Care holds a small amount of debt.

4.15    The Group’s return on equity (ROE) of 2.1% is well below its 10 year average return of approximately 6.3% (excluding 2013/14 when one-off insurance receipts resulted in extraordinary profit for the year), and reflects a very low return for shareholders on its equity investment.  This is a result of the following:

·        low profitability and consequently ROE of Red Bus (0.2%) and Lyttelton Port (0%) relative to their total assets, exacerbated by being 100% equity-funded which means the Council bears the entire business risk of those entities; and

·        profitability of CIAL (ROE: 5.5%) that reflects the early stages of growth following a period of intensive investment and which is forecast to improve over the next three financial years.

Performance against SOI projections

4.16    Attachment A is a summary document provided by CCHL that reports each of the subsidiary companies’ and the CCHL parent company’s performance and activities for the year ending 30 June 2016.  The narrative for each of the subsidiaries is also included in CCHL’s Annual Report which is at Attachment B.  Broadly the Group’s financial performance against SOI projections is as follows:

·        A shortfall in profitability-based financial targets against expectations largely due to the impairment expense taken by Lyttelton Port. 

·        Better performance in Balance Sheet-related outcomes - net debt is in line with forecast; dividends paid are $86 million greater than expected mostly due to the special dividend paid by Orion of $90 million.

4.17    Non-financial targets have in most part been met, and for most of those that have either not been, or are partially met, advice has been provided as to what measures are to be taken to achieve completion.  Many are simply timing issues, and several are because of activity dependencies up the chain not being completed.  The following are the targets that were not achieved, and which we will monitor more closely over the next year:


 

Company

Performance target

Actual outcome

Comment

Orion

Zero work-related lost time accidents for employees and contractors

3 employee lost time accidents which resulted in 63 days of lost time.

7 contractors lost time accidents which resulted in 84 days of lost time.

An ambitious target given the nature of the work conducted by Orion.

Notification was made to Worksafe for 1 employee lost time accident; and three contractor injuries/incidents.

Orion is currently further developing and implementing its risk-based safety improvement programmes across the company which should lead to greater likelihood of achieving the target in future.

EcoCentral Ltd

EcoShop – number of customer sales 160,000 p.a.

141,996 – a reduction of 11%

EcoCentral advises this is a result of the declining migrant workforce.

Red Bus

Fewer than 15 per million hours worked

28

An increase from last year’s 21.8 but a decrease in the number of days lost as a result of work-related accidents.  Health and safety is a key area of focus for the board.

Enable

Lost time injury experience;

Serious harm injuries

Fewer than 3 per million hours worked

Zero

5.2

1

A reflection of an increased operational activity (i.e. risk).  Both outcomes are below industry standards.

Serious harm injury required a supervisor to have the tip of a finger amputated as a result of it being caught between two steel plates.  A re-design of the steel plates was undertaken.  Worksafe was notified – it did not initiate an investigation.

 

 

5.   Context/Background

Local Government Act 2002

5.1       Section 67Z(1) of the Local Government Act 2002 (LGA) requires “within three months after the end of each financial year, the board of a council controlled organisation must deliver to the shareholders, and make available to the public, a report on the organisation’s operations during that year”.

5.2       Sections 67-69 of the LGA require:

·    the content of an Annual Report must contain the information that is necessary to enable an informed assessment of the operations of that organisation and its subsidiaries, including a comparison of its performance and its subsidiaries with the SOI, an explanation of any material variances between that performance and the SOI, and the dividend, if any, authorised to be paid for the financial year;

·    the requirement for audited financial statements to be prepared in accordance with generally accepted accounting practice, which among other things requires the inclusion of comparison financial information for the previous year and an auditor’s report on those financial statements and the performance targets and other measures by which performance was judged in relation to that organisation’s objectives.

 

 

Attachments

No.

Title

Page

a

Christchurch City Holdings Ltd - summary report on its performance and activities in the year to 30 June 2016 and those of its subsidiary companies

72

b

Annual Report for year ending 30 June 2016 - Christchurch City Holdings Ltd

96

 

 

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

  


Council

15 December 2016

 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


Council

15 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


Council

15 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


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

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

15 December 2016

 

 

10.    Annual Report for the year ending 30 June 2016 - Council Controlled Organisations

Reference:

16/1260392

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 note the 2015/16 annual reports for Council Controlled Organisations (CCOs) which are not part of the Christchurch City Holdings Ltd group.

Origin of Report

1.2       This report is staff generated to inform the Council of the annual results of the Council Controlled Organisations for 2015/16.

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.         Notes the 2015/16 Annual Reports, results and performance for the following Council Controlled Organisations:

·     Vbase Ltd

·     Tuam Ltd

·     Civic Building Ltd

·     Canterbury Development Corporation Holdings Ltd (CDCHL)

·     World Buskers Festival Trust

·     Riccarton Bush Trust

·     Rod Donald Trust

·     Christchurch Agency for Energy Trust

·     Local Government Funding Agency

 

 


 

4.   Key Points

4.1       The annual reports for the following CCOs have been received for the financial year ending 30 June 2016:

·    Trading CCOs - Vbase Ltd, Tuam Ltd, Civic Building Ltd; and

·    Not-for-Profit CCOs - Canterbury Development Corporation Holdings Ltd (CDCHL), World Buskers Festival Trust, Riccarton Bush Trust, Rod Donald Trust, Christchurch Agency for Energy Trust and Local Government Funding Agency.

4.2       The trading CCOs have a commercial imperative, though Tuam Ltd and Civic Building Ltd do not trade with anyone other than the Council.  Vbase is currently operating under a work-out strategy towards recovering profitability following the loss of the Town Hall, Convention Centre and AMI Stadium from its portfolio of venues.

4.3       The not-for-profit CCOs are generally responsible for achieving public good outcomes, funded by grants from the Council and others and revenue earned from any commercial activities.  A key objective for the boards of these entities is to optimise community outcomes and expenditure.

Snapshot of key business highlights for the Group

4.4       The following table records the 2015/16 net profit / (loss) after tax (NPAT) of each of the CCOs compared with the previous year’s NPAT, and its SOI forecast.

CCTO

2015/16 NPAT

Actual

$000

2014/15

NPAT

Actual

$000

2015/16 SOI Forecast

$000

Variance explanation

Tuam Ltd

27,028

(304)

155

Insurance recoveries of $26.6 million were received in 2016, in addition to $15.3 million in 2015.  This was for the former council building in Tuam street which was sold to the CCDU post-earthquake.  Since 30 June 2016 a dividend of $46 million has been declared and paid.

All performance targets were met.

Civic Building Ltd

(886)

(1,168)

(973)

Revaluation of land in 2014/15 led to a one-off $255,000 cost in that year.  The residual variance is due to lower than expected property expenses.

Performance targets were met including retention of the Green Star 6 rating for the civic building.

 


 

 

 

CCO – Charitable Trusts

2015/16 NPAT

Actual

$000

2014/15

NPAT

Actual

$000

2015/16 SOI Forecast

$000

Variance explanation

World Buskers Festival Trust

(115)

49

2

As a consequence of the adverse weather at the beginning of the 2016 festival, outdoor venues were closed which dampened demand for ticketed evening indoor shows. Compensating operating cost savings were made but not sufficient to offset the lost revenue.  In addition, there was upward pressure on operating costs from using alternative venues to the unavailable Christ’s College venue. 

The performance target of 250,000 visitors was not achieved (visits down by 100,000) nor the profitability target.  Nine other performance measures were achieved; one was partially achieved (a workshop was not held outside the festival period).

 

 

 

CCO – Charitable Trusts

2015/16 NPAT

Actual

$000

2014/15

NPAT

Actual

$000

2015/16 SOI Forecast

$000

Variance explanation

Riccarton Bush Trust

92

(31)

0

The variance over target is a combination of insurance recoveries less repair costs (net $178,000), greater than expected grant and donation funding ($55,000) and depreciation expense that was not included in the target ($130,484).  

RBT had a number of variances across its revenue and expenditure line items compared with the prior year.  In achieving a better net surplus of $123,000 in 2015/16 it received higher grant income and donations, a higher net benefit from insurance recoveries less repair works, and higher heritage income.

Of its 13 performance measures, a number were not achieved due to either delays as a result of awaiting district plan review, or they are dependent on other project decisions such as the cycleway.  Some works remain stalled due to reviews needing to be carried out. 

Council staff do not consider any of the targets not achieved give rise to undue risk to the Council. 

Christchurch Agency for Energy Trust

 

 

40,494

429,871

(242,823)

Funding from the Trust’s appointers has ceased.  The Trust’s only activity is the administration and distribution of grant monies held.  Of the two grants forecast to be paid during the year one was deferred until 2016/17 and the other has been cancelled.

 

 

CCO - other

2015/16 NPAT

Actual

$000

2014/15

NPAT

Actual

$000

2015/16 SOI Forecast

$000

Variance explanation

Local Government Funding Agency

9,545

9,204

10,420

The variance between target and actual NPAT reflects lower interest revenue because interest rates are lower than expected.  Operating costs were slightly higher due to the costs associated with listing the LGFA bonds.

LGFA has four key performance targets, one of which it did not achieve – that the average cost of funds on debt issued relative to NZ Government securities for the year to be ≤0.50%.  It was 0.74% as a result of a disproportionate holding of longer dated bonds issued in the past six months.  The remainder of its performance targets were either achieved (one), or missed by the smallest of margins (less than 1% for each).

CDCHL (group)

(65)

168

Not projected

CDCHL finances its business activities from Council and third parties such as Government departments and entities.

The 2015/16 after tax loss is $233,000 worse than the prior year’s result due to higher project and service delivery costs and depreciation charges. 

CDCHL has a number of subsidiaries, with a book value of around $8 million.  Key activities included:

·    Powerhouse Ventures Ltd (36.7% equity interest) is progressing capital raising activities in the Australian market.  Equity raised will dilute the shareholdings of the incumbents.  The Council’s holding is valued at $7.4 million. 

·    New Zealand Food Innovation Ltd (FoodSouth) became a jointly-controlled entity with Callaghan Innovation in accordance with a Subscription and Shareholders’ Agreement. 

CDCHL met all its non-financial targets in the year 2015/16.

Rod Donald Trust

(106)

Adjusted 15

(213)

Adjusted

(213)

 

Adjusted

(40)

Capital transactions are removed from the financial results to enable meaningful comparison of its operating cost structure.

The forecast for 2016/17 anticipated grants being made of $31,000 but the actual amount granted was $68,000.  This reflected new decisions to extend (by one year) and increase a grant to the Banks Peninsula Conservation Trust and a grant made towards the Head of Harbour book publication.

Income from the Rod Donald Hut and walking products and a grant for track work on Te Ara Pātaka were received, but not forecast.

Against the prior year, the Trust has made fewer grants ($150,000 lower value) as a result of having fewer opportunities for activities that fit with the Trust’s strategies.

All 20 of the Trust’s performance targets have either been achieved or are in progress.

 


 

Vbase - summary of 2015/16 annual report and result

4.5       Since the earthquakes Vbase has been in ‘work-out’ mode as it seeks to develop a long-term strategy that enables it to conduct a profitable business.  The post-earthquake losses of the Town Hall, Convention Centre and the former AMI stadium have had a significantly adverse impact on the company. 

4.6       Although new management agreements were acquired for a number of venues - ilex Café and Events, Wigram Air Force Museum, Hagley Oval Cricket Pavilion and AMI Stadium Addington – that together with Horncastle Arena (that it owns and manages) has not been sufficient to replace the lost revenues from the assets no longer in operation. 

4.7       The impact on Vbase has been two-fold – the first was a reduction in profitability from the loss of the assets; the second was the inability of the company to cross-subsidise its other loss-making venues from the revenues of its profitable venues.  Vbase’s financial performance for 2015/16 is shown in the table on the next page.

CCTO

2015/16 Actual

$000

2014/15 Actual

$000

2015/16
Forecast

$000

Variance explanation

Vbase

(36,817)

(28,002)

(1,907)

Insurance recoveries in 2015/16 offset by asset impairment costs.

 

4.8       The financial results in 2015/16 reflect the material damage insurance claim settled during the year and an asset impairment charge with an offsetting tax benefit on the assets impaired.  At the time Vbase projected its 2015/16 performance in its Statement of Intent it was not sufficiently confident the insurance settlement and impairment charge would occur in this period.

         Work is currently in progress to develop a business plan for Vbase that is viable and sustainable into the future.  A key feature of this plan will be the contribution made to Vbase’s profitability from the Town Hall which is expected to re-open in mid-2018.

 

5.   Context/Background

Local Government Act 2002

5.1       Section 67Z(1) of the Local Government Act 2002 (LGA) requires “within three months after the end of each financial year, the board of a council controlled organisation must deliver to the shareholders, and make available to the public, a report on the organisation’s operations during that year”.

5.2       Sections 67-69 of the LGA require:

·    the content of an Annual Report must contain the information that is necessary to enable an informed assessment of the operations of that organisation and its subsidiaries, including a comparison of its performance and its subsidiaries with the SOI, an explanation of any material variances between that performance and the SOI, and the dividend, if any, authorised to be paid for the financial year;

·    the requirement for audited financial statements to be prepared in accordance with generally accepted accounting practice, which among other things requires the inclusion of comparison financial information for the previous year and an auditor’s report on those financial statements and the performance targets and other measures by which performance was judged in relation to that organisation’s objectives.

 

 

Attachments

No.

Title

Page

a

Council Controlled Organisations - 2015/16 Annual Reports

216

 

 

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

Patricia Christie - Manager External Reporting and Governance

Linda Gibb - Performance Monitoring Advisor

Approved By

Diane Brandish - Head of Financial Management

  


Council

15 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


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

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

15 December 2016

 

 

11.    Strategic Assets

Reference:

16/1343881

Contact:

Ian Thomson

ian.thomson@ccc.govt.nz

941 6469

 

 

1.   Purpose of Report

1.1       At its meeting on 2 November 2016 the Council sought a report from staff that would enable it to consider how schedule 1 of its Significance and Engagement Policy could be amended to reinstate the shares the Council holds in City Care Ltd (through Christchurch City Holdings Ltd).

1.2       This report is in response to that request.

 

2.   Staff Recommendations

That the Council:

1.         Receive the information in the report.

2.         Notes the advice from staff that it is open for the Council to decide to amend its significant and engagement policy by immediately adding the Council’s shareholding in City Care Ltd (through Christchurch City Holdings Ltd) to the list of strategic assets.

3.         Notes that if this decision is made, the Council would need to comply with the requirements of section 80 of the LGA 2002.made, which requires the Council to identify the inconsistency, the reasons for it, and any intention to amend the policy to accommodate the decision.

 

 

3.   Key Points

3.1       The Council’s resolution sought information on the following matters:

3.1.1   What constitutes a strategic asset for the purposes of the significance and engagement policy;

3.1.2   What obligations arise from the classification of an asset as a strategic asset;

3.1.3   The process required to commence consultation under section 82 of the LGA; and

3.1.4   An assessment on whether or not due to previous consultations that Council has sufficient information about community interests and preferences to enable the purpose of amendment to proceed without consulting under section 82 of the LGA

What constitutes a strategic asset for the purposes of the significance and engagement policy

3.2       The starting point is section 5 of the LGA 2002, which defines a strategic asset as being an asset the Council needs to retain if it is to maintain its capacity to achieve or promote any outcome that the Council determines to be important to the current or future well-being of the community.

3.3       In responding to the question “what constitutes a strategic asset” then, perhaps the first thing elected members should think about is what they consider to be important for the current and future well-being of the community.

3.4       What may initially come to mind is efficient and effective infrastructure that provides services such as stormwater, wastewater, and water systems.  These are on the strategic assets list, along with the Council’s waste management system, roading network and all public transport infrastructure owned or operated by the Council.

3.5       Next might be the Council’s community facilities, given the Council’s investment in its ‘strengthening communities’ programme. The Council owns a large number of assets for the purpose of providing these facilities. The Town Hall, Art Gallery (and its permanent collection), social housing, public libraries, parks and reserves, waterfront land and facilities, cemeteries, and listed heritage buildings are all on the strategic assets list.

3.6       The third point is relevant to the cost of providing that infrastructure and those facilities. While the collection of rates is by far its largest source of income, the Council receives a significant financial return from its shareholdings in a number of Council-Controlled Trading Organisations.  This has been used to keep rates down, which could be regarded as an outcome important to the current or future well-being of the community.

3.7       The Council would need to retain ownership of at least the best-performing CCTOs if it wanted to maximise the income from this source, but there is also the strategic value to the city and the region of owning these assets.  Currently the Councils shareholding, either directly or indirectly, in CCHL, Lyttelton Port, Christchurch Airport, Orion, Enable Services, and Eco Central are on the strategic assets list.

3.8       Following on from this is the issue of the Council’s capacity (or available resources) to achieve or promote these outcomes. Given the Council’s financial situation, the cost of ownership needs to be weighed against other alternatives, such as greater liquidity to meet earthquake-related costs.

3.9       In this context, the question is whether or not the Council needs to retain the infrastructure, community facilities and/or CCTOs it currently owns in order to achieve or promote the outcomes it considers important.

3.10    In summary, the conversation about “what constitutes strategic assets” may go something like this:

3.10.1    What do elected members consider to be important to the current or future well-being of the community;

3.10.2    What resource does the Council have, and what assets does it need to retain, in order to achieve or promote the outcomes it seeks;

3.10.3    The assets on that list will be those the Council may decide are strategic.

What obligations arise from the classification of an asset as a strategic asset

3.11    The answer to this can be found in section 97 of the LGA 2002, which applies to certain decisions made (or to be made) by the Council.

3.12    A decision to transfer the ownership or control of a strategic asset to or from the Council cannot be made unless:

3.12.1    The decision is explicitly provided for in the LTP; and

3.12.2    The proposal to provide for the decision was included in a consultation document prepared for adoption of the LTP.

3.13    The Council has taken a high-level, “whole of asset” group approach, rather than identifying specific assets. It has included the following statement in its list of strategic assets:

3.13.1    “Where a strategic asset is a network or has many components, decisions may be made in respect of individual components within the network without those components being regarded as strategic, unless such decisions are considered to significantly alter the level of service provided by the Council”.

3.14    The Auditor-Generals office has noted that “where local authorities have taken this approach, the effect of a decision about an individual asset should be assessed in terms of its effect on the operation of the network of which it forms part”.

3.15    The proposed sale of any asset may trigger an obligation to consult, at a level that is relative to the significance of the transaction.  If the effect of the proposal is to significantly alter a level of service in respect of a significant activity undertaken by the Council, consultation in accordance with section 97 would be required.

The process required to commence consultation under section 82 of the LGA

3.16    Section 82 sets out the principles of consultation.  More relevant to the information sought under this heading is s.82A, which applies if the Council is to consult in accordance with section 82.

3.17    Section 82A requires the Council to make the following publicly available:

3.17.1    The proposal and the reasons for the proposal;

3.17.2    An analysis of the reasonably practicable options, including the proposal;

3.18    The principles of consultation include providing people who will or may be affected by, or with an interest in, a matter with reasonable access to relevant information and the opportunity to present their views.

3.19    However, it is up to the Council to consult in such manner as it considers, in the Council’s discretion, to be appropriate in any particular instance (s. 82(3)).

Previous consultation

3.20    There are a number of relevant provisions in the LGA 2002.

3.21    Firstly, section 82(4)(b) provides that in exercising its discretion, the Council is to have regard to the extent to which the current views and preferences of people who may be affected by, or have an interest in, the matter are known to the Council.

3.22    Also, when considering whether or not to amend the significance and engagement policy (by adding to or removing assets from the strategic assets list), the Council must consult in accordance with section 82 unless it considers on reasonable grounds it has sufficient information about community interests and preferences to enable the purpose of the policy to be achieved (s. 76AA(5)).

3.23    Finally, the Council is to have regard to the nature and significance of the decision, including its impact from the perspective of affected or interested people, and the costs and benefits of consultation.

3.24    That’s quite a smorgasbord, and all these provisions are relevant to how the Council approaches the issue of previous consultation. 

3.25    In 2015 the Council developed an updated financial strategy that included a proposal for raising capital through the sale of some of the shares the Council owned in its CCTOs.

3.26    Detailed information about each of them was set out in a consultation document, which was used as the basis for public consultation on the Council’s 2015/25 LTP.  The purpose of this was to ensure the Council met the consultation requirements in the LGA 2002 for the proposed transfer of the ownership or control of a strategic asset (section 97, referred to above).

3.27    At the time the consultation document was prepared, each of the CCTOs was listed as a strategic asset in the Council’s significance and engagement policy.

3.28    Following the consultation process the Mayor, in a report to the Council, noted that one of the resounding messages heard was that the city should retain control and public ownership of core infrastructure assets. She recommended (and the Council agreed) that Orion, Lyttelton Port, Christchurch Airport, and Eco-Central remain on the list of strategic assets.

3.29    The Mayor also recommended that City Care, Red Bus and Enable Services be removed from the list, which was also agreed to by the Council.  Enable services was later returned to the list by resolution of the Council on 2 November.

3.30    Internal and external legal advice at the time of the 2015 decision was that the process was sufficient to ensure no further consultation would have been necessary had a decision been made subsequently to sell shares in any of the CCTOs referred to in the consultation document.

3.31    Likewise, the Council was entitled to decide which of its shareholdings would or wouldn’t remain on the strategic assets list.  Red Bus and City Care are not currently listed.

3.32    To put City Care back on the list would require an amendment to the significance and engagement policy.  To do this the Council would first need to consult in accordance with section 82 unless (as referred to above), the Council thinks it already has sufficient information about what the community’s views and preferences are.

3.33    The majority of submissions on the proposed capital release programme opposed the Council giving up the ownership or control of its strategic assets, particularly the four identified as being core infrastructure assets.

3.34    It could be expected that those submitters, at least, would support a decision returning City Care to the list. 

3.35    The cost of consultation is also a relevant factor to be taken into account.

3.36    In light of this, the Council may decide it would be reasonable to consider it has sufficient knowledge of the community’s views and preferences, and decide that City Care should be returned to the list of strategic assets, with immediate effect.

3.37    However, the significance and engagement policy states that the list of strategic assets will be updated as required following any changes to the annual plan or LTP.  A decision to return City Care to the list now, without waiting for the next annual plan or LTP, would be inconsistent with the policy.

3.38    As a consequence, if the Council was to make the decision it would also need to address the inconsistency.  This would mean complying with the provisions of section 80 of the LGA 2002, which requires the Council to identify the inconsistency, the reasons for it, and any intention to amend the policy to accommodate the decision.

Information about City Care

3.39    The consultation document referred to above contained information about City Care provided by CCHL.  It includes the following comments on the strategic value of the company:

3.39.1    The work that CCL does for the Council is under contractual arrangements and these contracts can be continued after the company is sold.  While CCL is valued by the Council as a contractor it does not need to own it for it to continue to service the city.  CCL has to compete with other contractors for the work it undertakes for the Council and is not the sole provider to the Council under the current arrangements.

3.39.2    There are a wide range of options available to the Council to obtain contracting services and no longer is there a need to provide competition to keep other contractors honest.  Apart from revenue from dividends there is no strategic reason for retaining a partial ownership in CCL since the ownership benefits have no practical impact on how the Council selects and controls its contractors.

 

 

Attachments

There are no attachments to this report.

 

Signatories

Author

Ian  Thomson - Senior Legal Advisor, Governance

Approved By

Rob Goldsbury - Head of Legal Services

Carol Bellette - General Manager Finance and Commercial (CFO)

  

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 


Council

15 December 2016

 

Report from Te Hononga Council - Papatipu Runanga Committee  – 1 September 2016

 

12.    Revised draft Relationship Agreement between Christchurch City Council and Nga Papatipu Rununga

Reference:

16/1403549

Contact:

Gabrielle Huria

gabrielle.huria@ccc.govt.nz

941 6786

 

 

 

Secretarial Note

As referenced in the staff report in Attachment 1, the original report to the committee included two attachments, and a third attachment was separately circulated at the start of the meeting. These attachments are not included with this report. Attachment A is the version which the committee has recommended be adopted.

 

1.  Te Hononga Council - Papatipu Runanga Committee Consideration

 

1.         The committee made additional amendments to the Relationship Agreement including:

·        That the Councillor for Banks Peninsula should always be a member of the committee.

·        Re-instating paragraph 18c, with the word ‘uphold’ being changed to ‘respect’.

·        Re-instating the clause under paragraph 16 regarding facilitating participation of Mana Whenua and Ngā Mātā Waka.

·        Adding maps of the traditional territories of Ngā Rūnanga.

 

2.  Te Hononga Council - Papatipu Runanga Committee Recommendation to Council

 

Part A

That the Council:

1.         Approve the Relationship Agreement between the Christchurch City Council and Ngā Papatipu Rūnanga as set out in Attachment A.

 

 

Attachments

No.

Report Title

Page

1

Revised draft Relationship Agreement between Christchurch City Council and Ngā Papatipu Rūnunga

500

 

No.

Title

Page

a

Relationship Agreement - As amended by Te Hononga

505

 

 


Council

15 December 2016

 

 

Revised draft Relationship Agreement between Christchurch City Council and Ngā Papatipu Rūnunga

Reference:

16/926463

Contact:

Gabrielle Huria

Gabrielle.Huria@ccc.govt.nz

9416786

 

 

1.   Purpose and Origin of Report

Purpose of Report

1.1       The purpose of this report is to update Te Hononga Council - Papatipu Rūnanga Committee on progress towards finalising the Relationship Agreement. A copy of the Agreement is attached to this report. Attachment A is a copy of the agreement prior to it being reviewed by the Christchurch City Council’s Legal Services Unit. Attachment B is a copy of the Agreement with tracked changes following the Legal Services Unit review.

Origin of Report

1.2       This report is being provided in response to the following Te Hononga Council - Papatipu Rūnanga Committee resolutions made on 16 June 2016:

THCP/2016/00007

That the Te Hononga Council - Papatipu Rūnanga Committee:

Adopt a parallel process with the Rūnanga working with Council staff to resolve issues around the Draft Relationship Agreement and that Rūnanga priorities are included in the new version of the Draft Relationship Agreement.

 

THCP/2016/00008

That the Te Hononga Council - Papatipu Rūnanga Committee:

Request that Taumutu Rūnanga Representative, Principal Advisor Ngāi Tahu Relationships, and the Chief Advisor to the Chief Executive work on the content of the draft Relationship Agreement and present to the next Committee meeting.

 

2.   Significance

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

2.1.1   The level of significance was determined by assessing the impact against the criteria in the Policy. Relative to all Council decision-making, the decision required is low significance. However it is very important in signalling the commitment to the newly formalised relationship between the Council and Papatipu Rūnanga.

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

 

3.   Staff Recommendations

That Te Hononga Council - Papatipu Rūnanga Committee:

1.         Receives the update on the Relationship Agreement.

 

 

4.   Key Points

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

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

·     Level of Service: 4.1.23 Mana whenua satisfaction with opportunities provided for consultation and input

4.2       The Committee received the draft Relationship Agreement at its inaugural meeting in March 2016. Rūnanga representatives undertook to seek their respective Rūnanga approval of the draft in time for it to be brought back to the June 2016 meeting for confirmation and subsequent recommendation to the Council for its endorsement.

4.3       Feedback presented at the June 2016 meeting confirmed that Committee members were not collectively ready to sign the Agreement as presented.

4.4       Ngā rūnanga wished to have an action plan developed and attached to the agreement.

4.5       The Committee agreed that the Rūnanga priorities be included in the draft Relationship Agreement and that the revised draft be presented at the next Committee meeting.

4.6       Once approved the action plan for implementation of the priorities will be deployed by staff.

 

5.   Context/Background

5.1       The Council agreed on 10 December 2015 to establish a Committee of Council known as Te Hononga Council - Papatipu Rūnanga Committee (the Committee).

·   The Committee represents a joint commitment to work in partnership to realise meaningful outcomes for current and future generations of all citizens living in this takiwā.

·   Membership of the Committee comprises elected members: The Mayor, Chairs of the Strategy and Finance, Regulatory and Consents, Community, Housing and Economic Development and Infrastructure, Transport and Environment Committees and Multicultural Working Group; and an appointed representative from each of Ngā Papatipu Rūnanga (in no particular order): Te Hapū o Ngāti Wheke (Rāpaki Rūnanga), Te Rūnanga o Koukourārata, Te Rūnanga o Ōnuku,  Wairewa Rūnanga, Taumutu Rūnanga, Te Ngāi Tūāhuriri Rūnanga.

 

Draft Relationship Agreement

5.2       The Council asked the Committee to finalise a memorandum or agreement that the Council and Ngā Papatipu Rūnanga can endorse.  This will set out the shared understanding and objectives of the partnership. Following preparatory work by Rūnanga Chairs and the Council, a draft Relationship Agreement came to the inaugural meeting of the Te Hononga Council – Papaptipu Rūnanga Committee meeting in March 2016.

5.3       Members undertook to seek their respective Rūnanga approval of the draft Agreement. Once endorsed, it will be a foundation for ongoing work in developing an action plan to give effect to the partnership relationship.

5.4       The draft Relationship Agreement has eight principles:

·     Mana Whenua, Mana Moana - That each Papatipu Rūnanga represents and upholds the mana whenua (customary authority) of affiliated Ngāi Tahu whānau and hapū.

·     Mana Ture - That the Parties uphold and fulfil their statutory duties and obligations.

·     Tino Rangatiratanga - That each Papatipu Rūnanga exercises rangatiratanga by being independent, making informed decisions and ensuring that tika, pono and mārama are achieved.

·     Kanohi ki te Kanohi Rangatira ki te Rangatira - That each Party commits to anchoring this relationship in face to face engagement between elected governors of each signatory to this MoU.

·     Aroha ki te Tangata - That enduring relationships require mutual respect, good faith and support.

·     Mauri Tū, Mauri Ora - That improved environmental, social, cultural and economic outcomes of mutual benefit to all Parties will require prudent stewardship of resources that actively accounts for the relationship of Ngāi Tahu whānui and their culture and traditions with their ancestral land, water, sites, wāhi tapu, valued flora and fauna and other taonga.

·     Mā Whero, mā Pango, ka oti te mahi - That enduring outcomes require genuine collaboration across all Parties.

·     Manaaki Tangata - Ngā Papatipu Rūnanga uphold their responsibility to manaaki those people who have chosen to reside within the Christchurch City.

 

 


 

 

6.   Draft Relationship Agreement

Significance

6.1       The level of significance of this option is low, consistent with section 2 of this report.  Respective Papatipu Rūnanga have been engaged in reviewing the draft Relationship Agreement. No further engagement is required.

Impact on Mana Whenua

6.2       The confirmation of this Relationship Agreement is a significant decision in relation to the development and enriching of the relationship between the Papatipu Rūnanga and the Christchurch City Council.

Community Views and Preferences

6.3       The draft Relationship Agreement was initially developed jointly by the Council and the Rūnanga Chairs. It was brought to the inaugural meeting of the Committee and has been discussed by respective Rūnanga, with feedback and review coming back to the Committee on 16 June 2016.  At that meeting Rūnanga feedback indicated that the draft Relationship Agreement should include nga rūnanga priorities and a further draft brought to the meeting on 1 September 2016.

6.4       There will be community interest in the Relationship Agreement and the progress of the Te Hononga Council – Papatipu Rūnanga Committee: it represents a joint commitment to work in partnership to strengthen the relationship between the Council and Ngā Papatipu Rūnanga; assist the Council to recognise and respect the Crown's responsibility to take appropriate account of the principles of the Treaty of Waitangi; and to fulfil its responsibilities to Māori under the Local Government Act 2002 and all other relevant legislation.

Alignment with Council Plans and Policies

6.5       This option is aligned with the Council’s Plans and Policies, as identified in 4.1 of this report.

Financial Implications

6.6       Cost of Implementation – The administration of the Committee and its meetings are met by existing operational budgets for provision of democracy services.

Legal Implications

6.7       Signatories to the Relationship Agreement do not create any legal relationship between them by way of contract or any other legally binding form.

6.8       The Agreement does not restrict, fetter or derogate from the statutory duties and responsibilities of the Council by the Local Government Act or any other statue or regulation.

6.9       Nor does it devalue or derogate from the rights of Ngāi Tahu to exercise its rangatiratanga and/or those rights confirmed under the Ngāi Tahu Claims Settlement Act 1998.

Risks and Mitigations

6.10    The confirmation of the Relationship Agreement and recommended endorsement by the Council does not carry any risks to signatory parties.

Implementation

6.11    Implementation dependencies - Endorsement of the Relationship Agreement marks the formalisation of the partnership between the Council and the Papatipu Rūnanga, following which the Committee’s work programme can develop.

6.12    Implementation timeframe – The Committee will meet regularly at intervals to be determined by its members. The work programme will evolve from Committee discussion and requests for information.

 

 

Attachments

No.

Title

Page

a 

Relationship Agreement: Version prior to Legal Services Review

 

b 

Relationship Agreement: Tracked Changes following Legal Services Review

 

c 

Relationship Agreement - Extra Revision (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

Author

Gabrielle Huria - Principal Advisor Ngāi Tahu Relationships

Approved By

Adair Bruorton - Chief Advisor to CEO

 


Council

15 December 2016

 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator

 

 


Council

15 December 2016

 

 

13.  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

15 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

14

Business Case for the Hot Salt Water Pools Development

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

Prejudice Commercial Position, Prevent Damage to the Public Interest, Commercial Activities

The report contains commercially sensitive information.

Not for release

15

 Organics Processing Plant

s7(2)(i)

Conduct Negotiations

One option may require contract negotiations to be entered into.

When an option or action has been agreed on

16

Provisional Local Alcohol Policy Appeals - Update and Appointment to Working Party

s7(2)(g)

Maintain Legal Professional Privilege

Contains legal advice about PLAP appeals process

Appeals being heard by ARLA

17

30 September 2016 Quarterly Performance Reporting - Christchurch City Holdings Ltd and subsidiaries and Vbase Ltd

s7(2)(h)

Commercial Activities

Discusses the commercial activities of the entities

When this information is publicly available