Christchurch City Council

Agenda

 

 

Notice of Meeting:

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

 

Date:                                     Thursday 13 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

 

 

7 April 2017

 

 

 

Principal Advisor

Dr Karleen Edwards

Chief Executive

Tel: 941 8554

 

Christopher Turner-Bullock

Committee Advisor

941 8233

christopher.turner@ccc.govt.nz

www.ccc.govt.nz

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

 


Council

13 April 2017

 

 

 


Council

13 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

5.       Chief Executive's Monthly Report - March 2017.................................................................... 7

Halswell-Hornby-Riccarton Community Board

6.       Halswell-Hornby-Riccarton Community Board Report to Council..................................... 17

7.       New Hornby Library and Customer Services and South West Leisure Centre - Community Consultation and Engagement.............................................................................................. 51

8.       Ruapuna Park - Lease of Part to Canterbury Car Club Incorporated............................... 117

Linwood-Central-Heathcote Community Board

9.       Linwood-Central-Heathcote Community Board Report to Council................................. 127

Papanui-Innes Community Board

10.     Papanui-Innes Community Board Report to Council........................................................ 139

Spreydon-Cashmere Community Board

11.     Spreydon-Cashmere Community Board Report to Council.............................................. 161

12.     New Lease Huntsbury Community Centre.......................................................................... 191

Banks Peninsula Community Board

13.     Banks Peninsula Community Board Report to Council..................................................... 199

14.     Lyttelton Historical Museum Society - request for gift of land........................................ 217

Coastal-Burwood Community Board

15.     Coastal-Burwood Community Board Report to Council................................................... 241

Fendalton-Waimairi-Harewood Community Board

16.     Fendalton-Waimairi-Harewood Community Board Report to Council............................ 259

Innovation and Sustainable Development Committee

17.     Development Contributions Policy Review 2017............................................................... 265

STAFF REPORTS

18.     Draft submission on Clean Water 2017............................................................................... 305

19.     Memorial Trees QEII Park..................................................................................................... 417

20.     Elected Member Appointments to External Bodies........................................................... 431

21.     Resolution to Exclude the Public......................................................................................... 433  

 

 

 


Council

13 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

13 April 2017

 

 

5.        Chief Executive's Monthly Report - March 2017

Reference:

17/302357

Contact:

Karleen Edwards

karleen.edwards@ccc.govt.nz

941 8999

 

 

1.   Purpose of Report

1.1       The Chief Executive’s Report provides a summary of the Council’s organisational performance for March 2017

 

2.   Staff Recommendations

That the Council:

1.         Receive the report.

 

 

Attachments

No.

Title

Page

a

March 2017 Chief Executive Report

3

 

 

Signatories

Author

Karleen Edwards - Chief Executive

  


Council

13 April 2017

 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


Council

13 April 2017

 

 

6.        Halswell-Hornby-Riccarton Community Board Report to Council

Reference:

17/271379

Contact:

Gary Watson

gary.watson@ccc.govt.nz

941 8258

 

 

1.   Purpose of Report

The purpose of this report is to provide the Council with an overview of Part A matters requiring a Council decision and of matters considered by the Community Board arising in February 2017 and March 2017.

 

2.   Community Board Recommendations

That the Council:

1.         Receive the Halswell-Hornby-Riccarton Community Board report.

 

 

3.   Meeting Minutes

The Halswell-Hornby-Riccarton Community Board held meetings during February 2017 and March 2017 and is providing the attached minutes to the Council for its information:

·   28 February 2017

·   14 March 2017

·   28 March 2017

4.   Part A Recommendations to Council

The following reports presenting Part A recommendations from the Board, are included separately in this agenda for the Council’s consideration:

4.1       Ruapuna Park – Lease of Part to Canterbury Car Club Incorporated

4.2       Hornby Library, Customer Services and the South West Leisure Centre – Consultation and Engagement Document  

5.   Significant Projects and Initiatives (e.g. major community or infrastructure projects)         

5.1       Community Facilities

5.1.1   Te Hapua: Halswell Centre – staff work is ongoing aimed at improving customer experience at this facility.

5.1.2   Former Halswell Library – A report on this matter is scheduled for the Board’s meeting on 11 April 2017.

5.2       Partnerships with the community and organisations

5.2.1   Recently, the Community Development Advisers met with the Otautahi Community Housing Trust to discuss projects.  The Trust has a very similar Garden Pride Award Ceremony on 10 March 2017.  It was agreed that the ward would experiment with inviting certificate recipients to the Board hosted Halswell-Hornby-Riccarton Garden Awards function on 16 March 2017 to acknowledge their contributions to the beautification that their gardens provide to local communities.  This is also mentioned in paragraph 8.3.   


 

5.3       Infrastructure projects underway

5.3.1   Some of the key Infrastructure projects in the Halswell-Hornby-Riccarton wards area.

·   Riccarton Road - Bus Priority and Infrastructure Upgrade - construction is ongoing    on the Deans Avenue/Harakeke Street/ Clarence Street section of Riccarton Road.

·   Major Cycleway Routes – 13 Major Cycle Routes are progressively being built in the city, connecting suburbs, shopping areas, businesses, schools and sporting destinations.

Routes in the Halswell-Hornby-Riccarton wards are:

·   Quarryman’s Trail - work is scheduled to commence in 2017. The cycleway will support the residential growth areas around the south west of the city by connecting Halswell to the Central City via Hoon Hay and Somerfield.

·   Nor’West Arc - this route is expected to be used primarily by commuters and students and will link Hoon Hay, Middleton, Upper Riccarton, Bryndwr and Papanui Completion is scheduled in 2018.

·   South Express – the city’s western boundary in Templeton will connect Hornby, Sockburn and Middleton to Riccarton and Addington finishing with a link to the Northern Line Cycleway, Nor’West Arc and the shared paths in South Hagley Park.  Completion of the route is estimated for 2019.

·   Uni Cycle – currently under construction, this route is will connect the University of Canterbury with the Central City.

·   Christchurch Southern Motorway, Stage 2 (New Zealand Transport Agency project) Site works by the McConnell Dowell/Downer joint venture commenced in October 2016. The construction period for project completion is three and a half years.

·   Riccarton Road Intersections and corridor improvements - the Ilam/Middleton/Riccarton intersection project is one of several along this corridor to improve road safety. The project was currently scheduled for 2016-17 with completion in 2017-18 however the Council’s Draft Annual Plan 2017-18 does now propose a later commencement and completion period.

·   Pound Road Realignment – work continues on realigning Pound Road with State Highway 1 at Templeton. 

6.   Significant Community Issues

Kennedy’s Bush and Westmorland Fire Issues 

6.1       Status

6.1.1   Staff are developing a recovery plan along with the residents of these areas over the next four weeks. Staff arranged recovery meetings were held in the week of 27 March 2017 to answer questions and collate unanswered issues. These will be responded to by the organisations concerned, then conveyed back to the groups. 

6.2       Action Required

6.2.1   A community meeting was held on 23 February 2017 on Kennedy’s Bush Road.  Questions from that meeting were fed back to the community. Continue to follow up on any questions raised.

6.2.2   Assistance has been offered in the form of funding and staff time to the Westmorland and Kennedy’s Bush Road Residents’ Associations to assist with recovery.

6.3       Timeframe

6.3.1   Timeframe – This will be an on-going project for the local Community Governance Team. 

Stock Transfer of Housing New Zealand properties in Riccarton        

6.4       Status

6.4.1   Housing New Zealand has signalled a proposed stock transfer of up to 2,500 properties in Christchurch to social housing providers.  This is projected to include properties in Riccarton as well as Shirley and Bryndwr.  Letters have gone out from Housing New Zealand to some Riccarton Housing New Zealand tenants, and local community organisations have reported dealing with a number of tenants who are feeling very vulnerable.

A local Riccarton public meeting was held on 19 February 2017.  This was followed by a city-wide meeting on 9 March 2017 at the Transitional Cathedral and a forum hosted by Tenants Protection Association with speakers from Treasury, Methodist Mission and tenants.  The forum was held on 29 March 2017.

6.5       Action Required

6.5.1   The stock transfer is beyond the scope of Council, however Council staff, through the Community Support, Governance and Partnerships Unit, may be in a position to provide assistance to organisations who support social housing tenants, to ensure that tenants are able to participate in any decision-making and information processes around this.

6.6       Timeframe

6.6.1   No firm date has been identified by Housing New Zealand for this to take place.  Market sounding for bidders closed on 3 February 2017.

7.   Progress Report Against the Community Board Plan 

7.1       The Halswell-Hornby-Riccarton Community Board has yet to develop its 2017-19 Community Board Plan therefore there is nothing to report at this time.

8.   Community Board Significant Matters of Interest 

8.1       Issue: Concerns around the time to install road safety equipment across the city.

Action Required

8.1.1   Arising from the Aidanfield Christian School bringing this local issue to the Board on 28 March 2017, action was taken by staff to have children warning signs installed on the approaches to the school on Aidanfield Drive. This occurred within seven days of the Board meeting which was a fantastic result. 

8.1.2   Also at this meeting, the Board decided ‘to advise the Council that in considering the Aidanfield Drive Pedestrian Facility project, this has raised for the Community Board the long length of time it would take the Council to install 40 kilometre per hour school speed zone limits throughout the city because they are only currently funded at three per annum. Accordingly, the Halswell-Hornby-Riccarton Community Board asks that the Council looks to increase that provision to at least six schools per annum across the city.’


 

The provision of a 40 kilometres per hour school speed zone for Aidanfield School on Aidanfield Drive, is included in the Council’s budget for 2018-19.

8.2       Issue: Consultation document for Hornby Library, Customer Services and the South West Leisure Centre

Action Required

8.2.2   The consultation and engagement document is being presented to the Council on 13 April 2017 for approval to be published and consulted on.

8.3       Issue: Community Garden Pride Awards delivered

Status

8.3.1      The Board’s Halswell-Hornby-Riccarton Community Pride Garden Awards function was held on Thursday 16 March 2017 at the Hornby Working Mens' Club.

The function was well attended with 78 certificates given out. Attendees enjoyed speeches from Diana Irie, President of the Halswell Garden Club, Rick Fraser Otautahi Community Housing Trust, with five of their recipients attending the ceremony, and Ron Andrews, President of the Christchurch Beautifying Association.

This year we trialled a lucky prize draw with three major prizes (hampers from Barkers) and three small prizes (vouchers from Mitre 10) given to those with lucky numbers, which was a real success. 142 certificates have been forwarded to those recipients unable to attend the function.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

8.4       Issue: Board Bus Tour

Status

8.4.1   The Halswell-Hornby-Riccarton Community Board bus tour of the three wards took place on Monday 13 March 2017.  Halswell-Hornby-Riccarton Community Board members were joined by the Mayor and Councillor Scandrett on the three-hour trip around the wards.  Over 25 sites were visited taking in a number of issues and highlights.  These included:

·   University of Canterbury (parking issues)

·   Housing developments and subdivisions at Riccarton Racecourse, Yaldhurst Village, Wigram Skies, wider Halswell

·   Traffic and roading issues ( Pound Road, Halswell Junction Road/Waterloo Business Park, Southern Motorway (SH1), Halswell Junction Road, Amyes Road/Springs Road)

·   Community Facilities (Yaldhurst, Riccarton, Hornby Community Care Centre, Upper Riccarton War Memorial Library, Wharenui Recreation Centre, former Sockburn Service Centre)

·   Parks - Denton Park, Warren Park, Nga Puna Wai, Halswell Domain, Sockburn Park, Harrington Park, Te Kahu Reserve, Knights Stream Reserve (including South west facility and skate park issues)

·   Yaldhurst/Templeton issues (Quarries, Plan Change 52)

·   Riccarton Community Projects (Community Garden, Harrington Park Mural and Shand Crescent intersection)

·   Riccarton Bus Lounges

8.5       Issue: Culture Galore 2017 delivered

Status

8.5.1   The 15th annual Culture Galore event took place on Saturday 11 March 2017 at Ray Blank Park in Ilam. The event brought together over 4,000 people to celebrate Christchurch’s diversity with food, arts and crafts, music and dance performance from more than 80 cultures. 

Once again the Takumi Japanese Drumming Group was a huge hit and the queue for the Egyptian Chimney Cakes was about 15 metres long all day.  The kids enjoyed the numerous bouncy castles, water walkers, face painting, stone carving and the new storytelling area.

Culture Galore is managed by the Community Recreation Advisors of the Governance Teams and was well supported by the wider team members and numerous volunteers who helped on the day.

   

   

                   

8.6       Issue: Connect 2017 delivered

Status

8.6.1   Connect 2017 was held on Sunday 5 March 2017 at Harrington Park.

The event is organized in partnership between the Oak Development Trust, University of Canterbury and the New Zealand Police, funded by the Christchurch City Council's Halswell-Hornby-Riccarton Community Board. It aims to bring together university students and local residents of the Riccarton West area to connect, get to know one another, share information on local services and help build local partnerships and community coalitions.

 

Over 200 people attended Connect 2017 to enjoy the bouncy castle, sausage sizzle and the popular Flat verses Flat competition. This year saw twelve teams enter, made up of both students and local residents who came together to enjoy the activities.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 


8.7       Issue: Hornby Hoop 3 on 3 Basketball Tournament

Action Required

8.7.1   Hornby Hoops was held on Wednesday 5 April to Thursday 6 April 2017 at the Hornby Youth Hangout, 3.30pm to 5.30pm.

Hornby Hoops aims to bring together over 100 young people from the surrounding intermediate and high schools, to compete in a 3 on 3 basketball tournament. The event is organised in partnership between the Community Development Network Trust and Christchurch City Council.

Leading up to the tournament, a series of basketball sessions available for free at the local schools will be ran by the staff and volunteers at the Community Development Trust. It is envisaged that by providing this opportunity, the participants with will be enthused to make up a team to enter into the Hornby Hoops competition, and hopefully afterwards go on to join a club and play regularly.

 

Hornby Hoops will be the pinnacle of a project which aspires to keep young people involved in sport for longer promoting healthy active lifestyles.

 

8.8       Issue: Halswell Skate and Recreation Parks  

Status

8.8.1   All the responses to the consultation for Halswell Domain and Knights Stream Sports Park have now been analysed and subsequently five changes to the concept plans have been recommended by staff following the submissions received and further technical advice.

Action Required

8.8.2   The Halswell-Hornby-Riccarton Community Board will be making a decision on the project in May 2017 with construction anticipated to commence in September 2017.

 

 

Attachments

No.

Title

Page

a

Halswell-Hornby-Riccarton Community Board 28 February 2017 Minutes

3

b

Halswell-Hornby-Riccarton Community Board 14 March 2017 Minutes

3

c

Halswell-Hornby-Riccarton Community Board 28 March 2017 Minutes

3

 

 

Signatories

Authors

Gary Watson - Manager Community Governance, Halswell-Hornby-Riccarton

Emily Toase - Community Recreation Advisor

Marie Byrne - Community Development Advisor

Karla Gunby - Community Development Advisor

Peter Dow - Community Board Advisor

Cindy Sheppard - Governance Support Officer

Approved By

Gary Watson - Manager Community Governance, Halswell-Hornby-Riccarton

Lester Wolfreys - Head of Community Support, Governance and Partnerships

  


Council

13 April 2017

 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


Council

13 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


Council

13 April 2017

 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


Council

13 April 2017

 

Report from Halswell-Hornby-Riccarton Community Board Submissions Committee  – 31 March 2017

 

7.        New Hornby Library and Customer Services and South West Leisure Centre - Community Consultation and Engagement

Reference:

17/336582

Contact:

Gary Watson

gary.watson@ccc.govt.nz

941 8258

 

 

 

1.   Purpose of Report

At its meeting of 28 March 2017, the Board resolved to authorise its Submissions Committee to formulate the Board’s feedback to the Council on this matter.

 

The Committee met on 31 March 2017 for this purpose and reports as follows.

 

 

2.   Staff Recommendations

 

That the Halswell-Hornby-Riccarton Community Board Submissions Committee recommend that the Council:

1.         Endorses the commencement of consultation and engagement regarding options for the location and configuration of the New Hornby Library and Customer Services; and the South West Leisure Centre as contained in the draft consultation documents.

2.         Notes that a report will be generated with findings and recommendations upon completion of the consultation. 

 

 

3.  Halswell-Hornby-Riccarton Community Board Submissions Committee Recommendation to Council

 

Part A

That the Halswell-Hornby-Riccarton Community Board Submissions Committee recommend that the Council:

1.         Endorses the commencement of consultation and engagement regarding options for the location and configuration of the New Hornby Library and Customer Services; and the South West Leisure Centre as contained in the draft consultation documents, as proposed amendments in yellow shown in Attachment B.

2.         Notes that a report will be generated with findings and recommendations upon completion of the consultation. 

 

 

Attachments

No.

Report Title

Page

1

New Hornby Library and Customer Services and South West Leisure Centre - Community Consultation and Engagement

3

 

No.

Title

Page

a

New Hornby Library and Customer Services; and the South West Leisure Centre Community Consultation document

3

b

As Amended, New Hornby Library and Customer Services; and the South West Leisure Centre Community Consutlation document

3

 

 


Council

13 April 2017

 

 

New Hornby Library and Customer Services and South West Leisure Centre - Community Consultation and Engagement

Reference:

17/269946

Contact:

Ann Campbell

ann.campbell@ccc.govt.nz

941 8717

 

 

1.   Purpose of Report

1.1       To approve the commencement of consultation and engagement regarding options for the location and configuration of the New Hornby Library and Customer Services; and the South West Leisure Centre as contained in the draft consultation documents.

 

2.   Staff Recommendations

That the Halswell-Hornby-Riccarton Community Board Submissions Committee recommend that the Council:

1.         Endorses the commencement of consultation and engagement regarding options for the location and configuration of the New Hornby Library and Customer Services; and the South West Leisure Centre as contained in the draft consultation documents.

2.         Notes that a report will be generated with findings and recommendations upon completion of the consultation. 

 

 

 

3.   Key Points

 

3.1       The Council has budgeted for the new Hornby Library and Customer Services; and the South West Leisure Centre, as follows:

·    New Hornby Library and Service Centre (ID 1019)

·    Community Facilities South West Leisure Centre (ID 862)

3.2       The community consultation and engagement will commence on Wednesday 26 April 2017 and end on Friday 9 June 2017 (a period of six plus weeks).

3.3       A report will be generated with findings and recommendations upon completion of the consultation (anticipated late June 2017).

 

 

 

 

Attachments

No.

Title

Page

a 

New Hornby Library and Customer Services; and the South West Leisure Centre Community Consultation document

 

 

 

Signatories

Authors

Lee Sampson - Senior Project Manager

Ann Campbell - Senior Engagement Advisor

Approved By

Liam Nolan - Head of Vertical Capital Delivery and Professional Services

David Adamson - General Manager City Services

 


Council

13 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


Council

13 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


Council

13 April 2017

 

Report from Halswell-Hornby-Riccarton Community Board  – 14 March 2017

 

8.        Ruapuna Park - Lease of Part to Canterbury Car Club Incorporated

Reference:

17/271283

Contact:

Gary Watson

gary.watson@ccc.govt.nz

941 8258

 

 

 

 

 

1.  Halswell-Hornby-Riccarton Community Board Recommendation to Council

 

Part A

That the Council resolve:

1.         That it publicly advertise the proposal to grant a lease to Canterbury Car Club Incorporated over that part of Ruapuna Park where the raceway is situated, an area of approximately 39.9751 hectares, contained in Lot 1 DP 323836, classified as Recreation Reserve and shown on Attachment A, RPS856-42.

2.         That in the event that there are objections that cannot be satisfied, then staff are authorised to convene a Hearings Panel to consider any such objections and making a recommendation back to the Council for a decision.

3.         That in the event that there are no unresolved objections, then:

a.         In its capacity of holding the Minister of Conservation's Delegation, the Council resolve to give consent to the lease in accordance with 54(1)(b), (c) and (d) of the Reserves Act 1977.

b.         Delegated authority is granted to the Property Consultancy Manager to manage and conclude all issues and processes associated with the above resolutions including, but not limited to c. and d. below.

c.         Finalising lease documentation to Canterbury Car Club Incorporated for a period of up to 33 years broken into three 11 year terms at an annual rental to be negotiated.

d.         Granting permission to Canterbury Car Club Incorporated to enter into hire and sublease arrangements for utilisation of the grounds and buildings contained within the lease area specifically to Canterbury Racing School as well as other user groups on terms and conditions to be approved by the Property Consultancy Manager, on behalf of the Council.

 

 

Attachments

No.

Report Title

Page

1

Ruapuna Park - Lease of Part to Canterbury Car Club Incorporated

3

 

No.

Title

Page

a

Site Plan - RPS856-42 (107 Hasketts Road)

3

 

 


Council

13 April 2017

 

 

Ruapuna Park - Lease of Part to Canterbury Car Club Incorporated

Reference:

17/47630

Contact:

Jeff Woodham

jeff.woodham@ccc.govt.nz

941 8771

 

 

1.   Purpose and Origin of Report

Purpose of Report

1.1       The purpose of this report is for the Halswell-Hornby-Riccarton Community Board to recommend to the Council that a lease be granted to Canterbury Car Club Incorporated over an area of Ruapuna Park which has historically been and is currently occupied by them.

Origin of Report

1.2       This report is staff generated.

2.   Significance

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

2.1.1   The level of significance was determined by staff evaluation against the criteria in the Council’s Significance and Engagement Policy as follows:

·     Number of people affected and/or with an interest – there is a distinct group of motorsport enthusiasts in the form of club members, participants and spectators who are local to Christchurch, regional to Canterbury, national and international, who would be affected by the proposed new lease decision. The local residents would also be affected by the proposed new lease decision.

·     Level of community interest for the issue, proposal or decision, or the potential to generate community interest – in the past there has been interest in the issues at Ruapuna Motorsport Park. When Plan Change 52 was proposed there were 41 submissions received. Chapter 21.10 Specific Purpose (Ruapuna Motorsport) Zone of the Christchurch District Plan attracted three submissions.

·     Possible environmental, social and cultural impacts - local residents have been pro-active through Quieter Please (Templeton) Incorporated, over noise and usage days which culminated in an Environment Court decision, the outcome of the Court decision has now been incorporated in the Christchurch District Plan.

·     Possible benefits/opportunities to the Council, ratepayers and wider community of carrying out the decision – events held at the Ruapuna Motorsport Park contribute to local tourism in the form of out of town competitors and spectators attendance. Such events often attract television exposure for the City of Christchurch.

·     Whether the impact of a decision can be easily reversed – the financial ramifications of breaking a lease (once granted) and re-establishing the raceway in another location would be significant. Re-establishing in another location would involve further consultation.

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

 

3.   Staff Recommendations 

That the Halswell-Hornby-Riccarton Community Board recommend to the Council:

1.         That it publicly advertise the proposal to grant a lease to Canterbury Car Club Incorporated over that part of Ruapuna Park where the raceway is situated, an area of approximately 39.9751 hectares, contained in Lot 1 DP 323836, classified as Recreation Reserve and shown on Attachment A, RPS856-42.

2.         That in the event that there are objections that cannot be satisfied, then staff are authorised to convene a Hearings Panel to consider any such objections and making a recommendation back to the Council for a decision.

3.         That in the event that there are no unresolved objections, then:

a.         In its capacity of holding the Minister of Conservation's Delegation, the Council resolve to give consent to the lease in accordance with 54(1)(b), (c) and (d) of the Reserves Act 1977.

b.         Delegated authority is granted to the Property Consultancy Manager to manage and conclude all issues and processes associated with the above resolutions including, but not limited to c. and d. below.

c.         Finalising lease documentation to Canterbury Car Club Incorporated for a period of up to 33 years broken into three 11 year terms at an annual rental to be negotiated.

d.         Granting permission to Canterbury Car Club Incorporated to enter into hire and sublease arrangements for utilisation of the grounds and buildings contained within the lease area specifically to Canterbury Racing School as well as other user groups on terms and conditions to be approved by the Property Consultancy Manager, on behalf of the Council.

 

4.   Key Points

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

4.1.1   Activity: Recreation and Sports Facilities

·     Level of Service: 7.0.2 Provide well utilised facility-based recreation and sporting programmes and activities

4.2       The following feasible options have been considered:

·     Option 1 – Grant a lease to Canterbury Car Club Incorporated (preferred option).

·     Option 2 – Not grant a lease to Canterbury Car Club Incorporated.

4.3       Option Summary - Advantages and Disadvantages (Preferred Option)

4.3.1   The advantages of this option include:

·     Continue to utilise the recreational potential of Ruapuna Park.

·     Continue the operation of a facility for motor racing which meets international standards.

·     Recognises the regional importance of the motorsport facility.

4.3.2   The disadvantages of this option include:

·     The noise issue for the local residents will remain in the same location, albeit now with stricter rules under the Christchurch District Plan.

 

5.   Context/Background

Current use and Lease

5.1       Ruapuna Park is located to the west of the city at 107 Hasketts Road, in an area containing rural and residential activities and further afield, the Templeton Golf Course, a quarry, Paparua Prison and the residential areas of Templeton and Yaldhurst. The park provides a venue for a variety of motorsport and other activities, occupying 55 hectares of Crown Reserve which is administered by the Christchurch City Council.  The speedway was established in April 1962 and the racetrack in November 1963. The racetrack is the larger of the two tracks.

5.2       The ground on which the race track is located, is leased to, and operated by, the Canterbury Car Club Incorporated, with the lease expiring in December 2016.  Negotiations on a new lease have been underway for some time, but have only recently advanced to a point where it can be recommended to the Council that it considers proceeding to consultation.  The occupancy has continued under “roll over” provisions.

5.3       The Club sub-leases land to the Canterbury Motor Racing School until March 2017, who in turn sublease to Aristotle Enterprises until December 2016.  The Council agreed to the subleases in 2002 and 2004 respectively.  While the expiry dates for the subleases are after the expiration of the head lease, they are still valid.

5.4       The racetrack operates on an almost daily basis, with a mixture of uses ranging from bicycle races to competitive motor racing.  Weekdays are generally practice sessions, driver training, or open hire days, with most race events taking place in the weekends.

Specific Purpose (Ruapuna Motorsport) Zone – Chapter 21 Christchurch District Plan

5.5       Objective - Motorsport

·   Ruapuna Motorsport Park continues to operate as a facility of regional importance servicing motorsport, as well as training and recreational activities, whilst ensuring the adverse noise effects of activities at the Park on the surrounding community and environment are effectively managed to not increase and, if practicable, are reduced.

5.6       Policy - Motorsport

·   To ensure that motorsport activities operate in a manner which do not result in an unreasonable level of noise being received by activities which are noise sensitive; and

·   To manage noise sensitive activities where they would be affected by noise from motorsport activities.

5.7       Policy – Use and Development of Ruapuna Motorsport Park

·   Provide for the use and development of the land and buildings at Ruapuna Motorsport Park in a manner that:

·     recognises the regional importance of the park as a motorsport facility; and

·     enables a range of uses that are ancillary to the park's use as a motorsport facility.

5.8       General Rules and Activity Status Tables specifying Permitted Activities are detailed in the Christchurch District Plan.

Delegations

5.9       Ruapuna Motorsport Park is considered to be a metropolitan asset as it impacts on users across the city.

5.10    The delegation to enter into a lease therefore sits with the full Council.

Minister of Conservation Delegation

5.11    On 12 June 2013, the Minster of Conservation delegated to all territorial authorities powers, functions and duties where the territorial authority is the administering body of the relevant reserve.

5.12    In exercising the Minister’s delegation, the administering body (i.e. the Council) must give consideration to those matters previously applied by the Minister, for example ensuring that:

·        The land has been correctly identified;

·        The necessary statutory processes have been followed;

·        The functions and purposes of the Reserves Act have been taken into account in respect to the classification and purpose of the reserve as required under section 40 of the Act;

·        The administering body has considered submissions and objections from affected parties and that, on the basis of the evidence, the decision is a reasonable one;

·        Pursuant to the requirements of section 4 of the Conservation Act 1987, the administering body has consulted with and considered the views of tangata whenua or has in some other way been able to make an informed decision.

·        Council officers have publically notified the Council’s intentions to consider granting Canterbury Car Club Incorporated a lease for 33 years.

·        Council officers are satisfied that the proposed lease complies with the Minister’s requirements.

6.   Option 1 - Grant a Lease to Canterbury Car Club Incorporated (preferred)

Option Description

6.1       To grant a lease to Canterbury Car Club Incorporated over part of the land known as Ruapuna Park, the same area that was occupied by Canterbury Car Club Incorporated until 31 December 2016.

Significance

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

6.3       Engagement requirements for this level of significance are required and will be carried out through the legislative process set down in the Reserves Act 1977. Additional engagement is considered to have been carried out by the level of engagement undertaken during the Christchurch District Plan consideration.

Impact on Mana Whenua

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

Community Views and Preferences

6.5       Motorsport enthusiasts in the form of club members, participants and spectators who are local to Christchurch, regional to Canterbury, national and international are specifically affected by this option due to their desire to continue to have a facility of an international standard for motorsport.  Their views are supportive of this option.

Alignment with Council Plans and Policies

6.6       This option is consistent with the Council’s Plans and Policies, in particular Specific Purpose (Ruapuna Motorsport) Zone – Chapter 21 Christchurch District Plan.

Financial Implications

6.7       Cost of Implementation – costs to prepare the lease documentation and public advertising expenses; approximately $1,000 to be recovered from the Lessee.

6.8       Maintenance/Ongoing Costs - nil

6.9       Funding source – not applicable

6.10    The final rental is still to be negotiated.  

Legal Implications

6.11    A Deed of Lease will be prepared to document the lease arrangement.

Risks and Mitigations  

6.12    Risk - reputational/image caused by media coverage.  This may result in some negative feedback from members of the public who do not support motorsport activities at Ruapuna Park.

6.12.1 Treatment - Current provision in Christchurch District Plan that permits this activity.

6.13    Residual risk rating - the rating of the risk is low.

Implementation

6.14    Implementation dependencies - Recommendation by Community Board; Resolution by the Council; Public Notification of Intention to Grant Lease; Possible requirement for Reserves Hearing Panel.

6.15    Implementation timeframe – two to six months.

Option Summary - Advantages and Disadvantages

6.16    The advantages of this option include:

·   Continue to utilise the recreational potential of Ruapuna Park.

·   Continue the operation of a facility for motor racing which meets international standards.

·   Recognises the regional importance of the motorsport facility.

6.17    The disadvantages of this option include:

·   The noise issue for the local residents will remain in the same location, albeit now with stricter rules under the Christchurch District Plan.

7.   Option 2 – Not grant a lease to Canterbury Car Club Incorporated

Option Description

7.1       Not grant a lease to Canterbury Car Club.

Significance

7.2       The level of significance of this option is medium consistent with section 2 of this report but differs from section 2 of this report due to the level of significance differences which were determined by staff evaluation against the criteria in the Council’s Significance and Engagement Policy as follows:

·   Number of people affected and/or with an interest – there is a distinct group of motorsport enthusiasts in the form of club members, participants and spectators who are local to Christchurch, regional to Canterbury, national and international, who would be affected by not granting a lease decision. The local residents would also be affected by not granting a lease decision.

·   Level of impact on those people affected – a decision not to grant a lease would place a huge financial burden on the Canterbury Car Club Incorporated to re-locate and replicate their facilities. Individually, the members would face a reduced opportunity to use their personal investment they have in the vehicles they race. Local residents would benefit from a quieter environment.

·   Level of community interest for the issue, proposal or decision, or the potential to generate community interest – in the past there has been interest in the issues at Ruapuna Motorsport Park. When Plan Change 52 was proposed there were 41 submissions received. Chapter 21.10 Specific Purpose (Ruapuna Motorsport) Zone of the Christchurch District Plan attracted three submissions.

·   Possible environmental, social and cultural impacts - local residents have been pro-active through Quieter Please (Templeton) Incorporated, over noise and usage days which culminated in an Environment Court decision, the outcome of the Court decision has now been incorporated in the Christchurch District Plan. If a lease was not granted, the District Plan process would be re-commenced to consider any new location proposed by the Canterbury Car Club Incorporated.

·   Whether the impact of a decision can be easily reversed – the impact and significance of reversing a decision not to granted a lease would depend on the timing of that reversal.

7.3       Engagement requirements for this medium level of significance are required.

Impact on Mana Whenua

7.4       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

7.5       The club members and the motorsport community are specifically affected by this option due to their desire to continue to undertake motorsport activities in the Christchurch area.  Their views are not supportive of this option.

7.6       The local residents in the immediate vicinity are specifically affected by this option due to their desire to have all noisesome activities cease.  Their views are supportive of this option.

Alignment with Council Plans and Policies

7.7       This option is inconsistent with the Council’s Plans and Policies

7.7.1   Inconsistency - Specific Purpose (Ruapuna Motorsport) Zone – Chapter 21 Christchurch District Plan.

7.7.2   Reason for inconsistency – does not align with Specific Purpose (Ruapuna Motorsport) Zone – Chapter 21 Christchurch District Plan.

7.7.3   Amendment necessary – grant Canterbury Car Club Incorporated a lease.

Financial Implications

7.8       Cost of Implementation - nil

7.9       Maintenance/Ongoing Costs - nil

7.10    Funding source – there is no budget to facilitate the removal and re-location of the facility.

Legal Implications

7.11    There are no legal implications in not granting a lease.

Risks and Mitigations  

7.12    Risk - reputational/image caused by media coverage.  This may result in some negative feedback from members of the public who do support motorsport activities at Ruapuna Park.

7.12.1 Treatment - Granting a lease and meet objectives of Specific Purpose (Ruapuna Motorsport) Zone – Chapter 21 Christchurch District Plan.

7.13    Residual risk rating -  the rating of the risk is low

Implementation

7.14    Implementation dependencies  - not applicable

7.15    Implementation timeframe – not applicable

Option Summary - Advantages and Disadvantages

7.16    The advantages of this option include:

·   Opens up a large space with less noisesome activities on Ruapuna Park.

7.17    The disadvantages of this option include:

·   Discontinues the realisation of the recreational potential of Ruapuna Park.

·   Discontinues the operation of a facility for motor racing which meets international standards.

·   Does not recognise the regional importance of the motorsport facility.

·   Is counter-productive in achieving the objectives of Specific Purpose (Ruapuna Motorsport) Zone – Chapter 21 Christchurch District Plan.

 

Attachments

No.

Title

Page

a 

Site Plan - RPS856-42 (107 Hasketts Road)

 

 

 

Confirmation of Statutory Compliance

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

(a) This report contains:

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

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

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

 

Signatories

Author

Jeff Woodham - Leasing Consultant

Approved By

Kathy Jarden - Team Leader Leasing Consultancy

Angus Smith - Manager Property Consultancy

Bruce Rendall - Head of Facilities, Property and Planning

John Filsell - Head of Recreation and Sports

Mary Richardson - General Manager Customer and Community

 


Council

13 April 2017

 

PDF Creator


Council

13 April 2017

 

 

9.        Linwood-Central-Heathcote Community Board Report to Council

Reference:

17/200064

Contact:

Shupayi Mpunga

shupayi.mpunga@ccc.govt.nz

941 6605

 

 

1.   Purpose of Report

The purpose of this report is to provide the Council with an overview of Part A matters requiring a Council decision and of matters considered by the Community Board arising in March.

 

2.   Community Board Recommendations

That the Council:

1.         Receive the Community Board report.

 

 

3.   Meeting Minutes

The Linwood-Central-Heathcote Community Board held a meeting during March and is providing the attached minutes to the Council for its information:

·   15 March 2017

4.   Part A Recommendations to Council

There are no Part A recommendations to the Council from the Linwood-Central-Heathcote Community Board.

5.   Significant Projects and Initiatives

5.1       Aquatic facility in the Linwood/Woolston Area

5.1.1   Status

The Board met with staff to have preliminary discussions on site investigation and scoping of the development of an aquatic facility in the Linwood/Woolston area.  Funding for this project is available through the Long-Term Plan.

5.1.2   Action

The Board and staff will continue to meet to discuss this project.

5.1.3   Timeframes

Ongoing.

5.2       Linwood Lower Fields Flood Mitigation Basin Landscape

5.2.1   Status

The Board received a staff report requesting the Board to approve the proposed forest landscape plan for the Linwood Lower Fields flood mitigation basin.  The Board approved the report and is excited about having an Urban Forest in Woolston that will reduce the risk of flooding in the area. 

5.2.2   Action

Staff were requested to engage regularly with residents during the project, and provide reports to the board on monitoring of the programme around anti-social behaviour, dogs and other issues after project completion.

5.2.3   Timeframe

Ongoing.

 

5.3       Woolston Library and Community Facility      

5.3.1   Status

Community consultation on the new facility continues, closing on Thursday 30 March 2017.

A public drop in session was held on 14 March 2017 at St Johns Church in Woolston. As of the 27 March 2017, 37 submissions have been received.

Public feedback on the design of the building was also received from residents at the Woolston Gala held on 25 March 2016.

The first Working Group meeting was held on Friday 24 March 2017, with the next meeting scheduled for 6 April 2017.

5.3.2   Action Required

A report is to be presented to the Board’s 1 May 2017 meeting to approve the design.

5.3.3   Timeframe

Construction is due to begin in the second half of the year.

 

6.   Significant Community Issues

6.1       Latimer Community Housing Trust

6.1.1   Status

The Trust has finalised plans for six units suitable for low income earners to be built in Barbadoes Street.  The housing units are meant for primarily single older adults on low incomes who had/have lived in the area before the earthquakes.  Most of these men lived in the bedsit units, more than 50% of which had to be demolished due to extensive damage. 

The Trust is determined to provide quality housing that is eco-friendly, use modern energy efficient building materials and technology (a phase change system was adopted), and  build in a way that enabled tenants to age in place, and feel they have a long-term home.  Trustees are clear that they would like to provide affordable  replacement housing for low-income, single Inner city East dwellers who have been displaced by urban renewal during the late 1990's and subsequently by the damage caused to the housing stock in the neighbourhood following the February 2011 earthquakes.

Funding of $290,000 was granted to the Trust from the Capital Endowment Fund in 2013.   Due to circumstances beyond the control of the Trust, extensive delays have been experienced in the process leading to the build of the units.  The Trustees have since had a quantity surveyor cost the project.  The costings given are significantly more than they had previously been quoted.  The Trust has met with the Community Board and the Board is keen on supporting the project in whatever way it can.

6.1.2   Action

The Trust is currently working of obtaining further funding to complete the units so it can open the housing debt free.

6.1.3   Timeframe

Building will commence as soon as further funding has been secured.


 

6.2       Doris Lusk Reserve

6.2.1   Status

There have been ongoing issues over the past few months with anti-social behaviour on Doris Lusk Reserve.  Unfortunately the issues are largely associated with those who are homeless, some of whom have addictions.  They spend the day at the Reserve, most of the time consuming alcohol.  This has caused residents and others visiting the Linwood Community Arts Centre to feel unsafe.  Before the earthquakes Street10 provided a place for the homeless to spend time during the day.  They were able to spend time with others in a similar situation and access support from community workers, cook, do their washing and be in a warm environment.

Local groups and organisations have tried to work with the group that spends time in the Reserve but feel that the situation is not getting better.  Some have requested that a liquor ban be put in place in the area. 

Through Te Whare Roimata, the Board heard about the ongoing issues on Doris Lusk Reserve.  On its bus tour in January 2017 the Board arrived at the Reserve and heard from staff at the Linwood Community Arts Centre (LCAC) how the anti-social behaviours, and sometimes simply the presence of the group on the Reserve, gives a perception of the area as unsafe.  There have been times when people who have intended on going to the LCAC have driven away as they feel intimidated.

6.2.2   Action

Local groups and organisations are working together to find ways to address these issues.  The biggest need identified is for a drop-in centre like Street10 or for a wet house.  The Board is supportive of having either in the Inner City East area.  The Board will also discuss having an alcohol ban on the Reserve.

6.2.3   Timeframe

Ongoing.

6.3       Inner City East Revitalisation Plan

6.3.1   Status

The Board heard from Te Whare Roimata about the ongoing pre-engagement with residents of the Inner City East and Linwood Village about a community-led Revitalisation Plan for the area.  Information collected so far shows that most of those who live in the area have lived there for a long period of time and have noted ongoing decline of the area.  A significant issue raised has been the perception of the area as being unsafe and the unkempt state of the area.  There is a sense that changes need to be made - both in terms of maintenance of the environment, and investment in people and place as this impacts negatively on mental health and general wellbeing.

Funding for this pre-engagement process was provided by the Hagley/Ferrymead Community Board in 2016.

6.3.2   Action

The Board will continue to liaise with Te Whare Roimata on how this process can be supported including through the Annual Plan process.

6.3.3   Timeframe

Ongoing.


 

 

7.   Community Board Significant Matters of Interest 

7.1       2016/17 Draft Annual Plan

7.1.1   Status

As at 28 March 2017, the Community Board has held one of two workshops on the Draft Annual Plan.  The Workshop was held at St Chad’s Anglican Church in Linwood.  17 people, not including Council staff and community board members, were present.  Those present took part in table conversations on various aspects of the Plan.  They were able to have one-on-one discussions on particular issues with elected members.

Apart from the workshops, elected members will be attending meetings in the wards to explain what the Annual Plan process is about and encourage submissions.

7.1.2   Action

Another workshop will be hosted by the Community Board on 30 March 2017 in Mount Pleasant, and the Board will attend community meetings.  The Board will also put in a submission on the Draft Annual Plan.

7.1.3   Timeframe

Ongoing until 28 April 2017.

7.2       Community Events held in March 2017

The following events were held within the three wards and were supported by the Board:

·    6 March 2017 - Breakfast Meeting with the Board Area Members of Parliament was held.  Discussion at the meeting included Flood Mitigation Project within the Community Board area; an update on the Major Cycleways; East Frame Update; Draft Annual Plan; Sumner Bus Stop, Port of Lyttelton Dredging Operations, and Redcliffs School/Redcliffs Park.

·    14 March 2017 Woolston Library and Community Facility Consultation Drop In, was held to hear the community views on concept design.  The report to approve the plan is planned to be presented to the Board’s 1 May 2017 meeting.

·    15 March 2017 – Breakfast Meeting with the Board Area School Principals, was held.  Fifteen school principals attended.  The Board heard about issues that the school principals are experiencing with congested parking outside of schools, many schools would like to see a positive police presence in their schools, and discussion on the lack of clarity on a school’s place on the school speed zone priority list. 

·    18 March 2017 – Waltham Fair  This was used by the Community Board and Council staff as an opportunity to raise awareness on the Annual Plan process and its importance.

·    25 March 2017 – Woolston Gala This was used by the Community Board and Council staff as an opportunity to raise awareness on the Annual Plan process and its importance.

·    27 March 2017 – Linwood-Central-Heathcote Community Board-led Annual Plan Engagement was held at St Chads Anglican Church, approximately 17 community members attended including some Linwood College students.

·    30 March 2017 - Linwood-Central-Heathcote Community Board-led Annual Plan engagement, at Mount Pleasant Community Centre, 3 McCormacks Bay Road, Mount Pleasant.  The Board Chairperson can provide a verbal update on this meeting.

·    31 March 2017 - Linwood-Central-Heathcote Community Board Garden Pride Awards recognising the effort of those who contribute to enhancing the overall image of Christchurch as the Garden City.

 

Attachments

No.

Title

Page

a

Linwood-Central-Heathcote Community Board Unconfirmed Meeting Minutes 15 March 2017

3

 

 

Signatories

Author

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

Approved By

Lester Wolfreys - Head of Community Support, Governance and Partnerships

  


Council

13 April 2017

 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


Council

13 April 2017

 

 

10.    Papanui-Innes Community Board Report to Council

Reference:

17/231828

Contact:

Jenny Hughey

jenny.hughey@ccc.govt.nz

941 5412

 

 

1.   Purpose of Report

The purpose of this report is to provide the Council with an overview of Part A matters requiring a Council decision and of matters considered by the Community Board arising in March.

 

2.   Community Board Recommendations

That the Council:

1.         Receive the Community Board report.

 

 

3.   Meeting Minutes

The Papanui Community Board held meetings during March and is providing the attached minutes to the Council for its information:

·   10 March 2017 - refer Attachment A

·   31 March 2017 (unconfirmed) – refer Attachment B

4.   Part A Recommendations to Council

4.1       Part A recommendations - Nil

4.1       The following decisions and requests were made at the 10 March Board meeting:

·    Further information was requested regarding the consultation on the Grampian Street Speed Management Measures and the report is laying on the table awaiting this information.

·    Staff have been requested to investigate traffic speed and unsafe traffic movements at the corner of Veitches Road and Grampian Street.

·    A number of no stopping restrictions were approved for Marshland Road.

·    Endorsement of the external design and the claddings for the St Albans Community Centre.

·    A function to be organised for the opening of the time capsule from the previous St Albans Community Centre.

·    A request for a briefing on the Community Resilience Partnership Fund.

4.2       The following decisions and requests were made at the 31 March Board meeting:

·    The Board has agreed to make an Annual Plan submission.

·    The Board requested that staff investigate finding suitable accommodation within the Community Board area for three community groups.

·    The Board requested information on how to access the Community Resilience Partnership Fund.

·    The Board agreed to lay wreaths at the Papanui War Memorial and the Dawn Service in Cranmer Square.

·    A further public meeting is to be arranged to work with the residents of the Styx River Catchment area to progress a way forward following the community building conversations.

·    To establish a working party with the Coastal-Burwood Community Board focusing on Styx River Catchment issues including a request for community governance staff to prepare a terms of reference document for the working party.

·    Approval was given for three members to attend the New Zealand Community Boards Conference 2017 in Methven from 11-13 May 2017.

5.   Significant Projects and Initiatives (e.g. major community or infrastructure projects)

5.1       St Albans Community Centre Rebuild     

Status: The Papanui-Innes Community Board have endorsed the recommendation of the St Albans Community Centre Rebuild Working Party re the external design and claddings for the new community centre.

Action Required The project will now proceed to full design and resource consent stage. The Working Party will continue to meet when required to receive regular updates on the design and building progress and to consider the interior fitout and future management of this building.

Timeframe The first rebuild update is expected in May 2017. The relocation of the St Albans Transitional Facility is expected to occur in June/July 2017.

5.2       Relocation of Lions Transitional Facility 

Status: The rebuild of the St Albans Community Facility has been confirmed to start in July/August 2017. The Lions International organisation have donated the transitional building to the Council and have agreed to the placement of the Lions Transitional Facility on MacFarlane Park in Shirley.

Action: Staff are undertaking the facilitation of the removal of the building before the planned commencement of the St Albans Community Facility rebuild. Concurrent with this is the ongoing partnership with non-government agencies, sports clubs and the local community in Shirley around this planned new facility. The building will be a fully activated community space to support community capacity building in the local area.

Timeline: It is planned that the building will be removed and placed on MacFarlane Park by June/July 2017.

5.3       Neighbourhood Trust (NHT) – Mairehau Primary School

Status: The NHT is having an ongoing impact by working in conjunction with local parents and children who access Mairehau Primary to deliver a Whanau/ family centred program. By working in partnership with the school, parents meet in the staff room for support and pastoral care while concurrently counselling support is provided to students. The development of this program has meant a commitment of the NHT staff over a number of years to build deep relationships within the school and local community.

Action: Community Governance staff are continuing to work alongside the NHT with two six‑ weekly catch ups held this year with plans for these to continue throughout the year.

Timeline: This is a full year programme.

5.4       Te Puna Oraka

Status: Following on from the parent Centred Design Huis last year the core group of Shirley parents have developed their activities further with support from Te Puna Oraka. This parent centred development includes, weekly community lead meetings, development of Codes of Conduct and practice and the development of a face book page which currently has 129 users within the Shirley area. Further commitment by Te Puna Oraka to develop this parent group has resulted in the group attending the upcoming Activating Community Workshop, with Inspiring Communities and Jim Diers.

Action: Community Governance staff will continue to support the organisation to continue to devolve to the local community opportunities for a community lead developments within the Shirley Area. Two six‑weekly catch ups have already been held this year and these will continue throughout the year.

Timeline: This is a full year programme

5.5       Shirley Community Trust

Status:  The youth worker at Shirley Community Trust has created a vibrant and successful youth meeting place (the SPACE) which is held every Thursday at Hammersley Park. Staff and the Trust have encouraged and received commitment from other youth organisations and church youth workers within the Shirley area and this has contributed to its success.

Action: Community Governance Staff continue to support the initiative and to work alongside the youth worker and the Trust to develop new opportunities. Two six‑weekly catchups have already been held this year and these will continue throughout the year.

Timeline: This is a full year programme

5.6       St Albans Swim Club

Status: Another successful swimming season for the St Albans Swim Club has come to a close at the Shirley Intermediate School pool.  The Club had fifty pupils for ten weeks of lessons with four swim teachers.  Some children opted for twice weekly lessons and this was reflected in their progress. The Club also offered individual lessons for some children with learning and behavioural difficulties who are unable to learn or operate in a group situation.

Club activities this season included a triathlon and prize giving/barbecue night.  Each pupil receives a certificate recording their progress and the skill that will be their next focus.

Action: The Board noted the information.

Timeline: November to March.

St Albans Swim Club Lessons


 

5.7       Infrastructure projects underway

5.7.1   Northern Access Bus Lane construction is nearing completion and is projected to be open at the end of March.

5.7.2   Papanui Parallel Cycleway:

·    Rutland Street between Innes Road and Weston Road. Work on the southwest side is completed. Work on the northeast side is ongoing.

·    Traffic light works at the Main North Road/Sawyers Arms Road intersection.

5.7.3   Northern Arterial Motorway- ongoing work

5.7.4   St Albans Community Centre Rebuild – ongoing work

5.8       Events Report Back

5.8.1   Children’s Day 2017

A very successful Children’s Day 2017 was held at the new location on Crown-owned land at the side of New Brighton Road. The location was received extremely well by the attendees and once again the event was a huge hit reaching numbers between 10,000 and 12,000. 

The day was another hot day with temperatures reaching the late 20’s. The location provided a number of different shaded areas with many people taking the opportunity to have a picnic and enjoy the activities.  The day would not be possible without the grassroots good will. The free event had live music, a sausage sizzle, and over 60 child-focused activities. A big thank you to those staff and volunteers that assisted in making this day such a success.

 

Face painting tent

 

Kids having fun in the water walkers

 

5.8.2   Mairehau Community Day

The Mairehau Community Day was held on Saturday 25 March 2017 at Mairehau Primary School on Mahars Road. This event has been hosted by the Neighbourhood Trust and supported by the Papanui-Innes Community for the past seven years.

Papanui-Innes Community Board members provided information in respect of the Council’s Draft Annual Plan 2017-2018 and were available to speak one on one with the people of Mairehau.

The day provided an opportunity for the local community to participate in a community celebration. The day focused on free activities for children while concurrently providing local groups and organisations with the opportunity to run information and activity stalls. Although the weather was inclement the event, as in previous years, contributed significantly to the development of social inclusion and a sense of connection within the area. The day celebrated Mairehau, showcasing local artists and musicians, providing free fun and importantly enhanced the relationships developed within the area.

5.8.3      Community Garden Pride Awards

Papanui-Innes Community Pride Awards were initiated in 1997 and the 27th year of awards was celebrated at the award ceremony on the 20th of March at the Christchurch North Methodist Church in Papanui. The awards are a joint event between the Papanui-Innes Community Board and the Christchurch Beautifying Association. This year the Papanui‑Innes Community Garden Pride Awards received 99 nominations and, of those persons nominated, 56 attended the event to receive their award.

The following is a link to news coverage about this item:

https://www.infonews.co.nz/news.cfm?id=112854

6.   Significant Community Issues

6.1       Psychosocial family issues post-earthquake

Status: Psychosocial family matters post-earthquake continue to be identified by community organisations as a key issue. In particular, the work currently being undertaken by the Neighbourhood Trust working with parents and the community at local school level. Evidence shows that this work is proving to be a suitable tool to assist families around ongoing issues facing themselves and their children in dealing with earthquake-related stress. These issues continue to present at school level.

The Board received further information regarding these issues at the Ward School Principals’ meeting with subsequent extensive publicity on the extent of the problem.

Action: Community Governance staff are working with the Neighbourhood Trust to support the  programme delivery of psychosocial family assistance and to develop new avenues for funding to continue the work currently being undertaken. 

In addition the Board issued a press release highlighting the problems being encountered in schools through quake-related stress in their pupils. This was covered in a number of media outlets including Stuff and RadioNZ.

This is an excellent example of a Community Board advocating on behalf of the community by highlighting community capacity building work. 

Timeframe: This project will be ongoing throughout 2017.

6.2       Styx River catchment community capacity building project

Status: The Styx River Catchment community meetings involving workshops with residents and staff have concluded. Information has been shared, technical input received, and issues identified by residents about flooding, earthquake damage, bank subsidence, weed growth, water catchment, problems with the flood gates and isolated issues related to particular properties.  A range of questions have been identified, many of which have resulted in the dissemination of further detailed information. There remains work to be achieved. The residents have called for a further community meeting to receive the final report and discuss the way forward.

Action: Council staff from units including Land Drainage Three Waters, Strategic Policy and Community Governance have collaborated with the community on this project. The community governance staff recommend a further public meeting to work with the residents around the way forward.

Timeframe: The community meeting needs to be planned within April and May.

7.   Progress Report Against the Community Board Plan

7.1       Community Board Plan update attached, refer Attachment C.

8.   Community Board Significant Matters of Interest

8.1       The Community Board wishes to highlight to the Council the success of the provision of services which focus on psychosocial issues for families arising out of the Canterbury earthquakes.

In particular, the work currently being undertaken by the Neighbourhood Trust working with parents and the community at local school level. Evidence shows that this work is proving to be a suitable tool to assist families around ongoing issues facing themselves and their children in dealing with earthquake related stress.

At the school principals meeting held on Friday 17 March the principal from Mairehau Primary School presented an overview about the excellent work of the community worker project delivered by the Neighbourhood Trust.

The Board took the opportunity to highlight this issue in an advocacy role issuing a press release about the success of the project and the need for more assistance with psychosocial issues for families arising out of the Canterbury earthquakes.

Kim Button from the Neighbourhood Trust was interviewed by the Norwest News and the Press and spoke on Radio New Zealand and NewsTalk ZB around the post-quake anxiety issues facing families with whom the trust is currently working.

Below is the link to the Radio New Zealand segment.

http://www.radionz.co.nz/national/programmes/thepanel/audio/201837444/kids-and-post-quake-anxiety

8.2       The school principals raised the issue of vehicles failing to stop when the school traffic patrols are on duty on both sides of the road. It was agreed that the road rules need to be enforced. It was identified that there is a need for a public safety campaign to ensure traffic gives way in both directions when the patrol is on the roadside at school road crossing patrols.

 

Attachments

No.

Title

Page

a

Papanui-Innes Community Board Minutes - 10 March 2017

3

b

Papanui-Innes Community Board - Unconfirmed Minutes of 31 March 2017

3

c

Papanui-Innes Community Board Plan Update as at 31 March 2017

3

 

 

Signatories

Author

Jenny Hughey - Community Governance Manager, Papanui-Innes

Approved By

Lester Wolfreys - Head of Community Support, Governance and Partnerships

  


Council

13 April 2017

 


 


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 


Council

13 April 2017

 


 


 


 


 


Council

13 April 2017

 


 


 


Council

13 April 2017

 

 

11.    Spreydon-Cashmere Community Board Report to Council

Reference:

17/253097

Contact:

Arohanui Grace

arohanui.grace@ccc.govt.nz

941 6663

 

 

1.   Purpose of Report

The purpose of this report is to provide the Council with an overview of Part A matters requiring a Council decision and of matters considered by the Community Board arising in March 2017.

 

2.   Community Board Recommendations

That the Council:

1.         Receives the Spreydon-Cashmere Community Board report.

 

 

3.   Meeting Minutes

The Spreydon-Cashmere Community Board held meetings during March and is providing the attached minutes to the Council for its information:

·   7 March 2017

·   24 March 2017

·   4 April 2017 (Unconfirmed)

 

4.   Part A Recommendations to Council

The following report presenting a Part A recommendation from the Board is included in this agenda for Council consideration:

4.1       Huntsbury Community Centre Lease renewal.

5.   Decisions made

At its meetings on 7 March, 24 March and 4 April the Board made a number of decisions including:

·    Prohibiting the stopping of vehicles on the southern side of Cashmere Road, northwest of the Dyers Pass Road intersection.

·    Prohibiting the stopping of vehicles on the southern side of Aylmer Street west of the intersection with Colombo Street. 

·    Extending the prohibition of previous parking restrictions on Kanuku Place at its intersection with Landsdowne Terrace. 

·    Approving the attendance of up to three Board members at the New Zealand Community Boards Conference 2017.

·    Requesting staff to look into the possibility of a plaque to be placed in the ward recognising the community work of Christina Loughton.

·    Requesting the measures to prevent sediment from the fire damaged Port Hills entering the Cashmere Valley and the Hoon Hay Valley Streams, and for solutions to be reported to the Board and the Cashmere Stream Care Group.

·    Making arrangements for ANZAC day commemorations

·    Requesting advice about the potential use for Centennial Hall

 

 

6.   Significant Projects and Initiatives (e.g. major community or infrastructure projects)

 

6.1       Hoon Hay Community Centre

5.1.1      Status            

The Hoon Hay Children’s Volunteer Library operated at 90 Hoon Hay Road from 1966 until December 2014.  Its closure produced significant community interest in the future use of the premises as a community centre, in an area lacking such a community facility.

         

Following internal planning meetings involving staff and Spreydon-Heathcote Community Board members, the Board requested that the 90 Hoon Hay Road property be retained  by the asset owner, Community Facilities pending a final decision on retention or disposal, and that there be  a full investigation into its possible use as a community facility.  A property management agreement was subsequently entered to put in place an interim lease arrangement that made the property available to the local community while investigations are underway.

 

90 Hoon Hay Road is increasingly a focal point for community development and local activities.  Over the past year, a steering group that formed out of a meeting of organisations interested in the property as a bookable venue have developed hire systems and promoted the facility under the interim arrangement with Council.  Rowley Resource Centre has acted as the umbrella lease holder.  A community association of local residents has concurrently been in formulation, and has organised multiple community events on the site, including an opening, carol singing and vegetable swaps. 

5.1.2      Action

Staff are working with the steering group and representatives of the Hoon Hay Community Association to operate a combined transition group that will develop a longer term proposition to Council for use of the property by the local community.

5.1.3      Timeframe

The premises are currently leased under a temporary arrangement under the umbrella of Rowley Resource Centre.  The lease will expire in July 2017.       

                        

6.2       Manuka Cottage

6.2.1   Status

The Addington community development project known as Manuka Cottage has operated in Addington since the 1990s with the support of the Spreydon/Heathcote Community Board.  As a result of the earthquakes Manuka Cottage was forced to re-locate from its former premises at 45 Dickens Street and has been in temporary accommodation since then.

 

Manuka Cottage was the first community development project to benefit from the Spreydon/Heathcote Community Board bids to the Capital Endowment Fund for property purchase in 2012.  A site on Cornelius O’Connor Reserve, which is in an Open Space 1 zone, has been earmarked for a new cottage style community centre under Council ownership.  The building purpose is a non-permitted activity in the City Plan and will require a Resource Consent.  An application for the necessary resource consent has been lodged and is currently being processed, and the project has reached the detail design phase.

 

Continuation of this community development project has been critical to both the support of a highly vulnerable population group as well as positive and productive civic engagement through the past six years.  During this time the cottage has been operating in temporary premises of the St Mary’s Church, while both the residential and local Lincoln Road commercial areas have undergone rapid change.  A recent news article captured the spirit and messaging of many of those actively working with the Council and Community Board funded community development worker.

6.2.2   Action Required

Project Management staff will continue to actively manage the development in consultation with a steering group comprising staff, members of the Spreydon-Cashmere Community Board and representatives of the Manuka Cottage legal entity: Addington Community House.

6.2.3   Timeframe

The completion date for this development is currently planned to be 30 October 2017.

7.   Significant Community Issues

7.1       Port Hills Fires      

7.1.1   Status

The Recovery Plan for the Port Hills Fires is currently under development.  The Community Board and Spreydon Cashmere Community Governance Team has supported community recovery meetings with affected communities in the Dyers Pass Road and Worsleys Spur areas.  

7.1.2   Action Required

The communities have asked to be included in the development of the Recovery Plan and future planning for their neighbourhoods.

7.1.3   Timeframe

Ongoing

7.2       Residential Suburban Density Transition Zone

7.2.1   Status

The Board has recently received expressions of community concern around the Residential Suburban Density Transition Zone in Somerfield.  In particular concern has been expressed on behalf of residents in Studholme Street.  One side of the street is zoned Residential Suburban while the other side of the Street is zoned Residential Suburban Density Transition Zone.  Residents believe that the Residential Suburban Density Transition Zoning allows for multi-unit developments that will be out of character with the existing houses and will put pressure on the street’s infrastructure.

7.2.2   Action Required

Staff have been and continue to provide residents with information on proposed developments and Resource Consent processes.

7.2.3   Timeframe

Ongoing.

8.   Progress Report Against the Community Board Plan 

As the Spreydon-Cashmere Community Board has yet to develop its 2017-19 Community Board Plan there is nothing to report at this time.

 

9.   Community Board Significant Matters of Interest 

9.1       School Speed Zones

         The Council currently has a programme of installing 40 kilometres per hour variable speed limits (known as ‘School Speed Zones’) outside schools.  Council is using a prioritisation process that was endorsed at the Council meeting on 25 August 2011 as the most appropriate method of improving road safety outside certain schools, where no other traffic control device(s) are practical or feasible.

         There is increasing concern among communities in Spreydon-Cashmere about the safety of routes to schools in the area, and calls for 40 kilometres per hour variable speed limits to be established for all schools.  The Board is also anxious to protect the safety of children on their way to and from school, and to consider all means of doing so.

         A Board Seminar is being arranged to provide Board members with an understanding of the full range of safety measures, and the extent to which a wider use of school speed zones would give greater protection to children

8.2       Waltham Fair

Waltham Fair has been funded by the Spreydon/Heathcote Community Board and held biannually for more than a decade.  The changes of boundaries as a result of the Representation Review posed difficulty for planning the fair for 2017.  The Board therefore resolved in 2016, to fund the 2017 event even though by the time the fair was held Waltham would be in the Linwood-Central-Heathcote Board area.  The fair was held on 18 March 2017 with the Deputy Chair of the Spreydon-Cashmere Community Board opening the event and handing over to the Chair of the Linwood-Central-Heathcote Community Board.

The fair was a great success and very well attended.

9.2       Sediment in Waterways as a result of the Port Hills Fires.

In response to wide spread community concern shared by Board members, the Board decided to request that staff urgently investigate and determine any immediate measures that can be taken to prevent sediment from the fire damaged Port Hills entering the Cashmere Valley and the Hoon Hay Valley Streams.  This is particularly important to prevent long term damage to the length of the Opāwaho Heathcote River from imminent autumn and winter rain events.  The Board further requests that staff consult with the Cashmere Stream Care Group on installation of any permanent or temporary technical solutions.

Staff have responded with a memorandum advising the Board on the steps already taken, and confirming that advice has been sought from representatives of relevant environmental groups. Staff have undertaken to keep the Board updated on plans and measures to be implemented.

 

 

Attachments

No.

Title

Page

a

Spreydon-Cashmere Community Board Minutes 7 March 2017

3

b

Spreydon-Cashmere Community Board Minutes 24 March 2017

3

c

Spreydon-Cashmere Community Board Unconfirmed Minutes 4 April 2017

3

d

After The Gold Rush

3

 

 

Signatories

Author

Arohanui Grace - Manager Community Governance, Spreydon-Cashmere

Approved By

Lester Wolfreys - Head of Community Support, Governance and Partnerships

  


Council

13 April 2017

 


 


 

PDF Creator


 


 


Council

13 April 2017

 


 


 

PDF Creator


 


 


 


 


Council

13 April 2017

 


 


 

PDF Creator


 


 


 


 


Council

13 April 2017

 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


Council

13 April 2017

 

Report from Spreydon-Cashmere Community Board  – 4 April 2017

 

12.    New Lease Huntsbury Community Centre

Reference:

17/347601

Contact:

Arohanui Grace

arohanui.grace@ccc.govt.nz

941 6663

 

 

 

 

1.   Staff Recommendations

 

That the Spreydon-Cashmere Community Board:

1.         Recommend that Council grant a lease to Huntsbury Community Centre Committee Incorporated over an area of 720 metres square, being part of Huntsbury Playground described as Lot 1 Deposited Plan 10625 contained in Title CB15B/1204, for a period up to 35 years less one day.

2.         Authorise the Property Consultancy Manager to conclude and administer the terms and conditions of the lease.

 

2.  Spreydon-Cashmere Community Board Recommendation to Council

 

That the Council:

1.         Grant a lease to Huntsbury Community Centre Committee Incorporated over an area of 720 metres square, being part of Huntsbury Playground described as Lot 1 Deposited Plan 10625 contained in Title CB15B/1204, for a period up to 35 years less one day.

2.         Authorise the Property Consultancy Manager to conclude and administer the terms and conditions of the lease.

 

 

Attachments

No.

Report Title

Page

1

New Lease Huntsbury Community Centre

3

 

No.

Title

Page

a

Lease Plan Huntsbury Community Centre

3

 

 


Council

13 April 2017

 

 

New Lease Huntsbury Community Centre

Reference:

16/1193197

Contact:

Lisa Barwood

Lisa.barwood@ccc.govt.nz

941 8320

 

 

1.   Purpose and Origin of Report

Purpose of Report

1.1       The purpose of this report is for the Spreydon-Cashmere Community Board to approve a new lease for Huntsbury Community Centre Incorporated located at 30F Huntsbury Avenue.

Origin of Report

1.2       This report staff generated at the request of the Huntsbury Community Centre.

2.   Significance

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

2.1.1   The level of significance was determined by officers completing an assessment of significance.

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

 

3.   Staff Recommendations

That the Spreydon-Cashmere Community Board:

1.         Recommend that Council grant a lease to Huntsbury Community Centre Committee Incorporated over an area of 720m2, being part of Huntsbury Playground described as Lot 1 Deposited Plan 10625 contained in Title CB15B/1204, for a period up to 35 years less one day.

2.         Authorise the Property Consultancy Manager to conclude and administer the terms and conditions of the lease.

 

4.   Key Points

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

4.1.1   Activity: Community Facilities

·     Level of Service: 2.0.8 Identify and promote community facilities provided by third parties

4.2       The following feasible options have been considered:

·     Option 1 – Grant a new lease (preferred option)

·     Option 2 – Decline the lease request

4.3       Option Summary - Advantages and Disadvantages (Preferred Option)

4.3.1   The advantages of this option include:

·     Continued provision of community facilities by a third party.

·     Supporting community groups having a place to meet and offer their services.

·     People are actively involved in their communities and local issues

·     Services are available locally within the urban areas

·     People have a sense of connection and participate in their community.

4.3.2   The disadvantages of this option include:

·     An area of recreation reserve occupied by a building.

 

 

5.   Context/Background

History

5.1       Huntsbury Community Centre Incorporated signed a lease with Council in 1975 for the purpose of building a community centre for the community to use. The lease is dated April 1973 and was to expire in 1994 but has been rolling over month to month since.

5.2       The community centre has been run by a very strong committee and the building has been well maintained with an extension added in the 1990s to accommodate the growing usage. The committee have fundraised to build and add the extension including all maintenance on the building and are in a strong position financially.

5.3       Currently there are more than ten regular groups that are based at the centre including a preschool. The committee also hire the venue for private social functions.

 

The Land

5.4       The lease area is contained within the land known as Huntsbury Playground described as Lot 1 Deposited Plan 10625 contained in Title CB15B/1204. It is a “park” in accordance with the definition given in section 138(2) of the Local Government Act 2002.

Delegations

5.5       Community Boards have the delegation to grant leases of “non-reserve” land for a maximum term of 20 years (less 1 day) to voluntary organisations for the purposes described in this report. 

5.6       Staff recommend that a lease of 35 years less 1 day be granted which is the maximum term in accordance with provisions of the Resource Management Act 1991 section 218 subdivision requirements.

5.7       The Spreydon-Cashmere Community Board does not have the delegated authority to grant the lease for this longer term however they may recommend to the Council that a lease be granted.

Advertising

5.8       Public advertising of the intention to grant a lease has been carried out in accordance with section 138 of the Local Government Act 2002. Submissions close on Thursday 23rd March 2017 and the author will update the Community Board on feedback received at the time this report is presented.

The Lease

5.7       The leased area, as shown in Attachment A, is comprised of green space area and the land under the building. The leased area is subject to an annual rental in accordance with the Councils policy for setting rent for sports groups and organisations occupying parks and reserves. Based on current assessments the annual rental charged will be $250.14 + GST. This is based on the building footprint of Area A being 250m2 and green space Area B being 470m2.

6.   Option 1 – Grant a New Lease  (preferred)

Option Description

6.1       To grant a new lease to Huntsbury Community Centre Incorporated for 35 years less one day.

Significance

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

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

Impact on Mana Whenua

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

Community Views and Preferences

6.5       Community are specifically affected by this option due to high usage of the facility by different groups and accessibility for members of the public to hire.  Their views support this request.

Alignment with Council Plans and Policies

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

Financial Implications

6.7       Cost of Implementation – there are no costs to the Council other than staff time which is budgeted for. An annual ground rental will be charged in accordance with Council’s charging policy for ground leases on parks.

Legal Implications

6.8       A Deed of Lease will be prepared to document the lease arrangement. The Committee will be responsible for the costs of preparing the new deed which is $250 plus GST and the cost of advertising which is approximately $450 plus GST.

Risks and Mitigations    

6.9       The Committee cease to operate.

6.10    Risk – The Committee walking away from the improvements they own thereby causing Council to have to remove the building and remediate the land. This will result in extra costs to Council.

6.10.1 Treatment: The new lease will have provisions to cover this by stating the Committee must remove all improvements and make good the land.

6.10.2 The lease term of 35 years less 1 day will be broken into three (3) terms with rights of renewal.  This will ensure that regular reviews are carried out by both the tenant and landlord to ensure continued occupation and financial viability.

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

Implementation

6.11    Implementation dependencies - Resolution by Council.

6.12    Implementation timeframe – Completion of lease documentation after resolution by Council.

Option Summary - Advantages and Disadvantages

6.13    The advantages of this option include:

·   Continued provision of community facilities by a third party.

·   Supporting community groups having a place to meet and offer their services.

·   People are actively involved in their communities and local issues

·   Services are available locally within the urban areas

·   People have a sense of connection and participate in their community.

6.14    The disadvantages of this option include:

·   An area of recreation reserve occupied by a building.

7.   Option 2 – Decline the Request for a New Lease

Option Description

7.1       Not approve a new lease and request the committee remove their building from the land and make good.

Significance

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

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

Impact on Mana Whenua

7.4       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

7.5       The Committee and community alike are specifically affected by this option due to the need to provide a space for the community to gather and interact.  Their views would not support this option.

Alignment with Council Plans and Policies

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

7.6.1   Inconsistency – Does not support Annual Plan level of service which sets out to identify and promote community facilities provide by a third party.

7.6.2   Reason for inconsistency – contrary to Level of Service.

7.6.3   Amendment necessary – change to Level of Service

Financial Implications

7.7       Cost of Implementation – not quantified, however costs would include staff time and resources to facilitate the removal or on-sale of the building.

7.8       Maintenance / Ongoing Costs – Council would be responsible for ongoing maintenance on part of the reserve that is otherwise maintained by the Committee.

7.9       Funding source – Council budget for ongoing and not previously budgeted for maintenance.

Legal Implications

7.10    There are no legal implications in not approving a new lease.

Risks and Mitigations    

7.11    By not approving the lease there would be risk to the Community Board and Council from not achieving levels of service set out by the Council.

7.12    Risk – Reputational/image caused by Council caused by not approving a new lease.  This will (may) result in minor negative short term coverage to the Community Board and Council.

7.12.1 Treatment: The Community Board and Council would be required to tolerate the risk and impact to the Committee in not approving the lease.

7.12.2 Residual risk rating: the rating of the risk is medium.

Implementation

7.13    Implementation dependencies - Council resolution.

7.14    Implementation timeframe – Adequate time to notify the Committee to remove their improvements.

Option Summary - Advantages and Disadvantages

7.15    The advantages of this option include:

·   Public Reserve not being exclusively used by one Committee.

7.16    The disadvantages of this option include:

·   Loss of support and confidence in the local Community Board and Council.

·   Many groups and the community losing a space that they gather and utilise within the local community.

 

Attachments

No.

Title

Page

a 

Lease Plan Huntsbury Community Centre

 

 

 

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

Lisa Barwood - Leasing Consultant

Approved By

Kathy Jarden - Team Leader Leasing Consultancy

Angus Smith - Manager Property Consultancy

Bruce Rendall - Head of Facilities, Property and Planning

Andrew Rutledge - Head of Parks

Mary Richardson - General Manager Customer and Community

 


Council

13 April 2017

 

PDF Creator


Council

13 April 2017

 

 

13.    Banks Peninsula Community Board Report to Council

Reference:

17/294233

Contact:

Penelope Goldstone and Joan Blatchford

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

941 5689
941 5643

 

 

1.   Purpose of Report

The purpose of this report is to provide the Council with an overview of Part A matters requiring a Council decision and matters considered by the Community Board arising in February/March 2017.

 

2.   Community Board Recommendations

That the Council:

1.         Receive the Community Board report.

 

 

3.   Meeting Minutes

The Banks Peninsula Community Board held meetings in February and March 2017 and is providing the attached minutes to the Council for its information:

·   27 February 2017

·   13 March 2017

 

4.   Part A Recommendations to Council

The following reports presenting Part A recommendations from the Board are included in this agenda for Council consideration:

4.1       Lyttelton Historical Museum Society – Request for Gift of Land

The Board’s consideration and recommendation of Lyttelton Historical Museum Society – Request for Gift of Land will be considered by the Council at this meeting on 13 April 2017.

5.   Significant Projects and Initiatives (e.g. major community or infrastructure projects)

       Little River – Big Ideas Village Plan – Implementation       

5.1       Status

5.1.1   The Plan has been finalised and the Working Party is working through a process of winding up and integrating its members into Community Implementation Groups.

5.2       Action Required

5.2.1   Meetings are being held to organise a new implementation structure with the Little River Wairewa Community Trust as the umbrella organisation. A position description for a potential Co-ordinator is being written by the Trust.

5.3       Timeframe – Summer/Autumn 2017


 

       Banks Peninsula Reserve Management Committees          

5.4       Status

5.4.1   The 15 Reserve Management Committees in the Banks Peninsula area are subcommittees of the Community Board and undertake triennial elections after the new Community Board is elected.

5.5       Action Required

5.5.1   Induction workshops have been held in Lyttelton and Akaroa in March for the new Committees.

5.5.2   The Board and staff continue to work with the Committees on funding requests for the Council’s Annual Plan 2017/18.

5.6       Timeframe – Ongoing

       Allandale Hall Repair    

5.7       Status

5.7.1   Detailed design drawings have been put together and circulated to the Allandale Reserve Management Committee.

5.8       Action Required

5.8.1   Application for consent will be submitted early-March and the repair job will go out to tender early-March.

5.9       Timeframe – March 2017

       New Birdlings Flat Community Centre    

5.10    Status

5.10.1 The Little River Wairewa Community Trust are continuing to successfully project manage the build and allocate the funds.

5.10.2 The community set up and ran a working bee to stain the outside of the Centre in mid-February.

5.11    Action Required

5.11.1 The Birdlings Flat community are setting up a formal Trust to run and manage the building and are currently hearing from experts and other similar groups across the Peninsula.

5.11.2 Council staff are working with a small subcommittee to plan an opening for the Centre.

5.12    Timeframe

5.12.1 The construction of the Centre will be complete in March and open in April 2017.

       Little Akaloa Hall and Toilet Repair         

5.13    Status

5.13.1 Council is part way through a process of repairing the Community Hall and investigating the toilets. Community members are focused on getting the repairs done.

5.14    Action Required

5.14.1 Staff are working with community to be able to undertake some of the work on the community assets through the strong and well-resourced volunteers in Little Akaloa.

5.14.2 Council staff are sourcing more funding to support this community activated initiative.

5.15    Timeframe – Repairs are estimated to be complete in Summer/Autumn 2017.

Youth Mardi Gras       

5.16    Status

5.16.1 A successful Mardi Gras event was held in Albion Square in partnership with Qtopia. The focus of the event was to celebrate young people from both the LGBTIQ rainbow communities and the wider youth sector, their families and friends.  The event was the second of many events scheduled during the Christchurch Pride week and included dance, music, poetry and a Samba Band. Diversity Officers were also on hand for advice and support to the 250 plus people that attended.

5.17    Action Required – Nil.

5.18    Timeframe – Complete.

6.   Significant Community Issues

       Civil Defence - Akaroa  

6.1       Status

6.1.1   The Akaroa Civil Defence Group is working with Christchurch staff to consider the best structure for providing community emergency response in Akaroa.

6.2       Action Required

6.2.1   The Akaroa Civil Defence Group is presenting to the Community Board and working with Christchurch staff to talk through the different options.

6.3       Timeframe

6.3.1   Ongoing

       Civil Defence - Lyttelton        

6.4       Status

6.4.1      Monday 13 February saw the start of a fire incident in Selwyn District.  Very early Wednesday morning the fire was threatening properties in Governors Bay.  Civil Defence             volunteers from Governors Bay and supported by Diamond Harbour volunteers opened           the Governors Bay School for those who had been evacuated by the local volunteer rural fire brigade.  By mid-morning this centre had closed. 

6.4.2   A community meeting was held 1 March in Governors Bay to provide information to the Governors Bay community. 

6.5       Action Required

6.5.1   Staff will meet with Governors Bay Civil Defence and the local Fire Chief to ascertain support that can be provided to community members and support in the development of a community emergency plan.

6.6       TimeframeFirst meeting 6 March.  Ongoing.

       Lyttelton Library Temporary Relocation Working Party   

6.7       Status

6.7.1   The Lyttelton Library officially re-opened 13 March. 

6.7.2   The Lyttelton Library Temporary Relocation Working Party, a body of the Community Board, held its last meeting in February. This meeting acknowledged the work of the people involved in this Working Party, the successes of the relocation and temporary library, logistics of the return to the refurbished library and support required for the move.


 

6.8       Action Required

6.8.1   No actions required.

6.9       Timeframe – Complete

       Lyttelton Design Review Panel       

6.10    Status

6.10.1 The Lyttelton Design Review Panel, a body of the Community Board, held a meeting in March to discuss Lyttelton Port Company’s proposed Te Ana Marina Project.

6.11    Action Required

6.11.1 No actions required.

Timeframe – Complete

7.   Progress Report Against the Community Board Plan 

7.1       A progress report against the Community Board Plan will be presented quarterly.

8.   Community Board Significant Matters of Interest 

Akaroa Treated Wastewater Disposal Options Working Party

8.1       In late-January the Board established a Working Party including members from the wider community and the Council to collaborate with the community and engage on community concerns regarding the Akaroa Treated Wastewater Disposal Project.

8.2       In late-March the Working Party completed its objectives, and issued a Joint Statement on matters of agreement. The Board will receive the Joint Statement at its 10 April meeting, and the Council will receive this at its 11 May meeting.

Annual Plan and Long Term Plan Matters

8.3       The Board used the opportunity of engagement on the Annual Plan to also look forward and get early input from the community for the Community Board Plan and the Long Term Plan.

8.4       The Board hosted four community forums around the Peninsula in March and April to get input on these matters.

 

 

Attachments

No.

Title

Page

a

Banks Peninsula Community Board Minutes - 27 February 2017

3

b

Banks Peninsula Community Board Minutes - 13 March 2017

3

 

 

Signatories

Authors

Penelope Goldstone - Manager Community Governance, Banks Peninsula/Akaroa

Joan Blatchford - Manager Community Governance, Banks Peninsula/Lyttelton

Approved By

Lester Wolfreys - Head of Community Support, Governance and Partnerships

  


Council

13 April 2017

 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


Council

13 April 2017

 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


Council

13 April 2017

 

Report from Banks Peninsula Community Board  – 13 March 2017

 

14.    Lyttelton Historical Museum Society - request for gift of land

Reference:

17/293934

Contact:

Joan Blatchford

joan.blatchford@ccc.govt.nz

941 5643

 

 

 

 

1.  Banks Peninsula Community Board Consideration

 

1.         The Board had received a deputation on this issue from the Lyttelton Historical Museum Society.  Board members expressed their unreserved support for the project and the work of the Museum Society.

 

2.  Banks Peninsula Community Board Recommendation to Council

 

(Original Staff Recommendation Accepted without Change)

Part A

That the Council:

1.         Supports, in principle, a proposal to gift the property at 33 London Street Lyttelton to the Lyttelton Historic Museum Society as generally outlined in option one in the body of the report; and

2.         Approve and request staff to commence as soon as possible the proposed consultation process detailed in Attachment B of the report for the proposal to dispose of 33 London Street by way of gift to the Lyttelton Historic Museum Society.

3.         Request Council staff to provide a further report to Council following completion of the consultation process with a view to then considering whether to proceed with the proposed gift of the land to the Lyttelton Historic Museum Society, or not.

 

 

Attachments

No.

Report Title

Page

1

Lyttelton Historical Museum Society - request for gift of land

3

 

No.

Title

Page

a

Attachment A

3

b

Attachment B

3

 

 


Council

13 April 2017

 

 

Lyttelton Historical Museum Society - request for gift of land

Reference:

17/93403

Contact:

Dan Egerton

Dan.egerton@ccc.govt.nz

9418477

 

 

1.   Purpose and Origin of Report

Purpose of Report

1.1       The purpose of this report is for the Banks Peninsula Community Board to consider the future of the land at 33-35 London Street, Lyttelton and in doing so recommend to Council that the Council gifts the land, to the Lyttelton Historical Museum Society.

Origin of Report

1.2       This report in being provided to fulfil the Council resolution CNCL/2016/00329.

That the Council:

Recognise the Council’s in principle support for the gifting of the land at 33 London St to the Lyttelton Historic Museum Society.

Request staff to work with Lyttelton Historic Museum Society to:

Explore the opportunity for it secure ownership of the Council’s property at 33 London Street as soon as practical.

Investigate the issues and options associated with the proposal to deal unilaterally with the society over the transfer of the property at 33 London Street, including options on how the land could be transferred back to Council in future if no longer required by the museum.

Report back to the Council via Community Board for a decision on the proposal.

Council Turner/Clearwater

Carried

Councillor Jones requested her vote against the resolution be recorded

2.   Significance

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

2.1.1   The level of significance was determined by Significance and Engagement Policy.

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


 

 

 

3.   Staff Recommendations 

That the Banks Peninsula Community Board recommend to Council that it pass the following resolutions:

The Council:

1.         Supports, in principle, a proposal to gift the property at 33 London Street Lyttelton to the Lyttelton Historic Museum Society as generally outlined in option one in the body of the report; and

2.         Approve and request staff to commence as soon as possible the proposed consultation process detailed in Attachment B for the proposal to dispose of 33 London Street by way of gift to the Lyttelton Historic Museum Society.

3.         Request Council staff to provide a further report to Council following completion of the consultation process with a view to then considering whether to proceed with the proposed gift of the land to the Lyttelton Historic Museum Society, or not.

 

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 – Gift the land (preferred option)

·     Option 2 – Do not gift the land, and establish a future use for the land

 

4.3       Option Summary - Advantages and Disadvantages (Preferred Option)

4.3.1   The advantages of this option include:

·     The Lyttelton Historical Museum Society Museum will return to Lyttelton.

·     Council will not have to incur costs associated with the land.

·     A mechanism will be put in place which will result in the land reverting to Council in the event that the Museum ceases to operate.

4.3.2   The disadvantages of this option include:

·     Council is forgoing the potential proceeds from a sale.

·     Council will no longer hold a parcel of land in Lyttelton should it be required at some stage in the future.

 

 

5.   Context/Background

Lyttelton Historical Museum Society

5.1       The Lyttelton Historical Museum Society (LMHS), a registered Charity with the Charities Services, was established in 1969, and moved to the former Merchant Navy Centre in 1980. In 2000 a lease was entered into between the Council and LHMS for Council owned land at 1 Gladstone Quay, Lyttelton.

5.1.1   This lease was for an initial term of ten years, with a right of renewal for a further ten years. Final expiry was in June 2020.

5.1.2   The annual rent was $1.00 per annum.

5.1.3   The 2010/2011 earthquakes rendered the premises uninhabitable, and the site was subsequently cleared.

5.2       The LMHS has canvassed a number of options for a replacement site over the years; in 2016 they made a deputation to the Council outlining these sites, and explaining their rationale for opting to proceed with seeking to acquire 33 London Street.

5.2.1   A Business Case which expands on this, and other matters, is attached as Attachment A.

5.3       The LHMS has more than 8,500 items which have been catalogued and re-packed into storage.

5.4       A new museum in Lyttelton will play an important role in education, leisure, and tourism within the Lyttelton Community. The LHMS anticipates that some 10,000 visitors per annum could be expected.

5.5       The Lyttelton Master Plan makes reference to the need for a new museum and the LHMS is specifically referenced under item N6:

Celebrating Lyttelton’s heritage is about creating opportunities for people to connect with the stories and people of the place. It is about improving Lyttelton’s legibility and finding ways to strengthen its identity. Providing memories of specific buildings and activities that stood in the town centre will be critical to rekindling a post-earthquakes sense of place.

The Lyttelton Historical Museum is integral to local landscape and heritage interpretation. Its collections of local social and maritime, and international maritime, military and naval history are of local, national, and international significance and are a tangible link to the past. It has been a valued part of the Lyttelton community for many years, regularly hosting schools and other groups, in addition to tourists and locals. Its building has been demolished. A new building should be designed to meet the needs of the collection and visitors to the museum, but could be a shared facility.

6.   Proposal

6.1       The LHMS has requested that the Council gift the land to them at nil value. An option of a lease, at a peppercorn basis, or otherwise, has been considered but is not supported as an option.

6.2       The reason for requesting and supporting the land by way of gift is:

6.2.1   Funding agencies generally are reluctant to give funds on a lease basis. Property ownership offers more security for the future use of any gifted funds as opposed to occupation via a lease.

6.2.2   That were they to have some other form of occupation, i.e. lease, then they encounter issues in regards capital raising for the project itself. The LHMS will find it more difficult to fund raise without ownership

6.2.3   The LHMS do not consider it would be prudent to invest a significant sum of capital in developing the building on land they do not own.

6.2.4   The LHMS require financial assistance for this project and securing the land at no cost will achieve that. Ongoing operating costs for the land in the form of a rental is possibly not sustainable. In this regard financial certainty and stability can be achieved.

6.2.5   As a note, given the land will revert to Council in the unlikely event of insolvency, the outcomes are similar in regards to future Council ownership.

 

6.2.6   The LHMS has provided a list of indicative funding sources (and amounts):

·     Lottery Grants Board ($1,800,000)

·     Ministry for Culture & Heritage ($2,000,000)

·     Rata Foundation ($500,000)

·     Pub Charities ($500,000)

·     LHMS contribution ($600,000)

·     Total: $5,900,000

6.3       These funds will be put towards the construction of new building which is proposed to have a commercial tenant, to generate extra income to assist with operational costs.

6.4       It is proposed that once the museum is operational the LHMS anticipates employing a small number of staff and engage volunteers to assist with the day to day running of the museum.

6.5       An issue does arise whereby the LHMS ceases to operate; however the museum is governed by its rules in terms of disposition of assets; everything, once liabilities and expenses have been cleared, will be vested jointly in the Christchurch City Council and the Canterbury Museum Trust Board.

6.6       It is proposed as part of this report, that an encumbrance be entered into and registered on the title, that in the unlikely event of this happening that the land only would revert to Council ownership.

6.7       Any building on the site would then be vested jointly in the Council and the Canterbury Museum Trust Board.

7.   The Land

7.1       33-35 London Street, Lyttelton, comprises 316m² and was acquired by the Council is 2008 for the purposes of a Service Centre.

7.2       The property has been vacant since 2011 as the buildings were substantially damaged in the earthquakes, and were subsequently removed.

7.3       In 2016 the Council initiated a new property disposal process – this process involved any Council owned property which was no longer required for the purpose it was acquired for, to be circulated around the relevant Community Board for a period of six months so a future use decision could be reached.

7.4       This property was scheduled to be included in that new process.

7.5       The LHMS have made an unsolicited proposal, accordingly, and as per the above Council resolution this process is not being followed in this scenario as the Council has given its support in principle.

7.6       The Property Consultancy Team has not received any internal enquiries for land in Lyttelton from other units within Council, nor aware of any other desires for alternative public uses

8.   Dealing unilaterally with the Lyttelton Historic Museum Society

8.1       The Council’s standard process to dispose of land is to adopt a transparent disposal process, usually via public tender or auction. The Council does this to meet the requirements of section 14(1)(f) of the Local Government Act 2002 to undertake its business activities in accordance with sound business practise and to comply with Council policy (listed in the Council’s Policy Register as ‘Property – process for disposal of Council’) ‘That the Council’s policy of publically tendering properties for sale unless there is a clear reason for doing otherwise be confirmed as applying to all areas of the City with the exception of the area in which the (interim) Central City Board is active in pursuit of Council revitalisation goals’.

8.2       On this occasion it is open for the Council not to dispose of the land in this manner as it has received a unique unsolicited proposal for the development of the land at 33-35 London Street that:

·   Would provide significant benefit to the people of Lyttelton by improving cultural offering to the community that is not otherwise available;

·   Aligns with the Lyttelton Master Plan;

·   Would support a unique tourism attraction for Lyttelton, estimated circa 10,000 visitors per annum, and the associated economic benefits to the community;

·   Supports the LHMS given the limited viable alternative land options available to the LHMS;

8.3       Council staff have considered the Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment ‘Unsolicited Unique Proposals – How to deal with uninvited bids;’ guidance for government entities dated May 2013 when evaluating the unsolicited proposal to ensure that there is a sound business case to the support the decision to accept the unique unsolicited proposal.

8.4       The purpose of the MBIE Guidance on Unsolicited Proposals is to provide a methodology for considering unsolicited proposal in a way that:

·   Is transparent and fair to everyone;

·   Encourages the supplier community to put forward good ideas;

·   Promotes objectivity;

·   Supports decisions based on sound fact and evidence;

8.5       The proposal from the LHMS is an ‘Unsolicited Unique Proposal’. Council staff have evaluated the proposal and its other options for the Land and are satisfied that:

·   The proposal would provide a benefit to the Lyttelton Community, by improving the tourism offerings in the community;

·   The LHMS is a well-established entity and the purpose of this unsolicited proposal is to improve/re-introduce the cultural offering to the community that is not otherwise currently available.

8.6       On this basis, Council staff are of the view that the unique offering and benefits to the community outweigh any benefits that may be realised from an open tender process.

8.7       In order to ensure that the land is used to construct and house a new museum it is proposed that:

·   an encumbrance be registered against the title to the Land requiring that the Land only be used for the purposes of the Lyttelton Historic Museum, and;

·   Should the museum cease to operate on the Land, the Land will revert to the Council ownership.

 

9.   Section 138 Local Government Act 2002 – Consultation

9.1       Section 138 of the LGA refers to the Restrictions on disposal of parks, reserves, and endowment properties.

9.2       The definition of a park within this section of the Act is wide ranging, and means land acquired or used principally for community, recreation, environment, cultural purposes; as this parcel of land was acquired in 2008 for the Lyttelton Service Centre Building it falls within this definition.

9.3       The Act does not describe the level of consultation that is required. However staff advice is that given the site has been unused for six years, the level of consultation, should the staff recommendation be endorsed, would be at the lower end of the scale.

9.3.1   The process that is designed will comply with the principles of consultation set out in s83 of the Local Government Act 2002; and

9.3.2   Enable the Council to comply with its obligations in section 78 of the Local Government Act 2002 to consider views and preferences of persons likely to be affected by, or have an interest in the decision to dispose of the land.

9.4       The consultation is proposed to be as outlined in Attachment B of this report.

 

 

10. Option 1 – Gift the land (preferred)

Option Description

10.1    The Christchurch City Council supports in principle the gifting of the land at 33-35 London Street, Lyttelton to the LHMS and in doing so commences a public consultation process as required under section 138 of the Local Government Act. This will not only serve to satisfy that statutory requirement but also establish the views and preferences of effected parties.

10.2    The result and findings of that process will be reported back to the Council for a final decision in respect of gifting the land.

Significance

10.3    The level of significance of this option is high consistent with section 2 of this report.

10.4    The engagement requirements for this will be attended to through the consultation process set out in this report.

Impact on Mana Whenua

10.5    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

10.6    The views and preferences of effected parties will be established through the engagement / consultation process set out in this report.

Alignment with Council Plans and Policies

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

10.7.1 Inconsistency – there is no plan or policy to give away property assets; is a unilateral dealing.

10.7.2 Reason for inconsistency – as above

10.7.3 Amendment necessary – n/a

Financial Implications

10.8    Cost of Implementation – a market valuation was obtained in 2014 which assessed the value at $220,000. This is therefore the approximate foregone opportunity cost.

10.8.1 The consultation process will cost circa $10,000.

10.9    Maintenance / Ongoing Costs – n/a

10.10  Funding source – n/a

Legal Implications

10.11  Council is able to support in principle the gifting of this land.

10.12  Section 138 of the Local Government Act - requires a local authority to consult on a proposal to sell or other dispose of a “park”. Disposal includes a gift. “Park” is defined as meaning “land acquired or used principally for community, recreational, environmental, cultural, or spiritual purposes.As the property was acquired in 2008 for the Lyttelton Service Centre it falls within the definition of a “park”.

10.13  Obligations under s40 of the Public Works Act 1981 do not exist.

 

Risks and Mitigations    

10.14  There is a risk that the community will perceive the Council as an inefficient manager of public assets caused by the proposal to gift assets.

10.14.1  This is a unique opportunity that is likely to result in community benefit.  A possible treatment of the risk is to ensure communication of the community benefits.  Additionally, Council should communicate the protections that are proposed (eg reversion back to Council should the Museum become insolvent)

10.14.2  Consultation with the community will take place before a final decision to dispose of the land is determined so allows for the community to be informed of, and comment on, the benefits and protections.

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

10.15  There is a risk that community groups will perceive the Council gift as a precedent and seek to obtain other public assets as gifts.

10.15.1  Council has received similar requests in the past.  It looks at each case on its merits and makes decisions based on the specific circumstances. 

10.15.2  A possible treatment of the risk is to ensure due process is followed with advice provided and full options analysis before decisions are made.

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

Implementation

10.16  Implementation dependencies - Enter into agreement for transfer.

10.16.1  Outcome of consultation

10.17  Implementation timeframe – six months.

Option Summary - Advantages and Disadvantages

10.18  The advantages of this option include:

·   The Lyttelton Historical Museum Society Museum will return to Lyttelton.

·   Council will not have to incur costs associated with the land e.g. rates and maintenance.

·   A mechanism will be put in place which will result in the land reverting to Council in the event that the Museum ceases to operate.

·   The proposed consultation process will attend to a statutory requirement, the views and preferences of effected parties and implicitly alternative public uses.

10.19  The disadvantages of this option include:

·   Departs form policy in that it is a unilateral dealing.

·   Subverts the Councils normal decision making process for land that requires a review.

·   Council is forgoing the potential proceeds from a sale.

·   Council will no longer hold this parcel of land should it be required at some stage in the future.

11. Option 2 – Do not dispose of the Land and review the future use of the site

Option Description

11.1    Council opts to not gift the land to the LHMS. This would leave the site with an undetermined future.

11.2    The Council has a process to determine the future use of sites that are no longer required for the original purpose for which they were purchased and the property could be put through that to determine an alternative future use or disposal.

Significance

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

11.4    Engagement requirements for this level of significance are not applicable.

Impact on Mana Whenua

11.5    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

11.6    No one is specifically affected by this option due to this being the status quo. The process to determine the future use of a property has embedded in it opportunities to seek community views and preferences.

Alignment with Council Plans and Policies

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

Financial Implications

11.8    Cost of Implementation – not applicable

11.9    Maintenance / Ongoing Costs – ongoing operational costs circa $3,000 per annum

11.10  Funding source – existing budgets

Legal Implications

11.11  Council will need to establish a public work for this property going forward.

Implementation

11.12  Implementation dependencies - not applicable.

11.13  Implementation timeframe – not applicable.

Option Summary - Advantages and Disadvantages

11.14  The advantages of this option include:

·   Council will retain a property asset.

·   Council will be able to derive an income should the property be sold on the open market.

·   The property could be available for a future public work.

·   All options for this property would be addressed via the Councils ‘Future Use Property Review Process’.

11.15  The disadvantages of this option include:

·   Council will incur operational costs on an annual basis.

 

Attachments

No.

Title

Page

a 

Attachment A

 

b 

Attachment B

 

 

 

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

Dan Egerton - Property Consultant

Approved By

Angus Smith - Manager Property Consultancy

Bruce Rendall - Head of Facilities, Property and Planning

Anne Columbus - General Manager Corporate Services

 


Council

13 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


Council

13 April 2017

 

PDF Creator


Council

13 April 2017

 

 

15.    Coastal-Burwood Community Board Report to Council

Reference:

17/229460

Contact:

Jo Wells

jo.wells@ccc.govt.nz

941 6451

 

 

1.   Purpose of Report

The purpose of this report is to provide the Council with an overview of Part A matters requiring a Council decision and of matters considered by the Community Board arising in March.

 

2.   Community Board Recommendations

That the Council

1.            Receive the Community Board report.

 

 

3.   Meeting Minutes

The Coastal-Burwood Community Board held meetings during March and is providing the attached minutes to the Council for its information:

·   6 March 2017

·   20 March 2017

 

4.   Part A Recommendations to Council

There are no Part A recommendations to the Council from the Coastal-Burwood Community Board.

5.   Decisions Made

5.1       At its meetings on 6 and 20 March 2017 the Board made a number of decisions including:

·    Approving a central pedestrian refuge island be constructed on Mairehau Road.

·    Approving the attendance of Board members to the “Diverse coastal environments in Times of Change” conference in Christchurch on 22 March to 24 March 2017.

·    Agreeing to send a letter of support in principle for the Christchurch School of Gymnastics rebuild project.

·    Approving the concept landscape plan, for a new car park near the corner of Horseshoe Lake Road and Lake Terrace Road at Horseshoe Lake Reserve.

·    Requested staff consult nearby residents in relation to the footbridge at Horseshoe Lake.

 

Approving funding applications as follows:

·    A sponsorship contribution of $1,000 from its Discretionary Response Fund to assist the Coastal Restoration Trust of New Zealand with the facilitation of the “Diverse coastal environments in Times of Change”

·    A grant of $450 from its 2016/17 Youth Development Fund towards the costs of attending the Ice Hockey Friendship Tournament in Saint Paul, Minnesota from 12-21 March 2017.

·    A grant of $450 from its 2016/17 Youth Development Fund towards representation in the Junior Davis Cup team to represent New Zealand in New Delhi, India from 11 - 19 March 2017.

·    A grant of $300 from its 2016/17 Youth Development Fund towards the costs of representing Te Waipounamou Netball U13 squad at the National Easter Tournament in Auckland from 13-14

·    A grant of $250 from its 2016/17 Youth Development Fund to Kowahi Williams towards attendance at the National Maori Netball Tournament in Auckland from 14-16 April.

·    A grant of $250 from its 2016/17 Youth Development Fund towards attendance at the National Maori Netball Tournament in Auckland from 14-16 April.

6.   Significant Projects and Initiatives

       New Brighton Regeneration

Work is now underway via Development Christchurch Limited (DCL) on the design of the Christchurch Beachside Playground and Whale Pool, with the aim of a summer 2017 opening.   The community will be able to look at the concept design and provide feedback in the next couple of months.

Funding for the wider development of the hot salt water pools project has been included in the Draft Annual Plan 2017/18.  

DCL is also currently developing an implementation plan for the commercial core that incorporates key elements of the New Brighton Master Plan.

 

Signage went up on site to let the community know that the Christchurch Beachside Playground project is underway.

 

South Brighton Jetty

Work began in March to complete earthquake repairs of the South Brighton Jetty. The repair is due for completion late July.


 

7.   Significant Community Issues

       Repair of the South Brighton Boardwalk

At the Board’s request a report is due to come to the Community Board on 1 May 2017.  This will present some cost estimates and options for repairing the boardwalk.  A project with the student army may be considered however a recent update from staff has indicated it may be possible for council to repair the boardwalk within the current budget allocation for the project.  This would be a good outcome for the community.

Regeneration Plans / Coastal Hazards

The Ōtākaro/Avon River corridor engagement activities have commenced including a Regenerate Christchurch Community Day at Haeata Community College on 25 March 2017.  A workshop is being held Tuesday 4 April 2017, 6 – 8pm at the Aranui Wainoni Community Centre to provide an opportunity for residents who live in areas surrounding the Ōtākaro/Avon River corridor to have input into the regeneration vision.

The Board are awaiting information from Council and Regenerate Christchurch staff regarding engagement with South Brighton and Southshore communities.  

At the Boards 20 March 2017 meeting, representatives of the Southshore Residents Association updated the Board on work the Association has been doing to look at options for flood protection in the area. This included information on the options considered and the results of a survey of residents in the area.  

The Coastal-Burwood Board have requested staff to organise a workshop with Regenerate Christchurch, OCEL consultants, Council Staff and Southshore Residents Association to discuss Southshore flood protection.

 

8.   Progress Report Against the Community Board Plan

The Coastal-Burwood Community Board has yet to develop its 2017-19 Community Board Plan. It is anticipated that the Plan will be reviewed and updated and come into effect from 1 July 2017.  A workshop is being planned for April to facilitate this.

 

9.   Community Board Significant Matters of Interest 

9.1       2017/18 Draft Annual Plan

The Board has held two Community engagement events for the Draft Annual Plan 2017/18, at which members of the community had the opportunity to have one on one discussions with Board members and staff in an informal setting. Both evenings were well attended.  The Board will put in a submission on the Draft Annual Plan.

9.2       QEII Park Management Plan

Staff are preparing a draft framework for the development of a management plan for QEII Park following the recent signing of the sale and purchase agreement with the Ministry of Education.  This will include proposals of how the funds from the sale are managed.  A workshop will be held with the Board and staff to review the draft framework and provide an opportunity for the Board to have input.  Construction is now underway on new QEII Recreation and Sport Centre and it is expected to open in mid-2018.


 

9.3       Development of Civil Defence Emergency Plans

The Board is keen to be involved in community Responsiveness / Resilience/Emergency Preparedness Plans. The Board is aware that this will feed into a more co-ordinated approach for CDEM to work with communities in this area. In the Coastal–Burwood areas there are many examples of spontaneous responses by community groups, churches and individuals getting together and supporting communities in an emergency.  A plan will be developed by the Board in the coming weeks.

9.4       Community Events held in March 2017

9.4.1      PolyFest Secondary School showcase on 18 March in Dallington which saw several thousand participants compete and attend.

9.4.2      NZ Surf Life Saving Championships 16 – 19 March, with 31 Clubs from around NZ competing over the 4 day event and attracting a large audience of supporters.

 

More than 1200 of the country's top lifesavers gathered at the New Brighton Life Saving Club for 2017 annual spectacular, the pinnacle of the sport's season.

 

9.4.3      Ray White New Brighton Festival of Surfing – Opening event - 17 March.

9.4.4      New Brighton Rocks Event – Saturday 18 March – a new event for families in Rawhiti Domain, 150-200 people attended.

9.4.5      Coastal dunes conference was held in New Brighton - raising awareness of the importance of dunes to our coastal system. The conference of over 75 delegates in attendance from around New Zealand – 22 – 24 March.

9.4.6      Ray White New Brighton Festival of Surfing – Movie Night Friday 24 March.

9.4.7      Ray White New Brighton Festival of Surfing – Competition 25 and 26 March.

9.4.8      The Jam Youth event – Saturday 25 March – a new event for youth bands to perform at the New Brighton Amphitheatre.

9.4.9      Wainoni Avonside Community Services Trust – Summer of Fun event – Saturday 25 March.

9.4.10    Regenerate – Community Open Day to engage about the Otakaro-Avon River Corridor at Haeata Community Campus – Saturday 25 March.

9.5       Tiny Huts

The five Tiny Huts will continue to be enjoyed in New Brighton with the community voting to keep them where they are.  The Tiny Huts provide a fun, creative attraction to the area.

9.6       Ward Bus Tour to be held 22 May 2017.

 

The Shell Chapel (one of 5 Tiny Huts in New Brighton)

 

 

 

 

Attachments

No.

Title

Page

a

Coastal-Burwood Community Board Minutes - 6 March 2017

3

b

Coastal-Burwood Community Board Minutes - 20 March 2017

3

 

 

Signatories

Author

Jo Wells - Manager Community Governance, Coastal-Burwood

Approved By

Lester Wolfreys - Head of Community Support, Governance and Partnerships

  


Council

13 April 2017

 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


Council

13 April 2017

 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


Council

13 April 2017

 

 

16.    Fendalton-Waimairi-Harewood Community Board Report to Council

Reference:

17/257154

Contact:

Matt McLintock

matt.mclintock@ccc.govt.nz

941 6231

 

 

1.   Purpose of Report

The purpose of this report is to provide the Council with an overview of Part A matters requiring a Council decision and of matters considered by the Community Board arising in March 2017.

 

2.   Community Board Recommendations

That the Council:

1.      Receive the Community Board report.

 

 

3.   Meeting Minutes

The Fendalton-Waimairi-Harewood Community Board held meetings during March 2017 and is providing the attached minutes to the Council for its information:

·   Monday 13 March 2017

·   Monday 27 March 2017.

 

4.   Part A Recommendations to Council

There are no Part A items for the Council to consider at this meeting.

 

5.   Decisions Made

5.1       At its meetings on 13 and 27 March 2017 the Board made a number of decisions including:

·   Approving the installation of a speed management measures in Grampian Street.

·   Approving the attendance of members to the New Zealand Community Boards Conference 2017 in Methven.

Approving the installation of “no stopping” restrictions at the Gordon Avenue/St Albans Street Intersection, Kinleys Land and Kinleys Lane/St Albans St Intersection and Abberley Crescent/At Albans Street Intersection.

·   Approving the installation on of parking restrictions in Juniper Place.

·   Retaining the plan for Abberley Park Playground Upgrade as approved by the former Shirley/Papanui Community Board.

·   Approving funding applications as follows:

-      A grant from the Fendalton-Waimairi-Harewood 2016/17 Youth Development Fund to Burnside High School towards sending eight 14-year old students on the Spirit of Adventure Trophy Voyage.

-      A grant from the Fendalton-Waimairi-Harewood 2016/17 Discretionary Response Fund to the Bishopdale Bridge Club.

-      A grant from the Fendalton-Waimairi-Harewood 2016/17 Discretionary Response Fund to Scouts New Zealand Torlesse Zone.

 


 

 

6.   Significant Projects and Initiatives

6.1       Annual Plan Workshop

As at 31 March 2017, the Community Board has yet to hold its two Annual Plan Workshops scheduled for Monday 3 April 2017 and Monday 10 April 2017.

6.2       Burnside Park - Wigram Lions Barbeque Area

On Monday 20 March Board members met at Burnside Park with representatives from the Wigram Lions to discuss the possibility of installing a barbeque, donated by the Lions to acknowledge the their 100 year worldwide anniversary near the children’s playground.  With the proximity to the playground and existing picnic tables, both parties considered the site ideal for a barbeque.  Consultation for the installation of a barbeque has already been done as part of the Burnside Park Management Plan. The installation should be completed in time for the Lion’s Anniversary date in July 2017.

6.3       National Policy Statement for Freshwater Management

The Fendalton-Waimairi-Harewood Community Board’s Submissions Committee met to consider the proposed changes to the Government’s National Policy Statement for Freshwater Management.  The Board, in conjunction with the Halswell-Hornby-Riccarton Community Board, provided feedback for consideration in the preparation of the Council’s submission to the Government.

6.6       The Elmwood Club

The Elmwood Club is undertaking a major expansion of their facilities by building a major sporting hub on their site in Heaton Street.  The Ministry of Education has agreed to allow the Club to utilise neighbouring land belonging to Heaton Intermediate School.  The Club is made up of seven different sporting codes who have 2,600 between them, and more than 75,000 people pass through the doors each year.  The new facility will include multi use indoor courts, clubrooms, gym space and sports medicine facilities.  Both Heaton Intermediate School and St Andrew's College will have use of the facilities.  A feasibility study has been completed and plans are currently being drawn up for the new facility.  The Club will now be focussing on fundraising and hope to begin the build by the end of this year.

 

 Above plan indicative only

 

6.4       Bishopdale Documentary Project

Christchurch City Libraries and the University of Canterbury, School of Fine Arts are collaborating to produce a contemporary documentary record of Christchurch. Over the course of five years various communities will be photographed to represent the North, South, East, West and Central parts of the city.  In 2017 the Bishopdale area will be documented to represent the northern communities of the city. The digital images produced in the combined projects are preserved in the Christchurch City Libraries Digital Heritage Collection, accessible via the Christchurch City Libraries website and partner sites as per conditions set out in licensing or loan agreement.

The Bishopdale area is of particular interest due to the heritage value in many of the housing and developments in the area particularly from the 1960s onwards. This project addresses gaps in the current digital heritage collection.

6.5       Bishopdale Menz Shed

Since its inception in 2014, the Bishopdale Menz Shed has grown from 10 members to over 70.  With support from the Fendalton-Waimairi-Harewood Community Development Adviser, a lease was negotiated with the Ministry of Education for the Shed to move into the old Scout Den on the site of the now closed Kendal School.  The Shed are currently involved in a number of community projects including:

·    making window seating for the Battered Women's Refuge

·    making penguin nesting boxes for the Antarctic Centre for International Penguin day on 25 April 2017

·    repairing and modifying a wood storage box for Kendal Kindergarten

·    repairing a painting easel for Pitcairn Kindergarten

·    making iPad stands for BLENNZ (students with low vision)

They have also recently completed repairs to an outdoor table and outside climbing boxes for Pitcairn Kindergarten and repaired a bed and easel for Trengrove Kindergarten which is currently using Kendal School hall while their building on Clyde Road is under refurbishment.

Members from the Menz Shed have also been busy helping Council staff with making frames for billboards and car park marshalling at local events including Celebrate Bishopdale and Culture Galore.

Cuppa tea time at the Menz Shed

7.   Community Events Report Back

7.1       Culture Galore

The 15th annual Culture Galore event took place on Saturday 11 March 2017 at Ray Blank Park.  Culture Galore is a multicultural festival that celebrates our city's diversity with food, arts and crafts, music and dance performances from more than 80 cultures who call Christchurch home.  Although it was an overcast day, the weather held out long enough for about 4000 people to enjoy the colourful cultural performances and amazing tasty, ethnic food.  Culture Galore is funded by the Fendalton-Waimairi-Harewood and Hornby-Halswell-Riccarton Community Boards and managed by the Community Recreation Advisers of the Governance team.

    

   

   

       7.2   Fendalton-Waimairi-Harewood Community Pride Garden Awards

The 2017 awards ceremony was held on Tuesday 14 March 2017 at the Russley Golf Club Function Centre. It was well attended by recipients, with 63 certificates and 4 trophies handed out. Everyone enjoyed speeches from Community Board members and Ron Andrews, President Christchurch Beautifying Association. This year we trialled a lucky prize draw with 3 major prizes (hampers from Barkers) and 3 small prizes (vouchers from Mitre 10) given to those with lucky numbers. It was a success and will be done again next year. 100 certificates have been posted out to the recipients that were unable to attend the ceremony.

Board Chair, David Cartwright, presenting the South Island Promotion Association

Trophy to Julie-Anne Farrell from the Commodore Airport Hotel in Memorial Avenue.

 

8.   Community Board Matters of Interest

8.1       Clearwater Reserve, Lake Roto Kotahu Reserve, the Groynes

On Thursday 16 March staff took the Fendalton-Waimairi-Harewood Community Board on a site visit to Clearwater Reserve, Lake Roto Kotahu Reserve and the Groynes.  Members were impressed with the results from ongoing work to improve the water quality of the Otakaikino Stream. Issues around the maintenance of the waterways and walkways, vandalism and accessibility were also discussed.

The Board has asked that staff provide information around the costs associated with the maintenance, vandalism and running the facility, and the number and frequency of anti-social behaviour/incidents occurring at Lake Roto Kotahu Reserve.

      IMG_4363

Above:  Lake Roto Kohatu                                       Above: Otakaikino Stream after remedial work

 

8.2       Stock Transfer of Housing New Zealand properties in Bryndwr   

Housing New Zealand has signalled a proposed stock transfer of up to 2,500 properties in Christchurch to social housing providers, including properties in Bryndwr.  No firm date has been identified by Housing New Zealand for this to take place.  Market sounding for bidders closed on 3 February 2017.

Local community organisations have reported dealing with a number of tenants who are feeling very vulnerable.

A city-wide meeting was held on 9 March 2017 at the Transitional Cathedral.  A public meeting for concerned Bryndwr residents took place on 29 March at St Aidan's Church on Brookside Terrace.

The stock transfer is beyond the scope of Council, however Council staff, through the Community Support, Governance and Partnerships Unit, may be in a position to provide assistance to organisations who support social housing tenants, to ensure that tenants are able to participate in any decision-making and information processes around this.

 

Attachments

There are no attachments for this report.

 

Signatories

Authors

Matthew McLintock - Manager Community Governance, Fendalton-Waimairi-Harewood

Maryanne Lomax - Community Development Advisor

Kay Rabe - Governance Support Officer

Lisa Gregory - Community Recreation Advisor

Approved By

Lester Wolfreys - Head of Community Support, Governance and Partnerships

  


Council

13 April 2017

 

Report from Innovation and Sustainable Development Committee  – 22 March 2017

 

17.    Development Contributions Policy Review 2017

Reference:

17/359283

Contact:

Gavin Thomas

gavin.thomas@ccc.govt.nz

941 8834

 

 

 

1.   Secretarial Note:

 

The Council previously considered this report at the meeting on 6 April 2017. It was decided to let the report lie on the table pending the Innovation and Sustainable Development Committee considering a second report regarding Development Contributions from the Development Forum, which is on its Agenda on 7 April 2017. The Committee decision/recommendation will be circulated to Councillors prior to the meeting on 13 April 2017.

 

 

 

2.   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

3

 

There are no attachments for this report.

 


Council

13 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

13 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

13 April 2017

 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


Council

13 April 2017

 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


Council

13 April 2017

 

 

18.    Draft submission on Clean Water 2017

Reference:

17/201840

Contact:

Diane Shelander

diane.shelander@ccc.govt.nz

941 8304

 

 

1.   Purpose and Origin of Report

Purpose of Report

1.1       The purpose of this report is for the Council to recommend that the draft submission on Clean Water 2017, the Government's proposals to amend management of fresh water (Attachment A), is approved.

Origin of Report

1.2       This report is staff generated.

1.3       The Council has previously submitted on the Government fresh water management proposals, most recently on the Next Steps for Fresh Water discussion document in April 2016.

2.   Significance

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

2.1.1   The level of significance was determined by considering the extent of impact to people and the wider Christchurch community in relation to the decision sought. 

 

3.   Staff Recommendations

That the Council:

1.         Approve the draft submission on Clean Water 2017, the Government's proposals to amend management of fresh water.

 

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: 17.0.30 Provision of strategic advice on the natural environment issues facing the city

4.2       The following feasible options have been considered:

·     Option 1 - The Council makes a submission on Clean Water 2017 (preferred option)

·     Option 2 - The Council makes no submission on Clean Water 2017

4.3       Option Summary - Advantages and Disadvantages (Preferred Option)

4.3.1   The advantages of this option include:

·     The Council takes advantage of the opportunity to express its views on the Government proposals to amend the manner in which fresh water is managed in New Zealand, including changes to the National Policy Statement on Freshwater Management.

4.3.2   The disadvantages of this option include:

·     none

4.4       The consultation period on the discussion document Clean Water 2017 opened 23 February 2017 and closes 28 April 2017.

 

5.   Context/Background

National Policy Statement on Freshwater Management

5.1       The National Policy Statement on Freshwater Management (NPS Freshwater) was introduced in 2011, and was amended in 2014. 

5.2       The NPS Freshwater sets objectives and policies for freshwater and establishes a suite of water quality criteria.

Clean Water 2017 proposals

5.3       On 23 February 2017 the Government announced proposals to amend the framework for freshwater management  including:

·   Introducing ‘swimmability’ criteria 

·   Information on water quality for swimming

·   Amending NPS Freshwater

·   Freshwater Improvement Fund

·   Stock exclusion from waterways.

5.4       The Government is proposing to move from a set of criteria based on secondary recreational contact to primary contact (swimmable).

5.5       The swimmability attribute table in the NPS Freshwater will apply to ‘large rivers and lakes’, which are defined as:

·   Rivers that are fourth order and above, and

·   Lakes with perimeters longer than 1.5 kilometres.

5.6       Swimmability will be assessed by:

·   percentage of time the threshold value for rivers and lakes of 540 Escherichia coli (E coli) per 100 millilitres is exceeded  (along with some further statistical qualifiers) and

·   levels of cyanobacteria (blue-green algae) in lakes for which that are existing criteria in the NPS Freshwater.

5.7       The discussion document describes mapping of water bodies for swimmability that are available on the Ministry for the Environment’s (the Ministry) web site, and that these are complemented by maps on the Land Air and Water Aotearoa (LAWA) web site.  The Government isn’t proposing changes to what is already occurring.

5.8       Amendments to the NPS Freshwater include:

·   Amending the Preamble to include the interim goal of 80% of large rivers and lakes to be swimmable by 2030 and 90% of these rivers and lakes to be swimmable by 2040.

·   Amending the attribute table for Human Health for Recreation to focus on the degree to which a water body is swimmable.

·   Amending three attribute tables for lakes that relate to trophic levels (phytoplankton, total nitrogen and total phosphorous) and adding notations applicable to intermittently closing and opening lakes and lagoons (ICOLLs).  Te Waihora/Lake Ellesmere and Wairewa/Lake Forsyth are examples of ICOLLs.

5.9       The Government has also announced a Freshwater Improvement Fund aimed at ‘vulnerable catchments’.  The only vulnerable catchment within Christchurch that was identified by the Government is Te Waihora/Lake Ellesmere.

5.10    The Government proposed a stock exclusion regime in their 2016 Next Steps for Fresh Water discussion document.  With some changes the Government is making a similar proposal to develop regulations to exclude stock from waterways with effective dates ranging from 1 July 2017 to 1 July 2030 depending on stock type and land type. 

5.11    Information about Clean Water 2017 was provided to Community Boards on 28 February. 

5.12    A briefing for councillors on the Government’s proposals was held on 28 March.

Submission summary

5.13    The draft submission (Attachment B) includes the following key points:

·   Recommending that the NPS Freshwater is expanded to include groundwater-related attributes

·   Suggesting consistent nomenclature to be used for describing the swimmability state of water bodies

·   Recommending that requirements for determining swimmability are clear and unambiguous

·   Recommending that the consideration of ‘swimmability’ is subjected to a more robust analysis

·   Recommending that the wording in the NPS Freshwater is amended to clarify the bodies of water to which the swimmability attribute applies and the bodies of water for which a sampling and monitoring scheme applies

·   Recommending that either tables 1 and 2 on the Ministry’s web site are used in the NPS-FM, or that the method for calculating the E coli Attribute State is simplified

·   Supporting clarification of the NPS freshwater that national bottom lines are not standards to aim for but minimums to be achieved where water quality is currently below national bottom lines

·   Recommending inclusion of a requirement to consider options to reduce impacts of infrastructure on freshwater ecosystems in Policy CA3

·   Supporting limits for ICOLLs but recommend further work with regional councils

·   Supporting proposals for stock exclusion from waterways

·   Recommending further consideration of waterbodies or catchments eligible for the Freshwater Improvement Fund

·   Suggesting greater clarity concerning the waterbodies shown on the Ministry’s online Water Quality for Swimming maps.


 

6.   Option 1 - Council submission on Clean Water 2017 (preferred)

Option Description

6.1       The Council submits on the Government’s discussion document Clean Water 2017.

Significance

6.2       The level of significance was determined by considering the extent of impact to people and the wider Christchurch community in relation to the decision sought.

Impact on Mana Whenua

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

Community Views and Preferences

6.4       Community boards have been contacted about the Government’s proposals to amend management of fresh water. Their views have been taken into account in developing the draft submission.

Alignment with Council Plans and Policies

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

Financial Implications

6.6       Cost of Implementation – none.

6.7       Maintenance / Ongoing Costs – none.

6.8       Funding source – none.

Legal Implications

6.9       There are no legal implications associated with making a submission on Clean Water 2017.

Risks and Mitigations    

6.10    Not applicable

Implementation

6.11    Implementation dependencies  - not applicable

6.12    Implementation timeframe – not applicable

Option Summary - Advantages and Disadvantages

6.13    The advantages of this option include:

·   The Council takes advantage of the opportunity to express its views on the Government proposals to amend the manner in which fresh water is managed in New Zealand, including changes to the National Policy Statement on Freshwater Management.

6.14    The disadvantages of this option include:

·   none

7.   Option 2 - No submission on Clean Water 2017

Option Description

7.1       The Council declines to submit on the discussion document Clean Water 2017.

Significance

7.2       The level of significance was determined by considering the extent of impact to people and the wider Christchurch community in relation to the decision sought.

Impact on Mana Whenua

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

Community Views and Preferences

7.4       Community boards have been contacted about the Government’s proposals to amend management of fresh water. Their views have been taken into account when developing the draft submission.

Alignment with Council Plans and Policies

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

7.5.1   Inconsistency - The option is not wholly consistent with the Council’s Sustainability Policy 2008.

7.5.2   Reason for inconsistency - The option is not consistent with the Policy’s guiding principles of stewardship and kaitiakitanga, and is also not consistent with the Policy’s goals.

7.5.3   Amendment necessary – Not applicable

Financial Implications

7.6       There are no costs associated with the decision to not submit on Clean Water 2017.

Legal Implications

7.7       There are no legal implications associated with the decision not to submit on Clean Water 2017.

Risks and Mitigations   

7.8       Not applicable.

Implementation

7.9       Implementation dependencies  - not applicable

7.10    Implementation timeframe – not applicable

Option Summary - Advantages and Disadvantages

7.11    The advantages of this option include:

·   none

7.12    The disadvantages of this option include:

·   The Council misses the opportunity to express its views on proposed amendments to management of fresh water.

 

Attachments

No.

Title

Page

a

Clean Water 2017 discussion document

3

b

Christchurch City Council draft submission Clean Water 2017

3

 

 

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

Diane Shelander - Senior Policy Analyst

Approved By

Helen Beaumont - Head of Strategic Policy

Brendan Anstiss - General Manager Strategy and Transformation

  


Council

13 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


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

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

13 April 2017

 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


Council

13 April 2017

 

PDF Creator


Council

13 April 2017

 

 

19.    Memorial Trees QEII Park

Reference:

17/303958

Contact:

Stuart McLeod

stuart.mcleod@ccc.govt.nz

941 8520

 

 

1.   Purpose and Origin of Report

Purpose of Report

1.1       The purpose of this report is to ask Council to amend a resolution made on 23 June 2016 in relation to retaining trees on QEII Park.

1.2       This report also provides information on the fitness/walking track and “other” trees at QEII Park. 

Origin of Report

1.3       This report is staff generated following a request from the Ministry of Education (MOE) to vary the sale and purchase agreement as it relates to the retention of trees as presented at an informal meeting of Councillors on 28 March 2017.

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 assessing the criteria in the significance assessment against the Hearings Panel process that has already taken place over the sale of part of QEII to the Ministry of Education

2.1.2   Further community engagement and consultation is not required in relation to the staff recommendation outlined in this report.

 

3.   Staff Recommendations 

That the Council:

1.         Amend the Council resolution of 23 June 2016 item 42 number 2a.  by deleting reference to those trees numbered 215, 224 and 229.

 

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 – Amend the Council resolution of 23 June 2016 item 42 number 2a. by deleting reference to those trees numbered 215, 224 and 229 (preferred option)

·     Option 2 – Do not amend the Council resolution of 23 June 2013

4.3       Option Summary - Advantages and Disadvantages (Preferred Option)

4.3.1   The advantages of this option include:

·     Retains 8 of 11 required trees.

·     Retains 7 of 14 desired trees.

·     Retains other established trees.

·     MOE willing to provide additional planting on the school site.

·     Enabling the Ministry of Education (MOE) to finalise its contractual arrangement with the Public Private Partnership (PPP).

·     Preserves more of the desirable trees than is otherwise possible

·     Shows Council support for the recovery of the eastern suburbs

·     Shows Council is a flexible and agile organisation

·     Extensive plantings throughout the school site

·     Facilities an optimal design outcome for the schools.

4.3.2   The disadvantages of this option include:

·     3 of the required trees are lost.

 

5.   Context/Background

Sale of part QEII site to MOE

5.1       In February 2015 the MOE announced that QEII Park was the preferred location site of Avonside Girls High school and Shirley Boys High School.

5.2       The Christchurch City Council, in accordance with section 138 of the Local Government Act 2002, undertook a consultative process in relation to the disposal of part of QEII to the MOE.

5.3       As part of the consultation, the Council appointed Hearings Panel considered a total of 381 submissions, both from those who agreed with the sale, 59%, and from those who disagreed, 35%. Whilst submissions were wide and varied after due deliberation the Hearings Panel recommended to Council amongst other things that some trees be retained, subsequently the Council on 23 June 2016 adopted the following resolutions, item 42 resolution 2 

“a.  An encumbrance to be registered against the title to the land to protect trees numbered 221, 222, 223, 224, 219, 214, 215, 229, 230, 231, 232.” and

“b.  that the Council work with the Ministry of Education to ensure that as many as possible of the trees numbered 120, 119, 121, 118, 117, 116, 115, 114, 113, 124, 125, 126, 127, 128 be retained”

“c. retention of as many of the balance of the established trees on the site as is reasonably possible and planting of new trees.”

5.4       Staff and the MOE concluded negotiations and entered into a contract for sale and purchase that reflected the Council resolutions including those above related to the trees.

5.5       The MOE are negotiating a Public Private Partnership (PPP) to design and deliver the schools project and as part of the design process it became apparent that the MOE could not retain all of the required trees.

5.6       Staff have been working constructively to resolve this issue with the MOE and suggested that a presentation to Councillors outlining the project and the reasons why an amended resolution is required, followed by a report seeking an amendment to the 23 June 2016 resolution would be a way forward.


 

5.7       The MOE had an informal meeting with Councillors on 28 March 2017 where they tabled 3 development options showing the impact on tree retention. Of these options only two have been considered viable because the third only allows for 5 of the 11 required trees to be retained, only 7 of 14 desirable trees would be retained and there is no provision for further plantings. The outline tree plans for the 2 options considered can be viewed as attachment “Options for tree retention”

6.   Legal Considerations

6.1       The Legal Services Unit have considered whether or not the Council should carry out any further consultation or engagement with the public in relation to the retention of a lesser number of trees than was previously anticipated.  The legal advice is that no further consultation or engagement on this point is required. 

6.2       The Council carried out the consultation in 2016 to meet the requirements of section 138 of the Local Government Act 2002.  The consultation process was completed in May 2016.  During this consultation process, the Council was able to gather the views and preferences from interested and affected persons about the disposal of part of QEII and, as it transpired, other concerns about the retention of trees.  On this basis, the Council already has good recent information about what people think about the retention or otherwise of trees on the site.  The Legal Services Unit considers that no further consultation is required to garner further views and preferences about the trees on the site.  

6.3       Because this report requests the Council to alter a previous resolution, the Council is required to comply with Standing Orders in relation to the revocation or amendment of a previous resolution.  At the time of writing this report, the Council’s Standing Orders provide that

A local authority meeting may, on a recommendation contained in a report by the chairperson or chief executive, or the report of any committee, revoke or alter all or part of resolutions previously passed at meetings. At least 2 clear working days notice of any meeting to consider such a proposal must be given to members, accompanied by details of the proposal to be considered.

6.4       Accordingly, the Chief Executive has approved this report. 

7.   Other Information Requested Fitness/Walking Track  

Fitness/Walking Track

7.1       Under the earlier consultation process some submitters discussed a fitness/walking track on the QEII site.

7.2       The Hearings Panel considered these submissions and recommended to Council

“Provision of a publicly accessible fitness/walking track around the perimeter of the site in a manner which connects the fitness/walking track on the balance of the QEII park site to be retained by the Council”.

7.3       The Council subsequently adopted this recommendation without any changes and also resolved to delegate authority to negotiate and enter into agreement for the sale to MOE as follows;

“The Property Consultancy Manager be granted delegated authority to negotiate and enter into an agreement for the sale of the Land and related documentation on such terms and conditions as he considers are appropriate and which are consistent with the above resolution”.

7.4       The Property Consultancy Manager is comfortable that the terms and conditions relating to the location of the fitness walking track and additional pedestrian routes negotiated by staff with the MOE met the intent of the resolution and has signed the agreement for sale and purchase, a diagram showing the fitness/walking track and internal pedestrian routes can be seen as “attachment 1”.

7.5       The fitness/walking track and Internal Pedestrian Routes link to the access ways and paths on the balance QEII site retained by Council. The existing access ways and paths are being upgraded as part of the Recreation and Sports development and can be viewed as attachment “Fitness Walking track”

8.   Other Information Requested – Trees on balance site

8.1       There are a significant number of trees on the balance site retained by Council. These trees were not considered as part of the consultation process around the sale to MOE, however they are impacted to a minor degree by Council’s new Recreation and Sport development because of a realignment of the existing entrance from Travis Road and upgrade of Mark Treffers Drive.

8.2       The new alignment of the access way is shown in attachment “Access alignment” and is the “grey” area. Viewed in conjunction with the Landscape Concept Plan (same attachment) for the QEII Recreation and Sports Centre it can be seen that the larger trees are not impacted by this realignment.

8.3       The Landscape Concept Plan shows efforts have been made to avoid significant trees with notations such as “road to avoid Oak tree with plaque” and “Shared path to curve between large existing Eucalyptus trees” being prevalent.

8.4       The attached aerial photograph shows a considerable number of trees remaining to the west of the school site which adjoins the areas of required trees and desirable trees. There are no plans to remove any of the significant trees immediately adjoining the school site.

            


 

9.   Option 1 – Amend Council Resolution (preferred)

Option Description

9.1       Amend the Council resolution of 23 June 2016 item 42 number 2a. by deleting reference to those trees numbered 215, 224 and 229.

Significance

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

9.3       It is not necessary for further community engagement for this level of significance.

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       The wider Christchurch community is not specifically affected by this option.  As noted above, the views and preferences of interested and affected persons in relation to the retention of trees on the site were gathered in 2016 when the Council conducted a consultation process to comply with section 138 of the Local Government Act 2002.  Staff consider that the Council has a good understanding of the views and preferences of interested and affected persons in relation to the retention of trees on the site.

Alignment with Council Plans and Policies

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

9.6.1   Council have already resolved to sale part of QEII Park to the MOE

Financial Implications

9.7       Cost of Implementation – none other than staff time

9.8       Maintenance / Ongoing Costs – None, once sold the trees on the MOE site will be maintained in keeping with good arboriculture practice at the cost of the MOE

9.9       Funding source - none

Legal Implications

9.10    See the discussion of the legal considerations at part 6 of this report.

Risks and Mitigations    

9.11    The risk in amending the resolution is some submitters on the trees may express disappointment in the loss of some of the trees to be retained.

9.11.1 Treatment: The preservation of a greater number of desirable trees. The plan for the school has extensive landscaping and tree planting. In addition a number of non-numbered trees in the locality of the numbered trees will be retained. In terms of significance the three trees proposed to be removed are of lesser value in terms of heritage and species. They are also only in poor to fair condition.

9.11.2 Residual risk rating: the rating of the risk is low

Implementation

9.12    Implementation dependencies - Council amending the resolution.

9.13    Implementation timeframe – immediate.


 

Option Summary - Advantages and Disadvantages

9.14    The advantages of this option include:

·   Retains 8 of 11 required trees.

·   Retains 7 of 14 desired trees.

·   Retains other established trees.

·   MOE willing to provide additional planting on the school site.

·   Enabling the Ministry of Education (MOE) to finalise its contractual arrangement with the Public Private Partnership (PPP).

·   Preserves more of the desirable trees than is otherwise possible

·   Shows Council support for the recovery of the eastern suburbs

·   Shows Council is a flexible and agile organisation

·   Extensive plantings throughout the school site

·   Facilities an optimal design outcome for the schools.

9.15    The disadvantages of this option include:

·   3 of the required trees are lost.


 

10. Option 2 – Do nothing

Option Description

10.1    Do not amend the Council resolution of 23 June 2016

Significance

10.2    The level of significance of this option is low and is consistent with section 2 of this report Engagement requirements for this level of significance are not required.

Impact on Mana Whenua

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

Community Views and Preferences

10.4    The wider Christchurch community is not specifically affected by this option due to there being no change.  Their views were sort as part of the earlier consultation under Section 138 of the Local Government Act 2002.  Their views were considered by the hearings panel and subsequently Council in 2016.

Alignment with Council Plans and Policies

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

Financial Implications

10.6    Cost of Implementation - none

10.7    Maintenance / Ongoing Costs - none

10.8    Funding source - none

Legal Implications

10.9    None

Risks and Mitigations    

10.10  Potential collapse of the sale to the MOE or force a significant less than optimal redesign of the school. Could have significant time and project delivery implications.

10.11  Risk of a collapse sale caused by Council not amending an earlier resolution.  This may result in the MOE pulling out of the sale. Council would have to pursue Court action to enforce the contract.

10.11.1  Treatment: pass the amendment

10.11.2  Residual risk rating: the rating of the risk is low, some submitters may be aggrieved that more trees are lost then originally resolved

Implementation

10.12  Implementation dependencies  - None

10.13  Implementation timeframe - None

Option Summary - Advantages and Disadvantages

10.14  The advantages of this option include:

·   Retains 11 of 11 required trees

10.15  The disadvantages of this option include:

·   Retains only 1 desired tree.

·   Requires removal of other established trees.

·   The MOE would have to revisit its development plans.

·   Would result in the loss of additional trees in the “desirable group.

·   MOE may consider its future options

 

Attachments

No.

Title

Page

a

Fitness walking track

3

b

Access alignment

3

c

Options for tree retention

3

d

Aerial photo

3

 

 

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

Stuart McLeod - Property Consultant

Approved By

Vivienne Wilson - Senior Solicitor

Angus Smith - Manager Property Consultancy

Bruce Rendall - Head of Facilities, Property and Planning

Anne Columbus - General Manager Corporate Services

Karleen Edwards - Chief Executive

  


Council

13 April 2017

 

PDF Creator


Council

13 April 2017

 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


Council

13 April 2017

 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


Council

13 April 2017                                                                                               

 

PDF Creator


Council

13 April 2017

 

 

20.    Elected Member Appointments to External Bodies

Reference:

17/358179

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 its representatives to the Canterbury Regional Landfill Joint Committee and the Canterbury Waste Joint Committee.

Origin of Report

1.2       At the Council meeting on 6 April 2017 the Council deferred consideration of appointments to these committees until its meeting on 13 April 2017.

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

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

 

 

4.   Key Points

4.1       The Council has traditionally appointed Councillors as its representatives on a number of external bodies.  The majority of appointments for the 2016-19 triennium were made at the Council meetings on 15 December 2016 and 6 April 2017.

4.2       The constituting agreements of the Canterbury Regional Landfill Joint Committee and Canterbury Waste Joint Committee indicate that the Council should appoint to each Committee three elected members of the Council.

4.3       The Chair and Deputy Chair of each Committee are appointed by that Committee, the Chair must be an elected member appointed by the Christchurch City Council and the Deputy Chair must be an elected member appointed by another Council. 

4.4       It is a priority that appointments are made to the Canterbury Regional Landfill Joint Committee and Canterbury Waste Joint Committee as the first meeting of the Landfill Joint Committee is on 21 April 2017.

 

 

 

Attachments

There are no attachments for 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

Nicola Shirlaw - Senior Advisor

Approved By

Ariana Smith - Chief of Staff

   

 


Council

13 April 2017

 

 

21.  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

13 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

22

Christchurch City Holdings Limited and subsidiary companies - Draft Statement of Intent 2018-2020

s7(2)(h)

Commercial Activities

As the draft is provided for comment it is appropriate that these comments can be made on a confidential basis

The final Statements of Intent will be presented to Council in an open agenda

23

Draft 2018-2020 Statements of Intent for Vbase Limited, Transition Holdings Limited, Civic Building Limited, Riccarton Bush Trust, Christchurch Agency for Energy Trust and Rod Donald Banks Peninsula Trust

s7(2)(h)

Commercial Activities

As the draft is provided for comment it is approaciate that these comments can be made on a confidential basis.

The final Statements Of Intent will be presented to Council in an open agenda