Christchurch City Council

Agenda

 

 

Notice of Meeting:

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

 

Date:                                     Thursday 6 April 2017

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

 

 

31 March 2017

 

 

 

Principal Advisor

Dr Karleen Edwards

Chief Executive

Tel: 941 8554

 

Jo Daly

Council Secretary

941 8581

jo.daly@ccc.govt.nz

www.ccc.govt.nz

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

 


Council

06 April 2017

 

 

 


Council

06 April 2017

 

TABLE OF CONTENTS

 

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

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

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

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

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

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

Finance and Performance Committee

5.       Finance and Performance Committee Minutes - 1 March 2017........................................... 7

Health and Safety Committee

6.       Health and Safety Committee Minutes - 24 March 2017.................................................... 13

7.       Health and Safety Committee - Terms of Reference............................................................ 17

Innovation and Sustainable Development Committee

8.       Options for Council to Address a Petition to Ban Single-Use Plastic Bags........................ 23

9.       Development Contributions Policy Review 2017................................................................. 35

10.     Innovation and Sustainable Development Committee Minutes - 22 March 2017............ 75

Social and Community Development Committee

11.     Botanic Gardens Spatial Plan................................................................................................. 81

Te Hononga Council - Papatipu Rūnanga Committee

12.     Adoption of Terms of Reference.......................................................................................... 165

13.     Te Hononga Council – Papatipu Rūnanga Committee Committee Minutes - 16 March 2017................................................................................................................................................ 175

STAFF REPORTS

14.     Water Management Zone Committees' Annual Reports.................................................. 181

15.     Name for Tourism, Events and Economic Development entity........................................ 195

16.     Transition Plan for merged Tourism, Events and Economic Development entity.......... 201

17.     Report on the Psychoactive Products Retail Locations Policy (LAPP) Review................ 217

18.     Housing and Business Development Capacity.................................................................... 233

19.     Land Use Recovery Plan (LURP) Update.............................................................................. 241

20.     Riccarton Racecourse Development Scheme: Consultation Response............................ 255

21.     Standing Orders.................................................................................................................... 297

22.     Code of Conduct................................................................................................................... 365

23.     Elected Member Appointments to External Bodies........................................................... 395

24.     Local Government New Zealand 2017 Conference and Awards....................................... 401

25.     Resolution to Exclude the Public......................................................................................... 410  

 

 

 


Council

06 April 2017

 

 

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 and 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

06 April 2017

 

 

5.        Finance and Performance Committee Minutes - 1 March 2017

Reference:

17/292772

Contact:

Aidan Kimberley

Aidan.kimberley@ccc.govt.nz

941 6566

 

 

1.   Purpose of Report

The Finance and Performance Committee held a meeting on 1 March 2017 and is circulating the Minutes recorded to the Council for its information.

 

2.   Recommendation to Council

That the Council receives the Minutes from the Finance and Performance Committee meeting held 1 March 2017.

 

 

Attachments

No.

Title

Page

A

Minutes Finance and Performance Committee - 1 March 2017

8

 

 

Signatories

Author

Aidan Kimberley - Committee and Hearings Advisor

  


Council

06 April 2017

 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


Council

06 April 2017

 

 

6.        Health and Safety Committee Minutes - 24 March 2017

Reference:

17/317758

Contact:

Mark Saunders

Mark.Saunders@ccc.govt.nz

941 6436

 

 

1.   Purpose of Report

The Health and Safety Committee held a meeting on 24 March 2017 and is circulating the Minutes recorded to the Council for its information.

 

2.   Recommendation to Council

That the Council receives the Minutes from the Health and Safety Committee meeting held 24 March 2017.

 

 

Attachments

No.

Title

Page

A

Minutes Health and Safety Committee - 24 March 2017

14

 

 

Signatories

Author

Mark Saunders - Committee and Hearings Advisor

  


Council

06 April 2017

 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


Council

06 April 2017

 

Report from Health and Safety Committee  – 24 March 2017

 

7.        Health and Safety Committee - Terms of Reference

Reference:

17/302062

Contact:

Mark Saunders

Mark.Saunders@ccc.govt.nz

941 6436

 

 

 

 

1.  Health and Safety Committee Consideration

 

1.         The Staff Recommendations were accepted by the Committee.

 

2.  Health and Safety Committee Recommendation to Council

 

Committee

Part A

That the Council:

1.         Receives the information in this report.

2.         Adopts the Terms of Reference for the Health and Safety Committee as set out in Attachment A.

3.         Notes that Council staff will work with the Chair of the Committee to carry out the Committee’s responsibilities and activities as per the Terms of Reference.

4.         Approves the establishment of an External Members Appointments Panel in accordance with the delegations set out within Attachment A.

5.         Notes that Council staff will work with the Chair of the Panel to carry out the Panel’s responsibility to appoint external members to the Committee as per the Committee’s Terms of Reference.

 

 

Attachments

No.

Report Title

Page

1

Health and Safety Committee - Terms of Reference

18

 

No.

Title

Page

a

Health and Safety Committee - Terms of Reference

20

 

 


Council

06 April 2017

 

 

Health and Safety Committee - Terms of Reference

Reference:

17/206389

Contact:

Mark Saunders

Mark.Saunders@ccc.govt.nz

941 6436

 

 

1.   Purpose of Report

1.1       The purpose of this report is to recommend to the Committee, the Terms of Reference of the Health and Safety Committee established for the 2016-19 triennium, for approval by the Council.

1.2       The Terms of Reference are attached for the Committee’s consideration.

1.3       The appointments process for external members incorporated in the Terms of Reference provides for the establishment of an External Members Appointments Panel, which this report recommends to the Committee.

 

2.   Staff Recommendations

That the Health and Safety Committee:

1.         Receives the information in this report.

2.         Recommends to the Council the Terms of Reference for the Health and Safety Committee as set out in Attachment A.

3.         Notes that Council staff will work with the Chair of the Committee to carry out the Committee’s responsibilities and activities as per the Terms of Reference.

4.         Establishes an External Members Appointments Panel in accordance with the delegations set out within Attachment A.

5.         Notes that Council staff will work with the Chair of the Panel to carry out the Panel’s responsibility to appoint external members to the Committee as per the Committee’s Terms of Reference.

 

3.   Key Points

3.1       On 15 September 2016, prior to the triennial general election, the previous Council considered draft terms of reference for a proposed Health and Safety Committee outlining responsibilities largely identical to those set out in Attachment A.

3.2       The previous Council resolved at that time to note the draft terms of reference and appointment process and to recommend to the new Council that they establish a Health and Safety Committee of the Council in line with the proposals as a matter of priority.

3.3       On 15 December 2016, the Council established the Health and Safety Committee and appointed the Chair, Deputy Chair and membership (including “two external members to be appointed”) set out in Attachment A.

3.4       The Council is yet to approve terms of reference for the Committee.

3.5       It is scheduled for the Committee to receive a presentation at its first meeting ahead of considering this report to assist with understanding the responsibilities of the Committee and with considering the Terms of Reference and the appointments process for external members.

3.6       The appointments process for external members set out in Attachment A is revised from the draft terms of reference considered on 15 September 2016 to reflect the amendments to the draft membership and to make the process more robust and certain.

 

Attachments

No.

Title

Page

a 

Health and Safety Committee - Terms of Reference

 

 

 

Signatories

Authors

Mark Saunders - Committee and Hearings Advisor

Sharon Butt - Manager Health and Safety

Emma Davis - Head of Human Resources

Approved By

Brendan Anstiss - General Manager Strategy and Transformation

 


Council

06 April 2017

 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


Council

06 April 2017

 

Report from Innovation and Sustainable Development Committee  – 22 March 2017

 

8.        Options for Council to Address a Petition to Ban Single-Use Plastic Bags

Reference:

17/294199

Contact:

Libby Elvidge

libby.elvidge@ccc.govt.nz

941 8916

 

 

 

1.  Innovation and Sustainable Development Committee Consideration

 

The Committee received a deputation from Megan Blakie who originally presented the Petition to the Council meeting on 31 May 2016. Megan presented an additional 265 signatures to the original petition. Following discussion, the Committee decided to add to the staff recommendation as detailed below.

 

2.   Staff Recommendations

 

That the Innovation and Sustainable Development Committee recommend that the Council:

1.         Agree to expanding Council’s non-regulatory initiatives in relation to use of plastic bags, including:

a.         Taking a leadership role by reducing where the Council itself uses plastic bags, such as in libraries and at Council-run events

b.         Expanding community education on alternatives through marketing and communication material

c.         Advocating to central government for a national response.

 

3.   Innovation and Sustainable Development Committee Recommendation to Council

 

Committee Decided ISDC/2017/00001

Part A

That the Council:

1.            Agree that the Council’s stated objective is to drastically reduce single use plastic bags in our community.

2.         Agree, as a first step, to expanding Council’s non-regulatory initiatives in relation to use of plastic bags, including:

a.         Taking a leadership role by reducing where the Council itself uses plastic bags, such as in libraries and at Council-run events

b.         Expanding community education on alternatives through marketing and communication material

c.         Advocating to Local Government New Zealand and Central Government for a national response.

d.         Working proactively with supermarket chains and retailers towards this end.

 

 

Attachments

No.

Report Title

Page

1

Options for Council to Address a Petition to Ban Single-Use Plastic Bags

25

 

 

 


Council

06 April 2017

 

 

Options for Council to Address a Petition to Ban Single-Use Plastic Bags

Reference:

17/118093

Contact:

Libby Elvidge

libby.elvidge@ccc.govt.nz

941 8916

 

 

1.   Purpose and Origin of Report

Purpose of Report

1.1       The purpose of this report is to seek the Innovation and Sustainable Development Committee’s approval to take a non-regulatory approach in responding to a petition calling on the Council to ban single-use plastic bags.

Origin of Report

1.2       This report is being provided to fulfil Council’s resolution for the matters in the petition[1] to be referred to the Infrastructure, Transport and Environment Committee.

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 low level of plastic waste (0.2% of all waste) that is already being monitored by the Council, and a high cost of staff time to regulate. The decision encourages education and community awareness of responsibly disposing of plastics and making individual choices.

2.1.2   No community engagement and consultation has been undertaken.

 

3.   Staff Recommendations

That the Innovation and Sustainable Development Committee recommend that the Council:

1.         Agree to expanding Council’s non-regulatory initiatives in relation to use of plastic bags, including:

a.         Taking a leadership role by reducing where the Council itself uses plastic bags, such as in libraries and at Council-run events

b.         Expanding community education on alternatives through marketing and communication material

c.         Advocating to central government for a national response.

 

4.   Key Points

4.1       This report does not support the Council's Long Term Plan (2015 - 2025).

4.2       The following feasible options have been considered:

·     Option 1 – Expanding Council’s non-regulatory initiatives (preferred option)

·     Option 2 – Status quo

·     Option 3 – Regulatory approach to restrict single-use plastic bags in Christchurch.


 

4.3       Option Summary - Advantages and Disadvantages (Preferred Option)

4.3.1   The advantages of this option include:

·     This option builds on existing practise and work programmes in the waste management area.

·     No extra Council resource is required.

·     By advocating to central government, Council is emphasising that plastic in the waste stream is a national issue, and also showing support for Auckland Council’s same concerns.

·     This is a communications-rich option with good community engagement opportunities that encourages positive behavioural change, e.g. Stream care groups.

4.3.2   The disadvantages of this option include:

·     Single-use plastic bags will continue to be in circulation (unless intervened by central Government) and some people will still choose not to dispose of their plastic bags responsibly.

 

5.   Context/Background

Petition to Council to ban single-use plastic bags

5.1            In July 2016 Council received a petition calling on the Council to ban single-use plastic bags[2]:

Let's lead the way in NZ and be the first 'one-use plastic-bag free' city in the country!

Let's join together to ask Mayor Lianne Dalziel & her council to ban one-use plastic bags in the city (starting with the new retail precinct in the CBD).

5.2            The reason for seeking a ban, as stated on the petition website, is that:

“NZers send an estimated one BILLION plastic bags to landfill annually. Scientists estimate it takes 1000 years (yes, you read that right) for plastic bags to degrade and during that process toxins are leached and particles can get into the food chain.”


 

6.   Option 1 – Expanding Council’s non-regulatory initiatives (preferred)

Option Description

6.1            This option encourages Council to champion non-regulatory initiatives, including:

a.        Taking a leadership role by reducing where the Council itself uses plastic bags, such as in libraries and at Council-run events;

b.       Expanding community education on alternatives through marketing and communication material, for example:

i.    Facebook reminders three times a year to use Council Yellow Bin recycling and dispose of litter responsibly

ii.   Put an article on Newsline (which will get at least 4000 views)

iii.  Using the environmental education programme as a platform to educate people on plastics and the impact on the environment, including what happens when plastic bags break down in the landfill, harm caused to aquatic life when plastic bags enter waterways.

c.        Advocating to central government for a national response, with the possibility of working in collaboration with Auckland Council to move this forward.

Auckland Council approach

6.2       The Auckland Council has faced similar requests asking for a ban on single-use plastic bags. A 2014 petition noted that plastic bags have significant adverse effects on the environment including energy production costs, limited lifespan, increasing landfill content and the inability to biodegrade. Council staff investigated options and reported back recommending the establishment of a packaging workgroup, and further investigation of non-regulatory mechanisms for reducing packaging waste. The Auckland Council also followed this up by advocating to central government to include packaging material as a priority product for product stewardship[3], with associated regulation implemented - potentially including bans to landfill or deposits/return schemes.

Significance

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

6.4       Engagement requirements for this level of significance are not required, however engaging with the petitioner when investigating possible initiatives would be beneficial to both parties.

Impact on Mana Whenua

6.5       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

6.6       1300 people signed the petition (although how many are from Christchurch cannot be determined) and are specifically affected by this option due to wanting change in the community’s approach to using single-use plastic bags.  Their views are that plastic bag use is a huge problem in Christchurch and recycling only delayed the amount of time it took for plastic to end up in landfills; therefore they are calling for local authorities, developers and business owners to ban plastic shopping bags in the central city.

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 – Absorbed in current budget.

6.9       Maintenance / Ongoing Costs – Absorbed in current budget.

6.10    Funding source – Strategic Planning and Policy budget.

Legal Implications

6.11    There are no legal implications associated with this option.

Risks and Mitigations  

6.12    Risk of disagreement by the petition signatories caused by differing views on how to reduce use of plastic bags in Christchurch, including those who continue to advocate for a full ban. This could result in further petitions.

6.12.1 Treatment – consulting with the petitioner.

6.12.2 Residual risk rating – the rating of the risk is Low.

Implementation

6.13    Implementation dependencies - nil.

6.14    Implementation timeframe – by June 2017.

Option Summary - Advantages and Disadvantages

6.15    The advantages of this option include:

·   This option builds on existing practise and work programmes in the waste management area.

·   No extra Council resource is required.

·   By advocating to central government, Council is emphasising that plastic in the waste stream is an issue, and also showing support for Auckland Council’s concerns.

·   This is a communications-rich option with good community engagement opportunities that encourages positive behavioural changes.

6.16    The disadvantages of this option include:

·   Single-use plastic bags will continue to be in circulation and some people will still choose not to dispose of their plastic bags responsibly.


 

7.   Option 2 – Status quo

Option Description

7.1       Christchurch City Council has no formal policy on plastic supermarket bags however, Council staff closely follow the internationally agreed waste minimisation hierarchy of reduce, reuse and recycle.  Council staff are also closely following the developments of plastics and packaging products as they can have significant impacts on the management of the waste stream and on recycling generally.

7.2       The Council works with residents, businesses and schools on a broad range of waste reduction initiatives and encourages recycling.

7.3       The kerbside collection of the Yellow Bin[4] includes supermarket plastic bags as a recyclable item. Supermarket bags, the only type of bag that EcoCentral is currently able to process through the Materials Recovery Facility, are baled and exported offshore. Supermarket bags are not part of the local kerbside recycling programme for many other councils. Kerbside recycling is advertised on the Council webpage, on the “Wheelie Bins” app, and the Council provides brochures and stickers regarding what can be recycled.  

Christchurch City Council Waste Management and Minimisation Plan 2013

7.4       The Waste Minimisation Act 2008 (WMA) required territorial authorities to prepare waste management and minimisation plans by 2012. The plans have to be reviewed every six years. Requirements for these plans are set out in section 43 and 44 of the WMA. Plans must have objectives, policies and methods for achieving effective and efficient waste minimisation and management within the district.

7.5       The Christchurch City Council Waste Management and Minimisation Plan 2013[5] (Waste Plan) was adopted for solid waste produced by the community. It establishes a Vision, Goals, Targets and an Action Plan for waste in the City. The Waste Plan is scheduled to be reviewed in 2018/19.

7.6       Five kilograms of (all) plastics per person per year is currently sent to landfill, and plastic bags make up less than 0.2% of the total recyclable material collected. At this low level no target is proposed to further reduce plastics to landfill. However, volumes of plastics are still being monitored.

National approach: Soft-plastics recycling programme

7.7       A three-year national rollout of a joint initiative[6]  between the retail sector, the packaging industry and the Government to enable the recycling of soft plastics was launched in Auckland in September 2015. The Government’s Waste Minimisation Fund provides financial support to projects that reduce environmental harm and provide social, economic and cultural benefits. It is funded from a levy introduced by the National-led Government in 2009, which is charged on waste disposed of at landfills to discourage waste and to fund recycling initiatives. The $700,000 contribution from the Government for the Soft Plastics Recycling Programme is being matched by contributions from retailers and selected brands.

7.8       The programme allows any lightweight plastic bags and any plastic that can be scrunched into a ball to be placed in receptacles at certain large retailers. Initially, the soft-plastic waste is sent to Australia where it is reconstituted as park benches and playground equipment. As part of the project, a drying facility capable of re-processing soft plastic is set to open in Auckland to reduce the need to export waste across the Tasman. New World Ilam launched the project in Christchurch in early-June 2016 and this has been extended to most supermarkets and The Warehouse stores. Council staff anticipate the new plastic bag collection system will reduce the amount collected at the kerbside.

Significance

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

7.10    Engagement requirements for this level of significance are not required.

Impact on Mana Whenua

7.11    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

7.12    1300 people signed the petition (although how many are from Christchurch cannot be determined) and are specifically affected by this option due to wanting change.  Their views are that plastic was a huge problem in Christchurch and recycling only delayed the amount of time it took for plastic to end up in landfills; therefore they are calling for local authorities, developers and business owners to ban plastic shopping bags in the central city.

Alignment with Council Plans and Policies

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

Financial Implications

7.14    Cost of Implementation – Absorbed within budget.

7.15    Maintenance / Ongoing Costs - Absorbed within budget.

7.16    Funding source - Strategic Planning and Policy budget.

Legal Implications

7.17    There are no legal implications associated with this option.

Risks and Mitigations    

7.18    Risk of negative response from some individuals in the community who may perceive a lack of action by the Council.

7.18.1 Treatment: Highlight work that Council already undertakes in the waste management space by consulting with the petitioner or adding an article to Newsline.

7.18.2 Residual risk rating: the rating of the risk is low.

Implementation

7.19    Implementation dependencies – nil.

7.20    Implementation timeframe – ongoing, including the Waste Plan review scheduled for 2018/19.

Option Summary - Advantages and Disadvantages

7.21    The advantages of this option include:

·   Council already recycles single-use plastic bags with the Yellow Bin collections.

·   Council will continue to monitor the development of plastics and packaging products.

·   The national Soft Plastics Recycling Programme encourages people to recycle not only single-use plastic bags but all soft plastics, e.g. all bags and wrappers.

7.22    The disadvantages of this option include:

·   No target is proposed to further reduce plastics to landfill under the Waste Plan. 

8.   Option 3 – Regulatory approach

Option Description

8.1       The petition calls on Council to ban single-use plastic bags in Christchurch. This option considers a ban through the creation of a bylaw to address the problem.

Bylaw making powers to restrict retailers' use of single-use plastic bags

8.2       The Minister for the Environment has the power under the WMA to ban single-use plastic bags from sale or from disposal to landfill; or to name them as a priority product for product stewardship.

8.3       Although section 56 of the WMA provides that a territorial authority may make bylaws to control waste, a plastic bag provided by a retailer to a customer does not meet the definition of 'waste' as it is not being disposed of or discarded by the retailer. It only becomes ‘waste’ once the customer disposes of or discards the plastic bag. Therefore it would be difficult for the Council to make a bylaw under the WMA that bans retailers from giving customers plastic bags.

8.4       Territorial authorities may also make bylaws under section 145 of the Local Government Act for one or more of the following purposes:

8.4.1   Protecting the public from nuisance

8.4.2   Protecting, promoting, and maintaining public health and safety

8.4.3   Minimising the potential for offensive behaviour.

8.5       The ‘problem’ caused by the disposal of plastic bags, as described on the petition website page, is not related to offensive behaviour or public nuisance.  Instead, it may fall within the Council’s power to make bylaws to protect, promote and maintain public health and safety. However, the Council would need very robust evidence about the problem and would need to consider all options that could be used to address the problem before it can make a bylaw (Council has to determine that a bylaw is the ‘most appropriate’ way of addressing the problem). 

8.6       Any bylaw also needs to be a proportionate response to the problem. Banning all single-use plastic bags may not be considered a proportionate response as a bylaw of this nature would no doubt have a significant effect on retailers in the Council’s district. 

Other enforcement powers

8.7       As a plastic bag is used by retailers to assist customers in transporting goods from the store, bags cannot be considered litter under the Litter Act, until they are no longer being used for the intended purpose and are deposited somewhere. The Council cannot use section 12 of the Litter Act to ban retailers from giving customers, or charging for, single-use plastic bags. The Council can, however, enforce fines for littering[7], by customers who do not dispose of their bags appropriately.

Significance

8.8       The level of significance of this option is mediumwhich differs from section 2 of this report due to this option implementing a ban on single-use plastic bags which would require a bylaw.

8.9       Engagement requirements for this level of significance are required to follow the bylaw review engagement process.

Impact on Mana Whenua

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

Community Views and Preferences

8.11    1300 people signed the petition (although how many are from Christchurch cannot be determined) and are specifically affected by this option due to wanting change.  Their views are that plastic bag use is a huge problem in Christchurch and recycling only delays the amount of time it takes for plastic to end up in landfills; therefore they are calling for local authorities, developers and business owners to ban plastic shopping bags in the central city.

Alignment with Council Plans and Policies

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

Financial Implications

8.13    Cost of Implementation – costs associated with staff and Hearings Panel time to create a bylaw, printing of communications and engagement materials, as well as enforcement staff time. There may also be costs associated with disposing plastic bags.

8.14    Maintenance / Ongoing Costs – enforcement.

8.15    Funding source - Strategic Planning and Policy budget.

Legal Implications

8.16    The biggest hurdle is likely to be whether such a bylaw might be repugnant to other laws of New Zealand.  This issue can be seen as a matter of concern for the whole of New Zealand, and the Minister for the Environment has powers that could be exercised under the WMA in relation to single-use plastic bags throughout New Zealand.  To date the Minister has not exercised any powers, therefore a bylaw made by the Council on something the Minister has the power to do might be considered repugnant to the WMA[8].  Further legal advice would be needed on this point if the Council did want to investigate a bylaw.

Risks and Mitigations   

8.17    Risk of shops still using single-use plastic bags caused by retailers not cooperating with a bylaw (even if it could be lawfully introduced).  This will result in plastic bags continuing to be in circulation and additional enforcement resources being required to monitor shops.

8.17.1 Treatment: informed consultation with business associations to encourage agreement and compliance with the regulation.

8.17.2 Residual risk rating: the rating of the risk is Medium.

Implementation

8.18    Implementation dependencies - enforcement resourcing.

8.19    Implementation timeframe – ongoing.

Option Summary - Advantages and Disadvantages

8.20    The advantages of this option include (if successfully implemented):

·   Single-use plastic bags will no longer be provided by retailers in Christchurch (however, they would otherwise remain in circulation). 

8.21    The disadvantages of this option include:

·   Retailers will look to using other forms of carry bags, which may have a higher carbon footprint to produce.

·   Shoppers may still use plastic carry bags that they get from outside of Christchurch city or that are otherwise in circulation.

·   Regulation will require enforcement, which would be extraordinarily difficult given the nature of the activity (and the limitations of a bylaw).

 

Attachments

There are no attachments to this report.

 

Confirmation of Statutory Compliance

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

(a) This report contains:

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

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

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

 

Signatories

Author

Libby Elvidge - Policy Analyst

Approved By

Helen Beaumont - Head of Strategic Policy

Brendan Anstiss - General Manager Strategy and Transformation

 


Council

06 April 2017

 

Report from Innovation and Sustainable Development Committee  – 22 March 2017

 

9.        Development Contributions Policy Review 2017

Reference:

17/294223

Contact:

Gavin Thomas

gavin.thomas@ccc.govt.nz

941 8834

 

 

 

 

1.  Innovation and Sustainable Development Committee Recommendation to Council

 

Part A (Staff recommendation accepted without change)

That the Council:

1.         Agrees to the amendments to the draft Development Contributions Policy as detailed in Attachment A of the report for the purposes of community consultation.

2.         Agrees to the proposed further use of catchments to assess and charge for development contributions as recommended in Attachment B of the report.

3.         Notes that the catchment boundaries and development contribution charge effects will be presented to the Council in the updated draft Development Contributions Policy 2017 by May 2017.

4.         Notes that the central city development contribution rebate schemes remains in place for the 2017/18 year.

 

 

Attachments

No.

Report Title

Page

1

Development Contributions Policy Review 2017

36

 

No.

Title

Page

a

Development Contributions Policy – proposed minor policy amendments 2017

47

b

Catchment options assessment

66

c

Development contributions – central city rebate schemes

71

 

 


Council

06 April 2017

 

 

Development Contributions Policy Review 2017

Reference:

17/144058

Contact:

Gavin Thomas

gavin.thomas@ccc.govt.nz

941 8834

 

 

1.   Purpose and Origin of Report

Purpose of Report

1.1       To seek Council approval of the proposed amendments to the Development Contributions Policy for community consultation. 

1.2       To seek Council agreement to extend the use of catchments, so that development contributions more closely match actuals costs in different parts of the district, in the Development Contributions Policy.

1.3       To update the Council on the development contribution rebate schemes for residential and non-residential developments currently in place for the central city.

Origin of Report

1.4       This report is staff generated and was referred to in a report to the Council on 22 September 2016. That report, on the review to the Development Contributions Policy being undertaken at that time, detailed the intention for a further review in 2016/17. Paragraph 5.14 of that report said:

A full review of the Development Contributions Policy is planned to be undertaken the 2016-17 year. This will include a review of the wording of the Policy, the possible introduction of sub-district catchments for more activities, a review of Household Unit Equivalent (HUE) assessment methodology and an update of the capital expenditure programme and development contribution charges if required.

1.5       Further information on development contribution rebates was requested by the Council at its 26 January meeting.

2.   Significance

2.1       The decisions 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 an assessment of the issues covered. It is important to note that there will be community consultation undertaken on the draft Development Contributions Policy.

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


 

 

3.   Staff Recommendations

That the Innovation and Sustainable Development Committee recommend that the Council:

1.         Agrees to the amendments to the draft Development Contributions Policy as detailed in Attachment 1 of the report for the purposes of community consultation.

2.         Agrees to the proposed further use of catchments to assess and charge for development contributions as recommended in Attachment 2 of the report.

3.         Notes that the catchment boundaries and development contribution charge effects will be presented to the Council in the updated draft Development Contributions Policy 2017 by May 2017.

4.         Notes that the central city development contribution rebate schemes remains in place for the 2017/18 year.

 

4.   Key Points

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

4.1.1   Activity: Strategic Planning and  Policy

·     Level of Service: 17.0.1 Advice is provided to Council on high priority policy and planning issues that affect the City

4.2       The following feasible options have been considered:

·           Option 1 – Agree to the proposed minor policy amendments detailed in Attachment 1, agree to the use of catchments recommended in Attachment 2, and extend the central city development contribution rebate scheme for the 2017/18 financial year (preferred option).

·           Option 2 – Agree to the proposed minor policy amendments detailed in Attachment 1 only.

·  Option 3 – Do not amend or further review the Development Contributions Policy at this stage.

4.3       Option Summary - Advantages and Disadvantages (preferred option 1)

4.3.1   The advantages of this option include:

·           Enables the review of the Development Contributions Policy to proceed with policy amendments agreed (subject to the community engagement process).

·           Enables front-end engagement on major policy issues with key stakeholders including the Christchurch Development Forum.

·           Provides time for a more detailed consideration of the central city development contributions rebate schemes and enables the Council to give developers reasonable notice of a change in policy.

4.3.2   The disadvantages of this option include:

·  There are a relatively large number of policy issues to be considered at once.

·           Funding is required to continue the central city development contributions rebate schemes (though this has been budgeted).


 

 

5.   Context/Background

Development Contributions Policy (DCP)

5.1       Christchurch City Council has had a Development Contributions Policy (DCP) since 2004. The DCP enables the Council to recover a share of the costs of providing new infrastructure to service growth demand from developers who place additional demand on the Council’s infrastructure networks and therefore benefit from the Council’s investment.

5.2       The DCP must comply with requirements detailed in the Local Government Act 2002 (LGA). It is required to be reviewed at least every three years and can be reviewed at any time, as long as the review process meets the requirements of the LGA.

5.3       The DCP was reviewed in 2015, in parallel with the preparation of the Council’s Long Term Plan 2015-25, and amended in 2016 to ensure it remained consistent with the Council’s amended Long Term Plan. This review reflected the Council’s adoption of a revised capital expenditure programme, and changes to the assumed future interest and inflation rates.

The current review process

5.4       While the current DCP meets legislative requirements there are a range of policy provisions proposed to be changed to ensure continued compliance with best practice.  There are also a number of minor amendments proposed to improve the clarity and efficiency of various aspects of the policy. The proposed changes are in response to opportunities identified by staff to improve the implementation of the policy, from their experience over the past two years.

5.5       A project steering group and a project team, comprising key staff within the development contributions process, have been established to oversee and undertake the review process. The proposals for change presented in Attachment 1 have been agreed by the steering group and the project team.

5.6       Work has also been undertaken on reviewing the way catchments are used to allocate development contribution costs and charges. This is dealt with in a separate section of this report.

5.7       The review of the DCP has recognised the principles detailed in the LGA as well those agreed by the Council as part of the 2015 review process. In summary, the seven principles in the LGA require that approaches to development contributions should promote:

·    transparency

·    simplicity ( including practicality and administrative efficiency)

·    fair and reasonable charges (proportional to demand)

·    certainty

·    beneficiary/causer pays

·    intergenerational equity 

·    compliance with the law.

The principles agreed by the Council as part of the 2015 review of the DCP are:

·    wherever possible developments should pay the full capital cost to the Council of servicing new development

·    variation in development contribution charges is acceptable to reflect variation in costs of servicing different types of demand in different areas

·    intentional cost sharing be avoided wherever feasible to support fair and reasonable charges (recognising that some cost sharing is inevitable and may be desirable).

5.8       The Council’s current DCP is available on the Council website at https://ccc.govt.nz/the-council/plans-strategies-policies-and-bylaws/policies/building-and-planning-policies/development-contributions-policy/

5.9       It is proposed that the Development Forum be fully engaged in the consultation process if Council determines to review the policy. 

Summary of the proposed policy amendments

5.10    The proposed amendments are a mix of minor policy changes, clarifications and editorial improvements:

·    Update references to the Christchurch District Plan – previously the Christchurch City Plan and/or the Banks Peninsula District Plan

·    Clarify that pipes and lines installed by network utilities are not liable for development contributions

·    Add an explicit ‘development test’ to the methodology

·    Small residential unit adjustments: remove the garaging clause; assess storm-water on actual impervious surface area; and remove the rebate scheme

·    Clarify the description of a small residential unit

·    Clarify requirements for special assessments for non-residential development

·    Clarify the valuation methodology to be used for land taken for reserves

·    Require a legal agreement where a developer is to provide infrastructure and/or land in lieu of  cash contributions

·    Clarify Crown exemptions

·    Clarify the requirement for the Council to pay development contributions where applicable

·    Provide guidance on dealing with applications for remissions and reductions

·    Clarify the methodology used to assess and invoice staged developments

·    Link the sunset clause for the temporary building provision in the DCP to those in the Christchurch District Plan and the Greater Christchurch Regeneration Act

·    Clarify the rationale for and approach to catchments

·    Clarify how the ‘growth model’ is used to forecast future development at a catchment level.

6.   Context/Background

Use of catchments to assess development contribution charges

6.1       Section 197 of the LGA details principles that must be taken into account when preparing a development contributions policy. Clause (g) of this section states:

when calculating and requiring development contributions, territorial authorities may group together certain developments by geographic area or categories of land use, provided that—

(i) the grouping is done in a manner that balances practical and administrative efficiencies with considerations of fairness and equity; and

(ii) grouping by geographic area avoids grouping across an entire district wherever practical.

6.2       Clause two clearly requires councils to avoid use of district-wide catchments where practicable.

6.3       Christchurch City Council’s current DCP uses catchments to establish development contribution charges for three activities; neighbourhood parks, stormwater and flood protection and road network. Neighbourhood parks and road network use a common catchment configuration of eight catchments based on categories of land use. Stormwater and flood protection uses thirteen catchments based on water flow.

6.4       Using catchments to determine development contributions promotes a more accurate allocation of the costs of providing infrastructure for growth in different areas and enables those costs to be more accurately targeted to developments that benefit.

6.5       In general, a catchment approach will result in lower development contribution charges in areas where there is existing infrastructure with growth capacity or where the cost of providing growth infrastructure per development is lower. This tends to be areas in and around the central city where legacy infrastructure with growth capacity and higher density of development means providing new infrastructure costs less per development.

6.6       The converse is that providing growth infrastructure for development in greenfield areas and/ or areas on the periphery of the established urban area, often with low development density, is likely to cost the Council significantly more to service each development.  

6.7       To ensure the DCP is consistent with the LGA, it is recommended a catchment approach be taken to all activities where practicable and where it will promote fairness and equity. The activities recommended for a catchment approach are: water supply, wastewater collection, wastewater treatment and disposal, active travel and public transport.

6.8       The proposed approach to these changes to the use of catchments is as follows:

·    Active transport – to have a metropolitan catchment that comprises the central city, inner city, suburban and greenfield catchments currently used for the road network activity. This reflects the benefit of the growth assets is able to be used primarily by developments within these city catchments. The rural and Banks Peninsula catchments would not be assessed for a development contribution for active transport (i.e. no charge).

·    Public transport –a metropolitan catchment that comprises the central city, inner city, suburban and greenfield catchments currently used for the road network activity. This reflects the benefit of the growth assets is able to be used primarily by developments within these city catchments. The rural and Banks Peninsula catchments would not be assessed for a development contribution for public transport.

·    Water supply – catchments based on proposed water supply zones (independent and more resilient supply zones), grouped in terms of land use and development status to establish approximately 8 metropolitan catchments and a single catchment for Banks Peninsula (excluding Lyttelton Harbour). This approach will balance the aim of targeting costs and maintaining administrative efficiency. This approach will result in significantly higher charges in the Banks Peninsula and greenfield catchments and lower charges for city and suburban catchments.

·    Wastewater collection – catchments based on network connectivity, grouped by land use and development status to establish 8 metropolitan catchments and a single catchment for Banks Peninsula. This approach will require some cross-catchment project cost allocation. Lyttelton Harbour could potentially be included in a southern suburban catchment when infrastructure modifications linking the Lyttelton wastewater network with Christchurch are confirmed.

This approach will better balance the targeted actual costs with maintaining administrative efficiency and will likely result in higher charges in the Banks Peninsula and greenfield catchments and lower charges for city and suburban catchments.

·    Wastewater treatment and disposal – a Christchurch catchment and a single catchment for Banks Peninsula. Lyttelton Harbour could potentially be included as part of the Christchurch catchment if infrastructure modifications linking Lyttelton to Christchurch are confirmed. are made will increase DC charges for remaining Banks Peninsula catchments:

This approach will balance the targeting costs with maintaining administrative efficiency and will likely result in higher charges in the Banks Peninsula and greenfield catchments and lower charges for city and suburban catchments.

6.9       Analysis of why these activities are particularly suited to a catchment approach are covered in Attachment 2.

6.10    It is proposed that development contributions for regional parks, garden and heritage parks and sports parks continue to be based on district-wide catchments with a standard development contribution per household unit equivalent regardless of where the development is located. This reflects the ability of developments to benefit from the ability to access the facilities on a relatively equal basis regardless of the location of the development.

6.11    The proposed changes in the use of catchments will have some general expected impacts on development contribution charges. These are likely to be:

·    Central city, inner city and suburban catchments are likely to see a small to medium reduction in development contribution charges due to reductions in development contribution charges for water supply and wastewater collection.

·    Greenfield and Banks Peninsula catchments are likely to see a medium to significant increase in overall development contribution charges (reflecting higher actual costs: despite Banks Peninsula catchments no longer payer development contributions for active travel and public transport).

6.12    Details on the impact on development contribution charges will be seen when a draft revised Development Contributions Policy is presented to the Council.

6.13    If, as a result of the use of catchments, the Council considers some charges to be a barrier to development or will cause dis-benefits to the wider community, the Council could consider approaches to reduce the charges. In general there two approaches to consider:

·    Cap certain development contribution charges. This could be at a charge per activity or at the total charge level. This approach maintains effective targeting of the costs of providing for development even if some of these charges are then reallocated. Funding the gap between the cap figure and the full development contribution should come from the beneficiaries of the Council’s approach – either a targeted rate on the community affected or from the general rate if the wider community benefits.

·    Amalgamate catchments in such a way that cross-subsidisation reduces particularly high development contribution charges. This is in effect what the current use of district-wide catchments for water and wastewater activities achieves. This approach does not provide for clear allocation of the costs of providing for growth to the developments and communities that benefit.

·    The “cap” approach is recommended for reasons of transparency and equity.

Central city development contributions rebate schemes

6.14    The Council introduced a $10 million development contributions rebate scheme for residential developments as part of its Three Year Plan in 2013. The rebate was to encourage developers to build more homes faster inside the Four Avenues as part of a long-term plan to revitalise the Central City. The initial residential scheme was offered to developers who built more residences on a site than were there before the 4 September 2010 earthquake. The development was required to meet certain urban design standards.

6.15    The residential rebate scheme was to end on 30 June 2015 but was extended for one year when it became clear the fund wouldn’t be fully allocated by 30 June 2015.

6.16    In preparing its Long Term Plan 2015-25, the Council agreed to budget for a further central city residential development contributions rebate scheme of $10 million and a new non-residential central city rebate scheme of $5 million. Criteria for the schemes were adopted by the Council on 27 August 2015, with the availability of both schemes to be until 20 June 2020 or when the funding was fully allocated, whichever came first.

6.17    Analysis of the two central city rebate schemes is provided in Attachment 3.


 

7.   Option 1 - Agree to the proposed policy amendments detailed in Attachment 1, agree to the approach to catchments recommended in Attachment 2 and note the continuation of the central city development contributions rebate schemes as set out in Attachment 3 (preferred)

Option Description

7.1       Amend the policy provisions to ensure compliance with best practice, and to improve clarity and efficiency – proposed amendments are outlined in Attachment 1.

7.2       Agree to the proposed use of catchments as recommended in Attachment 2. This will enable the development contribution charges to more accurately reflect the cost of providing infrastructure in different parts of the district.

7.3       Agree to the central city development contributions rebate schemes continuing to operate in accordance with scheme criteria as recommended in Attachment 3. If the Council wishes, a report providing more detailed analysis of the schemes can be presented to the Council in 2017/18. 

Significance

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

7.5       Engagement requirements for this level of significance are that no additional engagement is required over and above that required for a review of the Policy. A review of the policy must meet the requirements of section 82 of the Local Government Act.

Impact on Mana Whenua

7.6       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

7.7       The development community is specifically affected by this option due to changes to the Council’s Development Contributions Policy.  The views of the Christchurch Development Forum will be sought.

7.8       When the Council has approved a draft Policy the community engagement process used will be targeted to the development community and open to the wider community.

Alignment with Council Plans and Policies

7.9       This option is consistent with Council’s plans and policies.

Financial Implications

7.10    Cost of Implementation – some of the proposed policy changes have minor financial implications in terms of development contributions revenue. These changes are impossible to predict precisely and are considered to be immaterial in the context of the Council’s overall development contributions revenue.

7.11    Maintenance / Ongoing Costs – none applicable

7.12    Funding source – not applicable

Legal Implications

7.13    The Legal Services Unit has reviewed the proposed changes and their feedback has been incorporated into the proposals.

Risks and Mitigations  

7.14    There are no risks identified with the Council agreeing to the proposed policy changes.

Implementation

7.15    Implementation dependencies - The policy amendments detailed in this report are part of a wider review of the Policy.

7.16    Implementation timeframe – It is proposed that the full review of the Policy is completed by 30 September 2017. There is no legislative or other requirement regarding the timing of a review. The proposed date will enable the Council’s adopted capital works programme to be accurately captured in the schedule of assets and development contribution charges.

Option Summary - Advantages and Disadvantages

7.17    The advantages of this option include:

a)  Enables the review of the Policy to proceed with the policy amendments agreed (subject to Council consideration of a full draft Policy and the community engagement process).

b)  Enables front-end engagement on major policy issues with the Christchurch Development Forum.

c)   The reviewed Policy will be more transparent, easier to understand and easier to implement.

7.18    The disadvantages of this option include:

a)  There are costs associated with a policy review.

8.   Option 2 - Agree to the proposed policy amendments detailed in Attachment 1 only

Option Description

8.1       As for option 1 but with no further work on catchments.

Significance

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

8.3       Engagement requirements for this level of significance are as for option 1.

Impact on Mana Whenua

8.4       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

8.5       Members of the development community are likely to be affected by this option due to i changes to the Council’s Development Contributions Policy.  The views of the Christchurch Development Forum will be sought as part of community engagement.

Alignment with Council Plans and Policies

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

Financial Implications

8.7       Cost of Implementation – as for option 1.

8.8       Maintenance / Ongoing Costs – Not applicable.

8.9       Funding source – Not applicable.

Legal Implications

8.10    As for option 1.

Risks and Mitigations   

8.11    There are no risks identified with the Council agreeing to the proposed policy changes.

Implementation

8.12    Implementation dependencies – as for option 1.

8.13    Implementation timeframe – as for option 1.

Option Summary - Advantages and Disadvantages

8.14    The advantages of this option include:

a)  As for option 1.

8.15    The disadvantages of this option include:

a)  Development contribution charges do not match costs across the district.

9.   Option 3 – Make no changes to the Development Contributions Policy

Option Description

9.1       The Council does not agree to the proposed policy changes detailed in Attachment 1 or to any further review of the Development Contributions Policy at this time.

Significance

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

9.3       Engagement requirements for this level of significance are consistent with those proposed.

Impact on Mana Whenua

9.4       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

9.5       Not applicable for this option.

Alignment with Council Plans and Policies

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

Financial Implications

9.7       Cost of Implementation – Nil.

9.8       Maintenance / Ongoing Costs – Not applicable.

9.9       Funding source - Not applicable.

Legal Implications

9.10    Not applicable.

Risks and Mitigations  

9.11    Not reviewing and improving the Policy may lead to suboptimal decisions being made in implementing the current policy.

9.12    Risk – the Policy is not improved as proposed.

9.12.1 Treatment: Review in parallel with preparing the LTP 2018-28.

9.12.2 Residual risk rating: the rating of the risk is Low.

Implementation

9.13    Implementation dependencies – not applicable.

9.14    Implementation timeframe – not applicable.

Option Summary - Advantages and Disadvantages

9.15    The advantages of this option include:

a)  Resource allocation – none required.

9.16    The disadvantages of this option include:

a)  The Development Contributions Policy is not improved as proposed. While there is no direct legal risk identified with this option the proposed changes to the Policy are being made to improve the usability of the policy and to ensure the policy continues to evolve to reflect current best practice and compliance requirements. 

 

Attachments

No.

Title

Page

a 

Development Contributions Policy – proposed minor policy amendments 2017

 

b 

Catchment options assessment

 

c 

Development contributions – central city rebate schemes

 

 

 

Confirmation of Statutory Compliance

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

(a) This report contains:

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

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

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

 

Signatories

Author

Gavin Thomas - Principal Advisor Economic Policy

Approved By

Helen Beaumont - Head of Strategic Policy

Brendan Anstiss - General Manager Strategy and Transformation

 


Council

06 April 2017

 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

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

06 April 2017

 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


Council

06 April 2017

 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


Council

06 April 2017

 

 

10.    Innovation and Sustainable Development Committee Minutes - 22 March 2017

Reference:

17/294280

Contact:

Chris Turner-Bullock

christopher.turner@ccc.govt.nz

941 8233

 

 

1.   Purpose of Report

The Innovation and Sustainable Development Committee held a meeting on 22 March 2017 and is circulating the Minutes recorded to the Council for its information.

 

2.   Recommendation to Council

That the Council receives the Minutes from the Innovation and Sustainable Development Committee meeting held 22 March 2017.

 

 

Attachments

No.

Title

Page

A

Minutes Innovation and Sustainable Development Committee - 22 March 2017

76

 

 

Signatories

Author

Christopher Turner-Bullock - Committee Advisor

  


Council

06 April 2017

 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


Council

06 April 2017

 

Report from Social and Community Development Committee  – 1 March 2017

 

11.    Botanic Gardens Spatial Plan

Reference:

17/215427

Contact:

Brent Smith

brent.smith@ccc.govt.nz

941 8645

 

 

 

 

1.  Social and Community Development Committee Consideration

 

The Social and Community Development Committee considered a report by Isthmus, Landscape Architects on the Christchurch Botanic Gardens Spatial Plan.

 

2.   Staff Recommendations

 

That the Social and Community Development Committee:

1.         Endorse the Christchurch Botanic Gardens Spatial Plan.

 

3.  Social and Community Development Committee Recommendation to Council

 

Part A

That the Council:

1.            Approve the Christchurch Botanic Gardens Spatial Plan.

 

 

 

Attachments

No.

Report Title

Page

1

Botanic Gardens Spatial Plan

82

 

No.

Title

Page

a

Botanic Gardens Spatial Plan Final - Feb 2017

85

 

 


Council

06 April 2017

 

 

Botanic Gardens Spatial Plan

Reference:

17/175139

Contact:

Brent Smith

Brent.Smith@ccc.govt.nz

9418645

 

 

1.   Purpose and Origin of Report

Purpose of Report

1.1       The purpose of this report is for the Social and Community Development Committee to endorse the Botanic Gardens Spatial Plan.

Origin of Report

1.2       This report staff generated

2.   Significance

2.1       The decisions 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 fact that the projects depicted in the Spatial Plan were extensively consulted on in 2007.

 

 

3.   Staff Recommendations

That the Social and Community Development Committee:

1.         Endorse the Botanic Gardens Spatial Plan.

 

 

4.   Key Points

4.1       The Botanic Gardens Spatial Plan is an illustration of the key projects contained within the Botanic Gardens Master Plan 2007.

4.2       The Spatial plan will allow staff to define future funding requirements associated to delivery of the management plan and master plan objectives.

 

 

5.   Context/Background

Master Plan and Management Plan

5.1       A Master Plan and Management Plan for the Botanic Gardens were adopted by Council in 2007 following extensive consultation with key stakeholders and the wider community, and form the key background documents for the development of the Spatial Plan.

 

5.2       The Master plan sets out an overall strategy for Hagley Park and the Botanic Gardens and contains a series of priority projects, however it does not provide enough guidance in respect to how the various projects and initiatives can develop in a connected manner.

 

Spatial Plan Purpose

5.3       The Spatial Plan is a “top down” or high level operational  tool that “gives effect” and positions projects and objectives of the Master Plan and Management Plan, but does not delve into specific layout and detail.

5.4       The purpose of the Spatial Plan is to visually portray how the various complex components of the Botanic Gardens can be woven together to enrich visitor experience and engagement, and improve operation and management.

5.5       It does not effectively determine a detailed design outcome for any specific master plan project, but provides direction and a detailed scope for any particular development.

5.6       A key driver for development of this illustration of the master plan is to support the fundraising work of the Christchurch Botanic Gardens Charitable Trust. Council signed an Memorandum of Understanding in 2015 with the trust to enable philanthropic fund raising for development of the Botanic Gardens Master plan projects.

Consultation and Design Development

5.7       The Spatial Plan has been developed through an interactive consultative process with the core project team, project partners, specialist staff and key stakeholders.

5.8       The project partners are The Botanic Gardens Trust and Ngai Tuahiriri (represented by Matapopore Charitable Trust).

5.9       The Key Stakeholder Reference Group is Christchurch City Council Heritage Advisors, Heritage New Zealand Advisor, Canterbury District Health Board, Canterbury Museum, Christ’s College, Friends of the Botanic Gardens, Hagley Ferrymead Community Board representative (previous Chair), Inner City West Neighbourhood Association and Victoria Neighbourhood Association.

5.10    Further input was sought from Christchurch Youth Council, Cycling and Active travel groups, Christchurch City Council Recreation planners, Christchurch City Council Visitor experience, CPTED advisors.

Operational Review

5.11    In tandem with the Spatial Plan project, a “bottom up” operational review, including a current asset condition analysis of the Botanic Garden and Hagley park assets has been undertaken. This provides important detail around the condition of existing features that will form the basis for ensuring development of the master plan initiatives consider current conditions and initiatives.

Next steps

5.12    The next steps will be to work through the detail from the Spatial Plan and the operational review, to put together a business case, for inclusion in the next Long Term Plan process for Council endorsement.  This will identify key projects, budgets and timelines for short term projects (0 – 3 years), medium term projects (4 – 10 years) and long term projects (11- 30 years).

5.13    Following confirmation of funding, consultation and detailed design of key projects will occur prior to implementation, and asset renewal work will be undertaken.

 

 

Attachments

No.

Title

Page

a 

Botanic Gardens Spatial Plan Final - Feb 2017

 

 

 

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

Brent Smith - Team Leader Asset Planning and Management Parks

Approved By

Andrew Rutledge - Head of Parks

Mary Richardson - General Manager Customer and Community

 


Council

06 April 2017

 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

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

06 April 2017

 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

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

06 April 2017

 

Report from Te Hononga Council – Papatipu Rūnanga Committee Committee  – 16 March 2017

 

12.    Adoption of Terms of Reference

Reference:

17/273575

Contact:

Gabrielle Huria

Gabrielle.Huria@ccc.govt.nz

941 6736

 

 

 

 

1.  Te Hononga Council – Papatipu Rūnanga Committee Committee Consideration

 

An amended version of the draft terms of reference was tabled at the Committee meeting, as requested by Te Kāhui Kahukura. The one minor change was to the first paragraph to acknowledge that there are two Rūnanga whose takiwā extend beyond the Christchurch City Council boundaries. The previous version implied there was only one. The Committee endorsed the amended version without any further changes.

The original draft is Attachment A. The amended version endorsed by the Committee is Attachment B.

 

2.  Te Hononga Council – Papatipu Rūnanga Committee Committee Recommendation to Council

 

Part A

That the Council:

1.         Adopt the Terms of Reference for Te Hononga Council - Papatipu Rūnanga Committee as set out in Attachment B.

 

 

Attachments

No.

Report Title

Page

1

Adoption of Terms of Reference

166

 

No.

Title

Page

a

Proposed Terms of Reference

168

b

Amended Draft Terms of Reference

172

 

 


Council

06 April 2017

 

 

Adoption of Terms of Reference

Reference:

17/198135

Contact:

Aidan Kimberley

Aidan.kimberley@ccc.govt.nz

941 6566

 

 

1.   Purpose of Report

1.1       The purpose of this report is to seek the Committee’s recommendation that the Council adopt the Terms of Reference for Te Hononga Council – Papatipu Rūnanga Committee.

 

2.   Staff Recommendations

That Te Hononga Council - Papatipu Rūnanga Committee recommend that the Council:

1.         Adopt the Terms of Reference for Te Hononga Council - Papatipu Rūnanga Committee set out in Attachment A.

 

 

3.   Key Points

3.1       Te Hononga Council – Papatipu Rūnanga Committee (the Committee) was established by resolution of the Council on 10 December 2015, and the Council resolved that the Committee not be discharged following the 2016 local body general elections.

3.2       Initially the Committee’s primary responsibilities were to assist in developing the Relationship Agreement between the Council and Ngā Papatipu Rūnanga, and developing a work program to give effect to the relationship. As no formal Terms of Reference had been developed for the Committee, these responsibilities effectively constituted de-facto Terms of Reference for the Committee in the short term.

3.3       In awareness of the need for more formal Terms of Reference to guide the Committee’s work over the longer term, the relationship agreement signed on 15 December 2016 contained the following clause: “A terms of reference will be developed and agreed to by each of the Parties within three months of this Agreement being signed.” The Agreement also stated that matters covered by the Terms of Reference should include delegations, resourcing and meeting frequency.

3.4       The proposed Terms of Reference are set out in Attachment A.

3.5       The proposal is for the Committee to primarily have powers to provide advice and recommendations to the Council. The Committee will also have oversight of, and receive regular updates from staff on, projects and other matters of significance to Māori.  

3.6       The meeting frequency will be quarterly, or otherwise as required.

 

Attachments

No.

Title

Page

a 

Proposed Terms of Reference

 

b 

Amended Draft Terms of Reference

 

 

 

Signatories

Authors

Aidan Kimberley - Committee and Hearings Advisor

Gabrielle Huria - Principal Advisor Ngai Tahu Relationships

Approved By

Adair Bruorton - Chief Advisor

Mary Richardson - General Manager Customer and Community

 


Council

06 April 2017

 

PDF Creator

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


Council

06 April 2017

 

PDF Creator

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


Council

06 April 2017

 

 

13.    Te Hononga Council – Papatipu Rūnanga Committee Committee Minutes - 16 March 2017

Reference:

17/273618

Contact:

Aidan Kimberley

Aidan.Kimberley@ccc.govt.nz

941 6566

 

 

1.   Purpose of Report

Te Hononga Council – Papatipu Rūnanga Committee Committee held a meeting on 16 March 2017 and is circulating the Minutes recorded to the Council for its information.

 

2.   Recommendation to Council

That the Council receives the Minutes from Te Hononga Council – Papatipu Rūnanga Committee Committee meeting held 16 March 2017.

 

 

Attachments

No.

Title

Page

A

Minutes Te Hononga Council – Papatipu Rūnanga Committee Committee - 16 March 2017

178

 

 

Signatories

Author

Aidan Kimberley - Committee and Hearings Advisor

  


Council

06 April 2017

 

PDF Creator

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


Council

06 April 2017

 

 

14.    Water Management Zone Committees' Annual Reports

Reference:

17/136989

Contact:

Diane Shelander

Diane.shelander@ccc.govt.nz

941 8304

 

 

1.   Purpose of Report

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

 

2.   Staff Recommendations

That the Council:

1.         Receive the information in the three Water Management Zone Committees’ annual reports.

 

 

3.   Key Points

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

3.2       Highlights for the Banks Peninsula Zone Committee included:

·   Allocated around $174,000 to 10 biodiversity projects in the zone

·   Wairewa Plan Change (Plan Change 6) to the Land and Water Regional Plan the main focus of which is to improve the health of Te Roto o Wairewa/Lake Forsyth.

3.3       Achievements of the Christchurch-West Melton Zone Committee included:

·   Allocated more than $160,000 to 14 biodiversity projects

·   Worked with the Cashmere Stream Care Group to host an Erosion and Sediment Control workshop for industry

·   Worked with Avon-Ōtākaro Network to host a workshop with recreational groups of the lower Avon River

·   Worked with the University of Canterbury to develop a stormwater contaminant model (MEDUSA model) using Addington Brook as a case study.

3.4       Of note for the Selwyn-Waihora Zone Committee has been:

·   Plan Change 1 of the Land and Water Regional Plan became operative in early 2016 to manage water quality and water quantity in the Te Waihora/Lake Ellesmere catchment.

 

Attachments

No.

Title

Page

a

Banks Peninsula Zone Committee Annual Report 2016

185

b

Christchurch West Melton Zone Committee Annual Report 2016

189

c

Selwyn-Waihora Zone Committee Annual Report 2016

193

 

 

Signatories

Author

Diane Shelander - Senior Policy Analyst

Approved By

Helen Beaumont - Head of Strategic Policy

Brendan Anstiss - General Manager Strategy and Transformation

  


Council

06 April 2017

 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


Council

06 April 2017

 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


Council

06 April 2017

 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


Council

06 April 2017

 

 

15.    Name for Tourism, Events and Economic Development entity

Reference:

17/248342

Contact:

Helen Beaumont

helen.beaumont@ccc.govt.nz

941 5190

 

 

1.   Purpose of Report

1.1       This report is for the Council to approve the name for the combined entity for ‘Tourism, Events and Economic Development’ incorporating the Canterbury Development Corporation, Christchurch and Canterbury Tourism and Council’s major events functions.

 

2.   Staff Recommendations

That the Council:

1.         Receive the report from the Board of Transition Holdings Limited on the name for the single entity.

2.         Approve the name Christchurch & Canterbury NZ for the single entity to deliver ‘Tourism, Events and Economic Development’.

 

 

3.   Key Points

3.1       The Board for Transition Holdings Limited has considered a short list of names for the single entity comprising the functions of the Canterbury Development Corporation, Christchurch and Canterbury Tourism, and Council with respect to major events (Attachment A).

3.2       The guidelines used to gather ideas from staff included:

·        The name should capture the collective activities of the teams from the three agencies, including international education

·        This is a name not a vision for the city or a brand

·        The purpose of the entity is to support prosperity, opportunity and a great quality of life in Christchurch and Canterbury.

3.3       The short list was developed after testing against the guidelines, potential for duplication and for international compatibility.

 

Attachments

No.

Title

Page

a

Board report on single entity name

198

 

 

Signatories

Author

Helen Beaumont - Head of Strategic Policy

Approved By

Brendan Anstiss - General Manager Strategy and Transformation

  


Council

06 April 2017

 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


Council

06 April 2017

 

 

16.    Transition Plan for merged Tourism, Events and Economic Development entity

Reference:

17/264810

Contact:

Helen Beaumont

helen.beaumont@ccc.govt.nz

9415190

 

 

1.   Purpose of Report

1.1       This report provides the transition plan for establishment of a new Council Controlled Organisation combining the Canterbury Development Corporation, Christchurch and Canterbury Tourism and the major events functions of the Council.

 

2.   Staff Recommendations

That the Council:

1.         Receive the information in the Transition Project Plan report from the Board of Transition Holdings Limited.

2.         Approve the Transition Project Plan and proposed governance arrangements, noting that the Chief Executive of the Christchurch City Council is a member of the Transition Project Committee.

3.         Agree that the single entity is to report to the Finance and Performance Committee.

4.         Agree that any new or revised strategies for the city are to be brought to Council for approval through the Strategic Capability Committee.

5.         Make consequential amendments to the terms of reference for the Innovation and Sustainable Development Committee.

 

 

3.   Key Points

3.1       In 2015 the Council commissioned the Canterbury Development Corporation to work with key stakeholders and develop a Visitor Strategy for the city.  This strategy identified the opportunity to improve the effectiveness and efficiency of the delivery of tourism and economic development support for the city.  Council staff put together a strategic business case to explore the options for delivery and presented a series of reports to Council.

3.2       In 2016 the Council agreed to a more joined up approach to tourism, events, economic development and city promotion through a single entity.  Transition Holdings Limited (THL) has been charged with delivering a single combined entity for the delivery of tourism, economic development, major events and international education functions on behalf of the Council.  The letters of expectation from Council to the Board are attached (Attachments A and B)

3.3       The outcomes sought include:

3.3.1   A single agency with one board to maximise the effectiveness of its tourism, events and economic development functions

3.3.2   The agency has an identifiable name, brand and location

3.3.3   A converged operational model to drive an integrated approach and maximise the social, cultural and economic opportunities available to Christchurch

3.3.4   Efficiencies are achieved through the establishment of a single board and management structure.

3.4       The purpose of the entity has been agreed by the THL Board as:

Supporting prosperity, opportunity and a great quality of life in Christchurch and Canterbury by:

·    Developing a strong positive city profile and promoting the city to residents, national and international visitors

·    Attracting visitors, migrants, students, new business and investment through integrated marketing, major events and conferences

·    Ensuring the business environment supports successful and sustainable enterprise and encourages creativity and innovation

·    Providing leadership to achieve these goals.

3.5       The Transition Project Plan (Attachment C) identifies four key phases of work:

3.5.1   Establishment of a single entity by 1 July 2017

3.5.2   Identification and development of integration opportunities and operating synergies across the merged functions

3.5.3   Engagement with the Council Long Term Plan process and completion of a strategic framework

3.5.4   Establishment of a new operating model to support the delivery of strategic priorities.

3.6       The work is overseen by the Transition Project Committee, a committee of the THL Board which include the Chief Executive of the Council as a key stakeholder.

3.7       Considerable progress has been made at both governance and senior management level to integrate and align the staff and functions of the three agencies.

3.7.1   A single Board is in place to manage both the transition and ongoing delivery

3.7.2   New premises have been identified for the co-location of staff

3.7.3   Integration opportunities have been identified, ideas captured and actions assigned to appropriate staff

3.7.4   The City Narrative is being developed

3.7.5   The major events strategy has been scoped and stakeholder engagement is planned.

3.8       Senior management and key staff are represented on the Transition Project Working Group to ensure that staff from the three agencies are able to contribute to the transition and communicate progress to their teams.

3.9       The Transition Project Plan has identified overlaps in the reporting relationships with Council Committees.  These have been discussed by the Board and with Council staff resulting in recommendations to simplify the reporting relationships.

 

 

Attachments

No.

Title

Page

a

Letter of expectation

206

b

Supplementary letter of expectations

210

c

Transition Project Plan

212

 

 

Signatories

Author

Helen Beaumont - Head of Strategic Policy

Approved By

Brendan Anstiss - General Manager Strategy and Transformation

  


Council

06 April 2017

 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


Council

06 April 2017

 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


Council

06 April 2017

 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


Council

06 April 2017

 

PDF Creator


Council

06 April 2017

 

 

17.    Report on the Psychoactive Products Retail Locations Policy (LAPP) Review

Reference:

17/120587

Contact:

Evangeline Emerenciana

Evangeline.emerciana@ccc.govt.nz

941 8579

 

 

1.   Purpose and Origin of Report

Purpose of the Report

1.1       This report advises Council of the review of the Psychoactive Products Retail Locations Policy.

Origin of Report

1.2       Council resolved on 27 November 2014:

That the Council review the Psychoactive Products Retail Locations Policy two years after the retail Regulations developed under the Act are in place.

 

2.   Staff Recommendations

That the Council:

1.         Notes that the Psychoactive Products Retail Locations Policy, also known as the Local Approved Products Policy (LAPP), has been reviewed.

2.         Confirms the review findings that the Psychoactive Products Retail Locations Policy remains fit-for-purpose with minor amendments to make it consistent with the replacement Christchurch District Plan.

3.         Agrees that the Psychoactive Products Retail Locations Policy be reviewed again in 2022.

 

 

3.   Key Points

3.1       This report supports the: Council’s Long Term Plan (2015-2025)

3.1.1   Activity: City and Community Long-Term Policy and Planning

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

3.2       The Council adopted a Psychoactive Products Retail Locations Policy in November 2014, which came into force on 2 February 2015.  The Policy provides guidance to the Psychoactive Substances Regulatory Authority regarding the permitted location of retail premises for approved psychoactive products. Its purpose is to protect health of individual users of psychoactive products, and to minimise exposure and harm to vulnerable groups within the community.

3.3       The policy allows psychoactive product retail premises to be located in the central city where there is good visibility and a Police presence for more effective protection and enforcement.

3.4       Under the requirements of the Psychoactive Substances Act this Policy is required to be reviewed within five years of being adopted and then at intervals of not more than five years.  This review is being undertaken after two years to enable the rapidly changing rebuild of the central city to be considered in terms of the effectiveness of the Policy.

3.5       The review considered the changes to land use zoning and rules under the replacement Christchurch District Plan and concluded that the policy remained consistent with the Plan provisions.  Minor amendments are required to the definitions section to update references to the Christchurch District Plan.

3.6       There have been no retail applications to the Psychoactive Substances Regulatory Authority for retail outlets as there are currently no psychoactive substances approved for retail sale in New Zealand.

3.7       The Ministry of Health in March 2016 advised that there will be no retail applications for the sale of any approved products for at least the next three years due to the prohibition on the use of animal testing to assess whether a psychoactive product is safe or not. The Ministry of Health also confirmed that the Psychoactive Substances Regulatory Authority recommended that retail applicants should defer their licence applications during this period.

 

 

Attachments

No.

Title

Page

a

LAPP - Report on Psychoactive Products Retail Locations Policy Review (2017)

221

b

LAPP - Psychoactive Products Retail Locations Policy (updated 2017)

224

c

LAPP - Psychoactive Products Retail Locations Policy 2014 (approved 27 Nov 2014)

229

 

 

Signatories

Author

Evangeline Emerenciana - Policy Analyst

Approved By

Helen Beaumont - Head of Strategic Policy

Brendan Anstiss - General Manager Strategy and Transformation

  


Council

06 April 2017

 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


Council

06 April 2017

 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


Council

06 April 2017

 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


Council

06 April 2017

 

 

18.    Housing and Business Development Capacity

Reference:

16/1378992

Contact:

Ivan Thomson

ivan.thomson@ccc.govt.nz

941 8813

 

 

1.   Purpose and Origin of Report

Purpose of Report

1.1       This report has two purposes: to inform the Council on the National Policy Statement on Urban Development Capacity (NPS-UDC) that came into effect on 1 December 2016; and provide an overview on how Christchurch is tracking to give effect to the NPS-UDC, and what additional information will be required.

This report also updates and expands previous work relating to progress in developing Greenfield Residential Priority Areas, as identified in the Regional Policy Statement (RPS); and the associated targets in the Land Use Recovery Plan (LURP) and the new Christchurch District Plan.

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 by the potential number of people affected and with an interest and the possible environmental, social and cultural impacts.

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

 

3.   Staff Recommendations

That the Council:

1.         Receives the information in this report.

2.         Notes that staff will provide an update in June 2017 on the progress towards giving effect to the National Policy Statement on Urban Development Capacity.

 

 

4.   Key Points

4.1       The NPS-UDC was gazetted on 3 November 2016, following the release of the proposed National Policy Statement in July 2016. The NPS-UDC is part of a suite of measures by the Government aimed at making housing more affordable and providing a more enabling planning framework.  The Council made a submission on its own accord, as well as being part of the Greater Christchurch Urban Development Strategy submission. Most of the key issues raised from the Council and other submitters have been accepted and those that haven’t are to do with matters for which the Government is releasing guidelines in 2017 (for example how to assess the feasibility of development).

4.2       The key focus of the NPS-UDC is to recognise that urban development is a national issue. The NPS-UDC aims to ensure that there is an adequate supply of housing and business land to meet future demand. It identifies outcomes, monitoring, local government coordination and responsiveness as important objectives to enable capacity. The NPS-UDC has certain policies that apply to all local authorities. However, additional policies apply for high growth areas such as Christchurch.

4.3       There are timeframes in the document by which specific tasks are to be completed by. The Council is required to produce a Housing and Business Development Capacity Assessment by the end of 2017. The NPS-UDC also requires that monitoring of indicators, on a quarterly basis, is to be established by June 2017.

4.4       Considerable emphasis is placed on working jointly with adjoining local authorities in meeting the requirements of the NPS-UDC.  For example, a future development strategy is required to be developed in two years, showing broadly where and when infrastructure capacity will be provided. The NPS-UDC encourages the strategy and assessment to be jointly prepared with local authorities that share an urban boundary. The existing Greater Christchurch Urban Development Strategy (UDS), could be developed further as a tool to implement the NPS-UDC. The continued integration of the Infrastructure Strategy and land use planning will be critical in giving effect to the NPS-UDC.

4.5       The Regional Council is required to set minimum targets for the region and apportion them to the territorial authorities by the end of 2018. These targets are then to be incorporated into all relevant plans, without using the formal Schedule 1 of the RMA process.

4.6       The NPS-UDC will mean considerable additional modelling and other work, particularly for the assessment of business land capacities and demand, and assessments of development feasibility.  While the Council has systems in place to monitor residential and industrial land capacity through the Vacant Land Register (residential and industrial) and the UDS growth model, it is unlikely that these go far enough to assess and measure  matters such as  development feasibility.  Implications for resources will become clearer when the Ministry for the Environment releases guidelines in 2017. 

Current capacity

4.7       Currently, the Christchurch City housing capacity is based on the Land Use Recovery Plan (LURP). This sets a target of 23,700 additional households in Christchurch by 2028 to meet projected demand. The LURP also seeks intensification to average 45% of household growth over the next five years, which then increases to 55% for the period to 2028. These targets form a cornerstone of the objectives and policies for housing in the new Christchurch District Plan and the housing targets are framed as an objective (Objective 3.3.4).

4.8       Housing capacity is provided either through development of Greenfield Priority Areas (identified in the LURP and RPS) or through infill/intensification of existing urban areas. The Greenfield Priority Areas currently have the potential to accommodate an additional 15,000 households. The potential capacity from infill and intensification (on the flat and the Port Hills) is broadly in the region of 30,000 households. The current capacity of Christchurch City therefore, is around 45,000 households. However, this is a theoretical capacity and additional work is required to determine the feasible (including commercially viable) capacity. Some areas face infrastructure or other planning constraints although these are likely to be removed over time.

4.9       Through the Greenfield Priority Areas and increased intensification provided in the District Plan, it is anticipated that there is significantly greater supply to meet the anticipated demand for new households in the Christchurch City area up to 2028 than required in the LURP.

4.10    The NPS-UDC requires planning for longer term timeframes of 30 years (through to 2046). It also requires that Statistics New Zealand projections be used to determine the demand and capacity required. Those projections anticipate a slightly lower level of demand through to 2028 than that included in the LURP.

4.11    Using the Statistics New Zealand Projections as the basis for demand, Christchurch theoretically has nearly double the capacity required by the NPS till 2028. Looking further out to 2043 Statistics New Zealand projections require a total of 34,000 household units by 2043. The current Christchurch City theoretical capacity is 37% above that.  However, more detailed work is required to examine how feasible some of this potential capacity is. 

4.12    The Vacant Land Register shows around 600ha of vacant Industrial land being available. The current rate of take-up for the last 12 years is around 18ha per year, meaning there is around 33 years supply of industrial land. The Vacant Land Register has only recently started to measure Commercial land. It shows around 85ha of Commercial land, with a take up rate of nearly 1.5ha per year.

4.13    The NPS-UDC also requires that capacity for a range of housing and business types be provided to meet the anticipated demand.  For example, the demand for terrace apartments is likely to differ from the demand for tower block apartments. The District Plan provides for a range of housing and business types. However, work will need to be undertaken to ensure that the capacity provided is sufficient for the differing anticipated demand for the different locations, housing and business types.

4.14    One implication of the document is the potential for national priorities to override local concerns. So-called ‘NIMBY’ objections are likely to carry less weight especially when proposals for increased densities are promoted. The District plan already provides for a significant amount of intensification and infill and some of Christchurch’s ‘suburban’ neighbourhoods are likely to undergo significant change over the next decade particularly if household growth continues at present levels.

4.15    In summary, Christchurch appears well positioned to fulfil its obligations under the NPS-UDC and there should be no shortage of housing or business land capacity before 2028 and beyond under current assumptions. This is dependent on infrastructure constraints being progressively removed and landowners making their land available for development. It is also dependent on more work being done on how much feasible capacity there is (rather than theoretical) and on capacity for different forms of demand, e.g. different housing types. However the document does put additional pressure on the Council to undertake robust research and monitoring to ensure sufficient development land continues to be available in order to enable efficient functioning of the land markets.

 

 

5.   Context/Background

The National Policy Statement on Urban Development Capacity

5.1       The NPS-UDC is the first national policy statement specifically relating to urban planning since the Resource Management Act came into effect in 1991. The NPS-UDC is one of a number of initiatives designed to improve housing supply and affordability, including extending and amending the Housing Accords and Special Housing Areas Act 2013; amendments to the Building Act 2004 and the Construction Contracts Act 2002.

5.2       The Preamble to the document stresses the importance of well-functioning urban areas to the wellbeing of people and communities, both present and future generations.  A key change from the Proposed NPS notified in June 2016 is that the objectives were amended to incorporate a wellbeing statement (social, cultural, economic and environmental wellbeing) for communities and future generations, providing more explicit links to the purpose of the RMA. It also introduces a new definition relating to ‘other infrastructure’ that recognises social and community infrastructure that need to be considered in urban development. Some Council submission points on the Proposed NPS-UDC were not accepted - the NPS-UDC does not provide explicit direction regarding affordable housing and the focus is still on market-driven demand and not recognising housing needs

5.3       Notably, the definition of ‘urban area’ is clearly stated as ‘not bound by local authority or statistical boundary’, lending its application to the UDS model which combines Christchurch and neighbouring councils. Finally, to give effect to the NPS-UDC, the resource consent team is assessing whether their processes need to be modified to reflect it.

5.4       The Residential Development Capacity Assessment will be based on whether there is enough supply to meet demand across the different markets. Housing demand will be categorised by type of dwelling, location and price points and based on the population projection and demographic changes, the inter-relationship with business activities and the published market indicators (discussed below).

5.5       Housing supply will include consideration of the short, medium and long term, whether land is zoned and serviced (or intended to be serviced through the LTP), and ‘feasible’ or commercially viable. Additional research will be required to determine this. This supply will also be assessed by the anticipated rates of take-up, plus additional capacity requirements and whether sufficient ‘other infrastructure’ (schools, community centres etc.) is provided.

5.6       The monitored market indicators are comprehensive. They include prices and rents for housing, land by location and type and changes over time; the number of resource and building consents granted; the indicators of housing affordability; and price differentials between zones. The Council currently monitors most of these indicators and will be working with the Crown in establishing monitoring in all areas of development capacity.

Current capacity constraints

5.7       Capacity is reliant on the provision of infrastructure, and willingness of land owners to release zoned land at a particular price (the NPS-UDC is silent on the latter). There are various constraints limiting the availability in some parts of Christchurch. Within the Greenfield Priority Areas there are three specific constraints. Prestons Road has 500 sections limited until the upgrade of surrounding intersections. Highfield Park (over 2000 potential households) is constrained until there are infrastructure upgrades, which are within the Long Term Plan but could be brought forward if developer led. South Awatea has 800 sections constrained until the Kart Club relocates.

5.8       These constraints are unlikely to prevent targets from being met as major works are underway or planned in the planned South West and Belfast Greenfield Priority Areas. For the South West areas, the major infrastructure projects are new pressure mains system, stormwater upgrades, transport upgrades and wetland development. These are set to be completed by 2025. Around Belfast, water supply, wastewater and intersection upgrades are due to be completed by 2018. The infrastructure programme should enable the ongoing availability of sections through to 2028.

5.9       Within the current Christchurch urban area, the Port Hills and Banks Peninsula, there are various localised constraints on development, including topography. For instance there is a constraint on further intensification in Riccarton until the wastewater interceptor is upgraded.

Intensification

5.10    The LURP identified projected households that will be provided through intensification. For Greater Christchurch, the intensification required is as follows:

LURP Intensification Table:

Time period

Projected housing demand for each time period

% target of new households provided in existing urban areas for each time period

Total households provided in existing urban areas for each time period

2013 – 2016

12 100

35%

4,235 households

2016 – 2021

12,050

45%

5,422 households

2021 – 2028

15,700

55%

8,635 households

Total new households in existing urban areas by 2028

18,292 households

 

5.11    Of the 18,292 households to be provided for through intensification in Greater Christchurch (households in existing urban areas), the percentage demand apportioned to Christchurch City, as addressed in the recent District Plan review, was around 90%. This means approximately 16,400 households need to be accommodated through intensification within Christchurch City’s existing urban area under the LURP.

5.12    The Council growth model anticipates a capacity of 30,000 households within the existing Christchurch urban area on the flat land and the Port Hills. Intensification includes vacant land within the existing urban area, such as older greenfield areas and the Port Hills, as well as more households allowed in higher density areas. There is adequate capacity within the existing urban area to meet the total expected growth until 2028.

5.13    Intensification since the Earthquakes has been about 36% of the total growth within Christchurch. The percentage will be lower for Greater Christchurch (i.e. the LURP target), as growth in Selwyn District and Waimakariri District is almost exclusively in their greenfield areas.

Area

Potential

Other Greenfield

1,203

Port Hills

3,500

Flat Land

12,700

Central City

6,236

Higher Density Areas

7,123

Total

30,762

 

Greenfields

5.14    The following table shows the capacity of each greenfield priority area and their current state of development (in terms of households). This estimates the potential households based on the RPS target of 15 households per hectare (hh/h) for Greenfield Priority Areas. The number of ‘un-subdivided’ sections is based on the area of large pieces of land multiplied by the target of 15 hh/h. The ‘Subdivided’ sections is based on sections created through subdivision consent without a house on it. The ‘Built On’ column shows the number of sections with a building consent. Currently, there has been about 4,500 households built since 2012, or about 25% of the estimated potential of the Greenfield Priority Areas in the LURP. A further 759 sections are subdivided but not yet built on. In terms of total greenfield capacity, Greenfield Priority Areas in fact have capacity for all the Christchurch household growth projected by Statistics New Zealand, irrespective of whether it was intended to be through intensification or greenfield development.

 

Area

Estimated Potential

Un-subdivided

Subdivided

Built on

South West

Wigram

1,329

 

69

1,260

Awatea

1,545

1008

130

407

Halswell West

1,696

 

177

1,519

South West Halswell

1,566

1,566

 

 

South Halswell

506

506

 

 

South East Halswell

968

922

15

31

Hendersons

924

924

 

 

North Halswell

1,753

1,739

14

 

West

South Masham

266

262

4

 

Hawthornden Rd

94

91

3

 

North West

North West Belfast

1,280

1,234

32

14

Upper Styx

1,903

1,759

92

52

South East Belfast

620

620

 

 

East Belfast

630

630

 

 

Highfield Park

1,842

1,842

 

 

Prestons

2,397

972

223

1,202

Total

19,319

14,075

759

4,485

 

 

Attachments

No.

Title

Page

a

Greenfield Priority Area - Development

241

 

 

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

Benjamin Baird - Assistant Policy Planner

Ivan Thomson - Team Leader City Planning

Approved By

Richard Osborne - Head of Planning and Strategic Transport

Brendan Anstiss - General Manager Strategy and Transformation

  


Council

06 April 2017

 

PDF Creator


Council

06 April 2017

 

 

19.    Land Use Recovery Plan (LURP) Update

Reference:

17/135136

Contact:

Sarah Oliver

Sarah.Oliver@ccc.govt.nz

941 8295

 

 

1.   Purpose and Origin of Report

Purpose of Report

1.1       The purpose of this report is to update Council on progress of the Land Use Recovery Plan (LURP) actions relevant to Council.  Matters regarding the Land Use Recovery Plan (gazetted by the Minister for Canterbury Earthquake Recovery on 6 December 2013) were last reported to Council in late 2015 as part of the Council submission on the Land Use Recovery Plan Review.  In April 2016 several minor amendments to the Land Use Recovery Plan were approved.  The Land Use Recovery Plan sets a framework for rebuilding and recovery that supports existing and new communities, commercial and business needs, infrastructure requirements and environmental constraints. 

Origin of Report

1.2       This report is being provided to fulfil level of service (17.0.8) reporting requirements to Council.

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 because the majority of the Land Use Recovery Plan having been delivered.

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

 

3.   Staff Recommendations

That the Council:

1.         Receive the update on the Land Use Recovery Plan.

 

 

4.   Key Points

 

4.1       Land Use Recovery Plan Review

Environment Canterbury formally reviewed the Land Use Recovery Plan in collaboration with strategic partners in September 2015.  In April 2016, the Minister for Canterbury Earthquake Recovery (now the Minister supporting Greater Christchurch Regeneration), gave approval under section 22(1) and (2) of the CER Act 2011, to make a number of changes to the Land Use Recovery Plan.  Broadly, this did the following:

 

i.      Updated the status of the 50 actions contained in Volume 1 of the Land Use Recovery Plan.

ii.     Made Figure 4: Map A Greenfield Priority Areas ‘indicative’ only. This would allow changes to Map A in Chapter 6 of the Canterbury Regional Policy Statement through normal RMA processes.

iii.    Removed Appendix 1 of Volume 2 of the Land Use Recovery Plan, which essentially was a duplicate of Chapter 6 to the Canterbury Regional Policy Statement (which was inserted into the Canterbury Regional Policy Statement in December 2013). As with Map A, this enables Environment Canterbury to make changes to the Chapter 6 provisions through normal Resource Management Act processes. 

 

Whilst the above amendments to Land Use Recovery Plan were undertaken, Environment Canterbury have not made any changes to the Canterbury Regional Policy Statement, specifically Map A in chapter 6 (i.e. the urban limits).  Environment Canterbury are programmed to commence its review the Canterbury Regional Policy Statement in 2020.

 

4.2       Land Use Recovery Plan Actions

The Land Use Recovery Plan contains fifty actions, twenty-five of which apply to Council, with eleven of these directing either the review of the District Plan, or immediate changes to the Operative District Plan.  The majority of decisions on the Replacement District Plan have been made and many chapters of the District Plan are now treated as operative.  There are some appeals on some chapters and therefore certain parts of the Plan are not operative, however it is expected all appeals will be resolved by 2018 (Council staff will shortly report on the completion of the District Plan review process).  As many of the Land Use Recovery Plan actions relate to the review of the District Plan, these Land Use Recovery Plan actions are either considered to be completed or will be once any relevant appeals are resolved.  There are a number of non-District Plan Land Use Recovery Plan actions that have, or are being, given effect to through Council projects and work programmes.

Appendix A contains a spreadsheet which outlines the Land Use Recovery Plan actions relevant to Council and provides updates on each action. 

 

 

 

Attachments

No.

Title

Page

a

Updated Land Use Recovery Plan (LURP) Action Table for Christchurch City Council

246

 

 

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

Sarah Oliver - Principal Advisor Planning

Approved By

Richard Osborne - Head of Planning and Strategic Transport

Brendan Anstiss - General Manager Strategy and Transformation

  


Council

06 April 2017

 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


Council

06 April 2017

 

 

20.    Riccarton Racecourse Development Scheme: Consultation Response.

Reference:

17/209433

Contact:

John Meeker

John.meeker@ccc.govt.nz

03 941 8960

 

 

1.   Purpose of Report

1.1       This report seeks agreement of the content of a submission (Attachment 1) to the Minister for Building and Housing (‘The Minister’) regarding a proposed Development Scheme for land at Riccarton Racecourse. The proposed Development Scheme was prepared by Ngāi Tahu Property (on behalf of the Racecourse Trustees) and is provided at Attachment 2.

1.2       The Development Scheme is a requirement of the 2016 Riccarton Racecourse Development Enabling Act and, without prejudice to normal consenting processes, paves the way for the land to be developed for residential subdivision.  Prior to its approval, the legislation requires that the Minister consults the Christchurch City Council on the Development Scheme, specifically on matters of content set out in the legislation including general conformity with the Council’s planning framework, the servicing of the development, and affordable housing requirements.

1.3       The Council is asked to consider, endorse and supplement (if appropriate) the observations proposed by staff in Attachment 1 as a formal written submission to the Minister. In summary, that submission:

·     supports the proposal - subject to a range of detailed matters being addressed during subsequent consenting stages;

·     urges caution around the ambitious development timeframe proposed; and

·     encourages the Minister to require greater commitment to genuinely affordable homes.

 

 

2.   Staff Recommendation

That the Council:

1.         Receive the information in this report.

2.         Approve the draft comment to the Ministry of Transport contained in Attachment 1.

3.         Delegates to the Chief Executive the authority to lodge a submission based on Attachment 1 to the Minister for Building and Housing in response to statutory consultation on the draft Riccarton Racecourse Development Scheme.

 

 

3.   Background

3.1       Surplus statutory reserve land at Riccarton Racecourse has been promoted for residential development by the Racecourse Trustees as a means of supporting the economic future of racing at the racecourse and to help fund improvement to its facilities.  Since 2015, the Minister for Building and Housing has pursued the necessary change to legislation which, since 1878, has reserved the land for use as a Racecourse, in turn limiting its development.  A key element of the Racecourse Trustees proposal has always been the offer to provide affordable homes in return for the land being released and, in turn, is the reason why the proposal has been encouraged by the Minister and Council under the Christchurch Housing Accord. 

3.2       The stages in the progression of this project are summarised in the chronology below.

 

2013   -   Proposed urban village on surplus racecourse land, including leasehold affordable housing, promoted by Riccarton Racecourse Trustees to CCC, CERA and Minister for Building & Housing.

2014   -   Land at Riccarton Racecourse confirmed as a Medium Density Housing Exemplar Project under Action 8 of the CERA Land Use Recovery Plan (LURP).

-     Ngāi Tahu Property became the Racecourse Trustees Commercial Partner and re-evaluated the commercial viability of the scheme.

-     Exemplar Project evaluation and subsequent report to Council (November)

2015   –   Revised proposal promoted to the Mayor by the Minister for Building and Housing as a project under the Christchurch Housing Accord.

-     Council report resolved to support the revised development and promote a draft Local Bill to parliament that would enable the release of statutory reserve land protected under The 1878 Christchurch Racecourse Reserves Act. (March)

-     Updated report on the content of the draft Local Bill (July)

-     Rezoning of the land for residential development through the District Plan Review process becomes operative.

-     Draft Local Bill introduced to Parliament (October)

2016   -   Riccarton Racecourse Act and Riccarton Racecourse Development Enabling Act gain royal assent on 21 June to replace the 1878 Act.

-    Staff dialogue with Ngāi Tahu and MBIE officials surrounding the content of a Development Scheme for the development land.

 

3.3       Relevant reports, agreements and the legislation related to the proposal are listed below with website links.

 

26th March 2015 - Item 10

RICCARTON RACECOURSE – PROMOTION OF A LOCAL BILL TO AMEND THE CHRISTCHURCH RACECOURSE RESERVE ACT 1878

 

http://christchurch.infocouncil.biz/Open/2015/03/CNCL_26032015_AGN.PDF

23rd July 2015 – Item 25

RICCARTON RACECOURSE LOCAL BILL: UPDATE

http://christchurch.infocouncil.biz/Open/2015/07/CNCL_23072015_AGN.PDF

 

27th November 2014 – Item 20

LAND USE RECOVERY PLAN: RICCARTON RACECOURSE (CHAMPIONS MILE) MEDIUM

DENSITY HOUSING EXEMPLAR PROJECT

http://christchurch.infocouncil.biz/Open/2014/11/CNCL_27112014_AGN.PDF

 

2016 RICCARTON RACECOURSE DEVELOPMENT ENABLING ACT 

http://www.legislation.govt.nz/act/public/2016/0030/19.0/whole.html#DLM6632351

 

2014 CHRISTCHRCH HOUSING ACCORD

https://www.ccc.govt.nz/assets/Documents/Services/Social-Housing/Christchurch-Housing-Accord.pdf

 

4.   Consultation on the proposed Development Scheme

4.1       Under Section 11 of the Riccarton Racecourse Development Enabling Act, the Minister is required to consult the council on the content of a Development Scheme prepared by or on behalf of the Racecourse Trustees.  Under the current commercial partnership arrangement the Development Scheme has been prepared by Ngāi Tahu Property. The clauses in section 9 of the Act, as distilled below, require the Development Scheme, as a minimum, to:

a)     commit to a minimum of 180 affordable homes to be delivered within five years;

b)     compensate the Crown should affordable housing delivery - required under a) – not be delivered in the 5 year timeframe, 

c)      be capable of satisfying the relevant regional and district planning requirements, including in relation to providing any infrastructure to service the development in the manner proposed by the scheme; and

d)     provide for the transfer of the Paparua Stream land to the Christchurch City Council to be held as reserve or reserves no later than 5 years after the approval date; and

e)     protect the interests of Ngāi Tahu in the development land as required under section 10 (First Right of refusal under the Ngāi Tahu Treaty Settlement), and

f)      provide for fibre-optic broadband connections to be provided to all premises; and

g)     explain how the Board will ensure that the land is developed in a manner that will satisfy the requirements in this Act.

4.2       Officer commentary in relation to the Development Scheme is therefore broadly limited to these matters.  It should be noted, as listed in the chronology above, that the Council and other stakeholders have already engaged in the Independent Hearings Panel process for District Plan Review which rezoned the land for residential development, and during the select committee process that framed the new legislation contained within the Act. The current consultation process is not concerned with re-litigating those matters. 

4.3      It should also be noted that the Development Scheme does not set aside any of the normal development consenting processes, so regulatory agencies may still put in place requirements to manage any residual impacts from the proposal - should they emerge.

5.   Proposed Response  

5.1       The proposed consultation response to the Minister is set out in Attachment 1.

 

5.2       Officers’ view is that the proposal in the draft Development Scheme is capable of delivering a sound residential subdivision and that there are no fundamental technical issues that cannot be resolved in subsequent consenting stages. 

 

5.3       Alongside the support for the broad development concept, officers recommend that the Council makes two important recommendations which should be considered further prior to the Development Scheme being approved by the Minister.

 

a)     The subdivision development proposed in the Development Scheme remains subject to a range of further detailed work.  Accordingly, caution is urged around the deliverability of the programme set out in section 8 of the Development Scheme.  Attachment 1 highlights some of the issues where further intensive work will be needed and these will be recognised by Ngāi Tahu Property and their advisors. 

 

To help mitigate this concern, officers have recommended that the developer makes use of the Partnership Approvals service for the coordinated consenting support which a development of this scale and complexity should enjoy. .

 

b)     A need to include a commitment to delivering some of the ‘affordable’ housing products at and below the previous HomeStart $450,000 threshold to deliver on the stated goal of the Christchurch Housing Accord which was, in part, to “…restore a well-functioning private sector led housing market in Christchurch with sufficient supply of lower end of the market to ensure adequate housing for those with lower incomes.

 

5.4       By means of background to b), section 2 of the Development Scheme commits to the delivery of the required 180 homes that are affordable by virtue of their ability to qualify for the NZ Government’s HomeStart support programme for first time buyers. 

 

5.5       At the outset of this project the provision of affordable housing was a standout component of this scheme with an innovative leasehold tenure arrangement proposing to offer properties in the $300,000 range. This aligned strongly with background work around wage multipliers and mortgage lending levels explored in 2014 which suggested that homes up to $370,000 (or with rental levels of $360/week) would cater for those at or below the middle of the income spectrum – and by implication attention needed to be focused at and below this level.  As it progressed, officials repeatedly highlighted the scheme as one that would deliver in line with the goals of the Christchurch Housing Accord.

 

5.6       Since that time, the proposed pricing of housing has appeared to escalate.  The genuinely affordable leasehold model was discarded in 2014.  The scheme then adopted the government’s HomeStart arrangements, in effect offering homes to buy up to a $450,000 price ceiling.  When this was put before Council in 2015 there was reluctant acceptance that the “up to $450,000” threshold might at least support a cohort of mid-market first time buyers.   Subsequently, in August 2016, the qualifying threshold for the price of new homes purchasable using HomeStart grants was revised upwards to “up to $550,000”. 

 

5.7       In practical terms, whilst set as a maximum, this $550,000 threshold will become an upper limit.  Buyers will view this as a borrowing ceiling (in maximising the use of their KiwiSaver and grant funds), whilst land pricing and land/property packages will be structured to optimise returns.  In effect therefore, this scheme may simply stretch first time buyers borrowing capability whilst acting to exclude those on lower incomes from home ownership.

 

5.8       Reflecting this escalation, the proposed response to the Minister requests that he consider specific requirements that affordable homes are priced at and below the previous $450,000 level which represents a more genuine level of affordability. Whilst it is recognised that the HomeStart thresholds were incorporated into legislation (and so on the edges of the scope of matters that the Minister is able to address at this stage), the Development Scheme is still a gateway to development where the original objectives of the proposal can be furthered.   

  

 

Attachments

No.

Title

Page

a

Attachment 1 - Proposed Response

261

b

Attachment 2 - Draft Development Scheme

265

 

 

Signatories

Author

John Meeker - Principal Advisor Urban Regeneration

Approved By

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

Brendan Anstiss - General Manager Strategy and Transformation

  


Council

06 April 2017

 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


Council

06 April 2017

 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

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

06 April 2017

 

 

21.    Standing Orders

Reference:

17/95965

Contact:

Ian Thomson

ian.thomson@ccc.govt.nz

941 6469

 

 

1.   Purpose of Report

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

 

2.   Staff Recommendations

That the Council:

1.         Receives the information in the report.

2.         Adopts the set of Standing Orders attached to the report, replacing the Council’s current Standing Orders.

3.         Requests each Community Board to replace its current set of Standing Orders with the Standing Orders adopted by the Council in.2 above.

4.         Authorises the Chief Executive to approve any non-material changes that may be required before the new Standing Orders are published.

 

 

3.   Key Points

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

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

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

3.4       Council staff reviewed the template and made a number of changes they believed would best suit the Council’s needs.  Their draft, and an explanatory note, were distributed to all elected members (the governing body and Community Boards) in November 2016.

3.5       Since then a number of comments have been received and, where appropriate, reflected in the draft.  It is recommended that the Council adopts the Standing Orders attached to this report.

3.6       The requirement to adopt a set of Standing Orders also applies to Community Boards (s. 54(2) LGA 2002).  However, Boards will need to separately resolve to replace their current set of Standing Orders with the new set attached.

3.7       Cl. 24, schedule 7 of the Act refers to voting at local authority meetings.  Questions are decided by majority vote and, in the case of a tie, there is no casting vote for the chairperson unless the authority’s Standing Orders provide otherwise 24 (1) and (2).

3.8       The Council’s current and new set of Standing Orders expressly state that the chairperson does not have a casting vote.  They also provide that this is a matter for each Community Board to decide on, and to include its decision in Standing Orders.

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

 

 

Attachments

No.

Title

Page

a

Draft Standing Orders

301

 

 

Signatories

Author

Ian  Thomson - Senior Legal Advisor, Governance

Approved By

Rob Goldsbury - Head of Legal Services

Mary Richardson - General Manager Customer and Community

  


Council

06 April 2017

 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

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

06 April 2017

 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


Council

06 April 2017

 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


Council

06 April 2017

 

 

22.    Code of Conduct

Reference:

17/323453

Contact:

Ian Thomson

ian.thomson@ccc.govt.nz

941 6469

 

 

1.   Purpose of Report

1.1       To recommend to the Council that it replaces its current Code of Conduct with the new Code attached to the report.

 

2.   Staff Recommendations

That the Council:

1.         Receives the information in the report.

2.         Adopts the Code of Conduct attached to the report, replacing the Council’s current Code.

3.         Requests each Community Board to replace their current Codes of Conduct with the new Code adopted by the Council in .2 above;

4.         Authorises the Chief Executive to approve any non-material changes that may be required before the new Code of Conduct is published

 

 

3.   Key Points

3.1       The Council must adopt a Code of Conduct for its members (cl. 15, schedule 7 LGA 2002).

3.2       The Code of Conduct must set out:

3.3       understandings and expectations about the manner in which members may conduct themselves while acting in their capacity as members, including-

3.4       their behaviour towards one another, staff, and the public; and

3.5       the disclosure of information, including documents provided to elected members in their capacity as elected members, and which relate to how the Council gives effect to any provision of the LGA 2002.

3.6       The Code must also contain a general explanation of the Local Government Official Information and Meetings Act 1987, and any other enactment or rule of law applicable to members.

3.7       An elected member must comply with the Council’s Code of Conduct (cl. 15(4), schedule7 LGA 2002), although a breach of the Code does not constitute an offence under the Act.

3.8       The Council’s current Code of Conduct has been due for an overhaul, particularly with regard to the process for dealing with an alleged breach.  LGNZ’s recent development of a template for a new Code has therefore been timely.  This was distributed to local authorities in October last year.

3.9       Council staff have reviewed the template and made a number of changes they believe best suit the Council’s needs.  Their draft, and an explanatory note, were distributed to all elected members (the governing body and Community Boards) in November last year.

3.10    Since then a number of comments have been received and, where appropriate, reflected in the draft.  It is recommended that the Council adopts the Code of Conduct attached to this report.

3.11    The requirement to adopt a Code of Conduct does not apply to Community Boards (s.54(2) LGA 2002).  Boards will therefore need to separately resolve to replace their current Codes of Conduct with the new Code attached.

3.12    For consistency, it is important that each Community Board adopts the same Code of Conduct as that adopted by the Council, particularly with regard to how breaches of the Code are dealt with. 

3.13    The adoption of a new Code of Conduct requires a vote of not less than 75% of the members present.

 

Attachments

No.

Title

Page

a

Draft Code of Conduct

369

 

 

Signatories

Author

Ian  Thomson - Senior Legal Advisor, Governance

Approved By

Rob Goldsbury - Head of Legal Services

Mary Richardson - General Manager Customer and Community

  


Council

06 April 2017

 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

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

06 April 2017

 

 

23.    Elected Member Appointments to External Bodies

Reference:

17/218768

Contact:

Nicola Shirlaw

nicola.shirlaw@ccc.govt.nz

941 8836

 

 

1.   Purpose and Origin of Report

Purpose of Report

1.1       The purpose of this report is to recommend the Council appoints, or nominates as appropriate, representatives to a number of external bodies.

Origin of Report

1.2       This report is staff generated as a follow on to Council’s resolution at its 15 December 2016 meeting relating to External Member Appointments to External Organisations.

2.   Significance

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

 

3.   Staff Recommendations

That the Council:

1.         Receives this report.

2.         Notes that appointments will made to the Sister City Committees.

3.         Appoints one Councillor as a trustee of the Christchurch Stadium Trust.

4.         Appoints two councillors or community board members as its representatives to the Creative Communities Assessment Committee.

5.         Approves the appointment of the Halswell-Hornby-Riccarton Community Board, Mike Mora, to the Riccarton Bush Trust and delegates to that Board power to review this appointment any time during this triennium.

6.         Approves the appointment of the Fendalton-Waimairi-Harewood Community Board, Shirish Paranjape to the Riccarton Bush Trust and delegates to that Board power to review this appointment any time during this triennium.

7.         Confirms the appointment by the Banks Peninsula Community Board, Jed O’Donoghue, to the Summit Road Protection Authority. 

8.         Nominates Councillor Scandrett and Community Board Member Jed O’Donoghue to the Summit Road Protection Authority for appointment by the Summit Road Protection Authority to its Advisory Committee.

9.         Approves Kelvin McMillan (Senior Policy Planner) as its joint nominee for appointment by the Summit Road Protection Authority to its Advisory Committee and directs staff to advise Selwyn District Council of this resolution seeking their endorsement of this nomination.

10.       Appoints three councillors as its representatives to the Canterbury Regional Landfill Joint Committee.

11.       Appoints three councillors as its representatives to the Canterbury Waste Joint Committee.

12.       Appoints one councillor as its representative to the Nga Hau e Wha National Marae Charitable Trust.

13.       Amends the membership of the District Plan Review Subcommittee as necessary.

 

4.   Key Points

4.1       The Council has traditionally appointed Councillors as its representatives on a number of external bodies.  The majority of these appointments for the 2016-19 triennium were made at the Council meeting of 15 December 2016, with a small number of appointments deferred.

4.2       It is a priority that appointments are made or confirmed to the Creative Communities Assessment Panel, the Summit Road Protection Authority, along with nominees to the Authority’s Advisory Committee, the Canterbury Regional Landfill Joint Committee and Canterbury Waste Joint Committee.

4.3       The Council has traditionally supported the relevant local Community Boards making appointments to the Summit Road Protection Authority and Riccarton Bush Trust and this report seeks to have the Council formally confirm or approve these appointments.

4.4       Information on the external organisations for which appointments are being sought is detailed in Attachment A.  Any additional formal appointments required will be reported to the Council in due course.

 

 

 

 

Attachments

No.

Title

Page

a

External Organisations and Council Appointments

399

 

 

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

Nicola Shirlaw - Senior Advisor

Approved By

Ariana Smith - Chief of Staff

  


Council

06 April 2017

 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


Council

06 April 2017

 

 

24.    Local Government New Zealand 2017 Conference and Awards

Reference:

17/267131

Contact:

Jo Daly

Jo.daly@ccc.govt.nz

941 8581

 

 

1.   Purpose of Report

1.1       The purpose of this report is for the Council to:

1.1.1   Approve elected members’ attendance at the Local Government New Zealand Conference and Awards to be held in Auckland from 23 July to 25 July 2017.

1.1.2   Appoint the Council’s voting and other delegates to the Annual General Meeting (AGM).

 

2.   Staff Recommendations

 

That the Council:

1.         Agree that the Mayor and other elected members as nominated attend the Local Government New Zealand 2017 Conference and Awards on 23 to 25 July 2017 in Auckland.

2.         Appoint the Mayor as the presiding voting delegate, the alternate delegate and other delegates to attend the Annual General Meeting on 25 July 2017.

3.         Authorise, Melanie Coker, the Zone 5 Community Board representative on the Community Board Executive Committee to attend the Local Government New Zealand 2017 conference and that the Council pay for her conference, travel and accommodation costs.

4.         Confirm if it wishes to submit remits to the Annual General Meeting on:

a.         Renewable electricity procurement

b.         Restrictions on single-use plastic bags.

 

3.   Key Points

3.1       The Local Government New Zealand (LGNZ) 2017 Conference and Awards will be held at SKYCITY Convention Centre in Auckland on 23, 24 and 25 July 2017.  The theme for the conference is Creating Pathways to 2050:  liveable spaces and loveable places.  The preliminary programme for the Conference is attached (refer Attachment A). 

3.2       The Conference will host delegates made up of Mayors, Chairpersons, Councillors, Chief Executives and senior management from New Zealand Councils, along with stakeholders from private sector, business, government and non-governmental agencies.

3.3       The Council is able to authorise members to attend the conference, in past years the Council has sent between four and six representatives.  The Council’s appointees to Local Government New Zealand Zone 5 are:  The Mayor and Councillors Chen, Davidson, Johanson and Templeton.

3.4       The Council has previously supported the Zone 5 Community Board representative on the Community Board Executive Committee, currently Melanie Coker, to attend the conference, by paying for attendance and related costs and is asked to consider doing this again.

4.   Annual General Meeting

4.1       The LGNZ Annual General Meeting (AGM) will be held on Tuesday 25 July at 11.15am.  The council must appoint one of its delegates as its presiding delegate and may appoint one or more alternate delegates; provided the number of alternate delegates does not exceed the number of delegates appointed.

4.2       The Council is entitled to six votes at the AGM.  The Council is entitled to have not more than four delegates attending.  It is proposed that the Mayor be the presiding voting delegate, with a Councillor attending named as the alternate voting delegate.

4.3       The rules of New Zealand Local Government Association Inc (trading as Local Government New Zealand) provide that the term ‘delegate’ includes both an elected member and an officer of a member authority and may include members of the National Council.

4.4       Early bird conference registration is $1,410 (before 1 June 2016) with day registrations available for $720 or $520 on the Tuesday.  Travel and accommodation expenses will be incurred.  These costs can be accommodated within budgets allocated for this purpose in the 2015-25 Long Term Plan.

5.   Remits

5.1       The Council may submit proposed remits for consideration at the AGM.  All proposed remits and accompanying information must meet the remit policy.  Those meeting this policy will be screened by the Remit Screening Committee and follow approval will move forward to the AGM for consideration by the membership. 

5.2       A copy of the Local Government New Zealand Remit Policy is attached to this report (Attachment B refers). 

5.3       At its meeting on 23 February the Council resolved to prepare a remit to Local Government New Zealand on renewable electricity procurement.

5.4       The Innovation and Sustainable Development Committee has recently considered a report options for Council to address a petition to ban single-use plastic bags.  The Committee is recommending that the Council, as part of expanding Council’s non-regulatory initiatives in relation to use of plastic bags, the advocate to Local Government New Zealand for a national response.  The Council may wish to do this by way of a remit.

6.   Local Government New Zealand Excellence Awards

6.1       The LGNZ EXCELLENCE Awards recognise and celebrate excellent performance by councils with regard to community engagement, environmental impact, infrastructure management, economic development, cultural vibrancy and overall value and service delivery.  Awards will be judged on a combination of general and specific criteria.  Entries for the awards close Friday 21 April 2017. 

6.2       Awards will be presented at the conference dinner on Monday 24 July 2017.

 

 

Attachments

No.

Title

Page

a

Local Government New Zealand 2017 Conference - Preliminary Programme

406

b

Local Government New Zealand Remit Policy

410

 

 

Signatories

Author

Jo Daly - Council Secretary

Approved By

Lester Wolfreys - Head of Community Support, Governance and Partnerships

Mary Richardson - General Manager Customer and Community

  


Council

06 April 2017

 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


Council

06 April 2017

 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator

 

 


Council

06 April 2017

 

 

25.  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

06 April 2017

 

 

 

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

26

On The Beach Restaurant - Lease Assignment and New Term

s7(2)(h), s7(2)(i)

Commercial Activities, Conduct Negotiations

This report contains commercially sensitive information relative to the existing operator and propsed assignee

Upon lease assignment

27

Public Excluded Finance and Performance Committee Minutes - 1 March 2017

 

 

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

 

28

 Social Housing Airedale Courts

s7(2)(b)(ii), s7(2)(d)

Prejudice Commercial Position, Protection of Health or Safety of Individuals

Commercial negotiations with a contractor are yet to be completed.
A uncoordinated release of this information to affected tenants may cause concern.  Once tenants are notified the report can be released.

Outcome of report can be released upon completion of negotiations and the implementation of an agreed communications plan.

29

Civic Financial Services Limited

s7(2)(a)

Protection of Privacy of Natural Persons

The Council may name possible candidates for nomination to the board of the Company.

To be determined by the chief executive, once she has implemented the Council's decision.

 

 



[1] https://www.toko.org.nz/petitions/make-otautahi-christchurch-one-use-plastic-bag-free

[2] https://www.toko.org.nz/petitions/make-otautahi-christchurch-one-use-plastic-bag-free

[3] Product stewardship is the responsible management of the environmental impact of a product. It aims to reduce the impact of   manufactured products at stages of the product life cycle.

 

[4] http://ccc.govt.nz/services/rubbish-and-recycling/sorting/recycling-yellow-bin/

[5] http://www.ccc.govt.nz/the-council/plans-strategies-policies-and-bylaws/strategies/waste-management-and-minimisation-plan-2013/

[6] https://www.beehive.govt.nz/release/soft-plastics-recycling-programme-launched

[7] Graduated scale of infringement fees introduced in 2016: http://ccc.govt.nz/the-council/news-releases/show/590

[8] Although, the Bylaws Act 1910 also provides that: “No bylaw shall be invalid merely because it deals with a matter already dealt with by the laws of New Zealand…”