Innovation and Sustainable Development Committee

Agenda

 

 

Notice of Meeting:

An ordinary meeting of the Innovation and Sustainable Development Committee will be held on:

 

Date:                                     Wednesday 23 August 2017

Time:                                    1pm

Venue:                                 Committee Room 1, Level 2, Civic Offices,
53 Hereford Street, Christchurch

 

 

Membership

Chairperson

Deputy Chairperson

Members

Councillor Vicki Buck

Councillor Tim Scandrett

Councillor Mike Davidson

Councillor Jamie Gough

Councillor Glenn Livingstone

Councillor Deon Swiggs

Councillor Sara Templeton

Deputy Mayor Andrew Turner

 

 

18 August 2017

 

 

 

Principal Advisor

Brendan Anstiss

General Manager Strategy & Transformation

Tel: 941 8472

 

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.
To view copies of Agendas and Minutes, visit:
https://www.ccc.govt.nz/the-council/meetings-agendas-and-minutes/

 


Innovation and Sustainable Development Committee

23 August 2017

 

Innovation and Sustainable Development Committee - Terms of Reference

 

 

Chair

Councillor Buck

Membership

Councillor Scandrett (Deputy Chair), Deputy Mayor Turner, Councillor Davidson, Councillor Gough, Councillor Livingstone, Councillor Swiggs, Councillor Templeton

Quorum

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

Meeting Cycle

Monthly

Reports To

Council

 

Responsibilities

The focus of the Innovation and Sustainable Development Committee is driving the concept of innovation, as in the City vision of a “City of Opportunity, where anything is possible” and to do so in ways that may be experimental and different.

 

The Committte considers and reports to Council on issues and activites relating to:

·           Strategies and priorities in relation to innovation and sustainable development.

·           Climate change and sustainability initiatives such as electric vehicles, carbon reduction and waste minimisation.

·           Economic development initiatives and strategies, including

·           Christchurch Narrative,

·           Antarctic Strategy,

·           Visitors Strategy,

·           Canterbury Economic Development Strategy,

·           Christchurch Economic Development Strategy,

·           Relationships with economic development subsidiaries, such as Canterbury Development Corporation, the TEED entity

·           Innovative or disruptive strategies and programmes, including Smart Cities programme of work

·           Innovative approaches to the delivery of issues that often go across levels of government

·           Allocation of funds related to the innovation and sustainability sector, including a new Innovation and Sustainability Fund.

·           Council’s Brand and Communications strategies.

 

Delegations

 

The Committee delegates to the following forum the responsibility to consider and report back to the Committee:

·           Development Forum - Innovative ways to support the development of the city and suburban centres

 


Innovation and Sustainable Development Committee

23 August 2017

 

Part A        Matters Requiring a Council Decision

Part B         Reports for Information

Part C         Decisions Under Delegation

 

 

TABLE OF CONTENTS

 

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

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

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

B       4.       Deputations by Appointment........................................................................................ 4

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

B       6.       Presentation from Foodstuffs on their Waste Minimisation and Recycling Activities 9

B       7.       Presentation from Countdown on their Waste Minimisation and Recycling Activities......................................................................................................................................... 11

B       8.       Presentation from Judi Sefton of Eco Central............................................................ 13

B       9.       Presentation from Cecilia Clavijo Regarding Small Supermarket Shopping Bags... 15

B       10.     Presentation from Charlotte Bebbington................................................................... 17

B       11.     Presentation from Phillip Duval Regarding Electric Bikes......................................... 19

STAFF REPORTS

A       12.     Innovation and Sustainability Fund Establishment.................................................... 21

A       13.     Master plan capital projects priorities........................................................................ 35

A       14.     Development Contributions - Small Residential Unit Rebate................................... 47

A       15.     Development Contributions Policy Review 2017....................................................... 55

C       16.     Resolution to Exclude the Public................................................................................. 58  

 

 


Innovation and Sustainable Development Committee

23 August 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.   Confirmation of Previous Minutes

That the minutes of the Innovation and Sustainable Development Committee meeting held on Friday, 7 July 2017 be confirmed (refer page 5).

4.   Deputations by Appointment

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

5.   Presentation of Petitions

There were no petitions received at the time the agenda was prepared.  


Innovation and Sustainable Development Committee

23 August 2017

 

 

 

Innovation and Sustainable Development Committee

Open Minutes

 

 

Date:                                     Friday 7 July 2017

Time:                                    1pm

Venue:                                 Committee Room 1, Level 2, Civic Offices,
53 Hereford Street, Christchurch

 

 

Present

Chairperson

Deputy Chairperson

Members

Councillor Vicki Buck

Councillor Tim Scandrett

Councillor Mike Davidson

Councillor Jamie Gough

Councillor Glenn Livingstone

Councillor Deon Swiggs

Councillor Sara Templeton

 

 

7 July 2017

 

 

 

Principal Advisor

Brendan Anstiss

General Manager Strategy & Transformation

Tel: 941 8472

 

Christopher Turner-Bullock

Committee Advisor

941 8233

christopher.turner@ccc.govt.nz

www.ccc.govt.nz

To view copies of Agendas and Minutes, visit:
www.ccc.govt.nz/Council/meetingminutes/agendas/index

 


Part A        Matters Requiring a Council Decision

Part B         Reports for Information

Part C         Decisions Under Delegation

 

 

 

The agenda was dealt with in the following order.

1.   Apologies

Part C

Apologies for absence from Deputy Mayor Turner, for lateness from Councillor Livingstone and for early departure from Councillor Gough were noted.

2.   Declarations of Interest

Part B

There were no declarations of interest recorded.

3.   Confirmation of Previous Minutes

Part C

Committee Resolved ISDC/2017/00018

That the minutes of the Innovation and Sustainable Development Committee meeting held on Wednesday, 21 June 2017 be confirmed.

Councillor Templeton/Councillor Davidson                                                                                                      Carried

 

Councillor Livingstone joined the meeting at 1.07pm.

10. Resolution to Include Supplementary Reports

 

Committee Resolved ISDC/2017/00019

That the reports be received and considered at the Innovation and Sustainable Development Committee meeting on Friday, 7 July 2017.

Public Excluded Items

11.       Events & Festivals Fund

Councillor Buck/Councillor Scandrett                                                                                                                  Carried

 

4.   Deputations by Appointment

Part B

There were no deputations by appointment.

5.   Presentation of Petitions

Part B

There was no presentation of petitions.

 

6.   Briefing - Ryan Reynolds of Gap Filler

 

Committee Comment

Ryan Reynolds from Gap Filler gave a presentation to the Committee on their proposed place making programme for the East Frame.

 

 

7.   Briefing - Darren Patterson of 3R Group

 

Committee Comment

Darren Patterson of 3R Group Ltd previously presented to the Committee on 24 May 2017 and was asked to return to the Committee with 3 or 4 projects that he would like to see progressed.

Darren presented the following projects to the Committee for consideration:

·    Take back/repair programme for Kathmandu Ltd

·    SeatSmart

·    Hard Hat Recycling

·    Repair Workshops

The Committee noted that it will be receiving a report in August 2017 on the proposed Innovation and Sustainability Fund and made a request of staff to report back in October 2017 on how these projects could be progressed.

 

Committee Resolved ISDC/2017/00020

Part C

That the Innovation and Sustainable Development Committee:

1.         Thank Darren Patterson of 3R Group Ltd for his presentation.

2.         Request staff to provide a report in October 2017 on the following projects presented to the Committee and include advice on how these projects could be taken forward:

a.         Take back/repair programme for Kathmandu Ltd

b.         SeatSmart

c.         Hard Hat Recycling

d.         Repair Workshops

Councillor Livingstone/Councillor Davidson                                                                                                      Carried

 

Councillor Gough left for the remainder of the meeting at 1.48pm.

7.2 Briefing - Markus Benter-Lynch of Sustainable Initiatives Fund Trust (SIFT)

 

Markus Benter-Lynch and Maria Wake of the Sustainable Initiatives Fund Trust (SIFT) provided on update to the Committee on their Fund and discussed potential ways that the Council and SIFT could work together in future.

The Committee suggested that SIFT work with Council staff to discuss how the Council can potentially work alongside SIFT with regards to the new Innovation and Sustainability Fund being proposed.

 

8.   Social Enterprise World Forum legacy project

 

Committee Resolved ISDC/2017/00021

Part C

That the Innovation and Sustainable Development Committee:

1.         Note that the report outlines a social enterprise legacy project which will contribute towards ongoing social and economic benefits from the Social Enterprise World Forum 2017.

2.         Note that a workshop with external socially innovative or entrepreneurial organisations and individuals is proposed for August to provide advice on social innovation opportunities.

3.         Agree to workshop a draft social innovation work programme by November 2017.

Councillor Swiggs/Councillor Scandrett                                                                                                              Carried

 

 

9.   Smart Cities Programme Update

 

Committee Comment

The Committee received an update from Teresa McCallum, Smart Cities Programme Manager, on the Smart Cities Programme.

 

10  Resolution to Exclude the Public

 

Committee Resolved ISDC/2017/00022

Part C

That at 2.45pm  the resolution to exclude the public set out on pages 5 to 6 of the supplementary agenda be adopted.

Councillor Templeton/Councillor Livingstone                                                                                                    Carried

 

The public were re-admitted to the meeting at 2.57pm at which time the meeting concluded.

   

 

CONFIRMED THIS 23RD DAY OF AUGUST 2017

 

Councillor Vicki Buck

Chairperson

   


Innovation and Sustainable Development Committee

23 August 2017

 

 

6.        Presentation from Foodstuffs on their Waste Minimisation and Recycling Activities

Reference:

17/662946

Contact:

Chris Turner-Bullock

christopher.turner@ccc.govt.nz

941 8233

 

 

Mike Sammons, Sustainability Manager of Foodstuffs, will present to the Committee on their Waste Minimisation and Recycling Activities.

 

Attachments

There are no attachments to this report.

 


Innovation and Sustainable Development Committee

23 August 2017

 

 

7.        Presentation from Countdown on their Waste Minimisation and Recycling Activities

Reference:

17/854660

Contact:

 Enter contact

Enter email address

Enter phone.

 

 

Kate Porter, National Communications and Public Affairs Manager and/or James Walker, General Manager Corporate Affairs, for Countdown will present to the Committee on their Waste Minimisation and Recycling Activities.

 

Attachments

There are no attachments to this report.

 


Innovation and Sustainable Development Committee

23 August 2017

 

 

8.        Presentation from Judi Sefton of Eco Central

Reference:

17/900567

Contact:

Chris Turner-Bullock

christopher.turner@ccc.govt.nz

941 8233

 

 

Judi Sefton of Eco Central will present to the Committee on their work and opportunities in the waste minimisation area.

 

Attachments

There are no attachments to this report.

 


Innovation and Sustainable Development Committee

23 August 2017

 

 

9.        Presentation from Cecilia Clavijo Regarding Small Supermarket Shopping Bags

Reference:

17/829468

Contact:

Chris Turner-Bullock

christopher.turner@ccc.govt.nz

941 8233

 

 

 

Ceci Clavijo will speak to the Committee regarding small supermarket shopping bags.

 


Innovation and Sustainable Development Committee

23 August 2017

 

 

10.    Presentation from Charlotte Bebbington

Reference:

17/864147

Contact:

Chris Turner-Bullock

christopher.turner@ccc.govt.nz

941 8233

 

 

Presentation from Charlotte Bebbington, Founder of the Action Bicycle Club, with the outcomes of their trial of an Electric Bike programme which was a project funded by the Christchurch City Council Innovative Transport fund in 2016.

 

Attachments

There are no attachments to this report.

 


Innovation and Sustainable Development Committee

23 August 2017

 

 

11.    Presentation from Phillip Duval Regarding Electric Bikes

Reference:

17/829433

Contact:

Chris Turner-Bullock

christopher.turner@ccc.govt.nz

941 8233

 

 

 

Phillip Duval will speak to the Committee regarding Electric Bikes.

 


Innovation and Sustainable Development Committee

23 August 2017

 

 

12.    Innovation and Sustainability Fund Establishment

Reference:

17/604269

Contact:

Tony Moore

tony.moore@ccc.govt.nz

941 6426

 

 

1.   Purpose and Origin of Report

Purpose of Report

1.1       The purpose of this report is to seek Council approval for establishing the Innovation and Sustainability Fund and to delegate roles for decision making and administration of the Fund. The Fund will seek to catalyse innovative community projects that support the Council’s Vision of Christchurch as a ”city of opportunity, open to new ideas, new people and new ways of doing things – a city where anything is possible.”

Origin of Report

1.2       This report has been requested by the Innovation and Sustainable Development Committee following the allocation of funding for this purpose in the 2017/18 Annual Plan (Annual Plan Report Section 3.8.6).

1.3       On the 7 July 2017 the Innovation and Sustainable Development Committee asked staff to explore opportunities for working more closely with the Sustainable Initiatives Fund Trust (SIFT) in the delivery of the Council’s fund.

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 is determined as low taking into account the modest scale of costs and risk to Council and the tangible benefits possible from funded projects. Establishing a fund is reversible and will not affect Maori, strategic assets or the ability for the Council to undertake its functions.

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


 

 

3.   Staff Recommendations

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

1.         Approve the creation of an Innovation and Sustainability Fund (“Fund”) funded by: 

a.         $400,000 from the Capital Endowment Fund as provided in the 2017/18 Annual Plan; and

b.         $100,000 is provided from Councillors Directors Fees to bring the fund to a total of $500,000 in 2017/18;

c.         $500,000 per year to be included in the draft 2018-28 Long Term Plan; $100,000 of which will be funded from Councillor Director Fees;

2.         Request that $100,000 of the Councillors Director Fees donation be provided to the Fund;

3.         Delegate to:

a.         the Head of Urban Design, Regeneration and Heritage, the delegated authority to approve Innovation and Sustainability Grant applications of up to and including $15,000 in accordance with the Terms Of Reference for the Fund; and

b.         the Innovation and Sustainable Development Committee, the delegated authority to approve Innovation and Sustainability Grant applications between $15,001 and $100,000, in accordance with the Terms Of Reference for the Fund; and

c.         the Head of Urban Design, Regeneration and Heritage the delegated authority to determine and carry out the administration requirements for this Fund, and to enter into Funding Agreements with Grant recipients.

4.         Approve the Fund’s Terms of Reference (Attachment A of the report).

5.         Approve that any unallocated funds remaining at financial year end (30 June annually) will be recognised as committed, but unallocated on the Balance Sheet and added to the total funding available for allocation.

 

4.   Key Points

4.1       This report supports the Council's 2017/18 Annual Plan:

4.1.1   Activity: Community Grants

·     Level of Service: 2.3.4 Effectively manage and administer all other grant funds under management.

4.2       The following feasible options have been considered:

·     Option 1 – Establish an Innovation and Sustainability Fund of $500,000 per year from 2017/18 to 2025/26, following the Terms Of Reference (Attached). Delegate decision making to the Innovation and Sustainable Development Committee for applications seeking $15,001 to $100,000. Delegate fund administration to the Head of Urban Regeneration, Urban Design and Heritage and decision making for applications seeking up to and including $15,000. Allocate $100,000 per year of funding from Councillors Directors Fees. Propose a $400,000 per year allocation within the 2018-28 Long Term Plan until 2025/26. Work with the Sustainable Initiatives Fund Trust where appropriate. (Preferred Option)

·     Option 2 – Establish an Innovation and Sustainability fund with a reduced level of annual funding or with funding available for a fewer number of years.

·     Option 3 – Do not create an Innovation and Sustainability Fund.

 

4.3       Option Summary - Advantages and Disadvantages (Preferred Option)

4.3.1   The advantages of this option include:

·     Creating an Innovation and Sustainability Fund will:

-      create a catalyst for innovative sustainability ideas from the community and businesses;

-      more proactively support local organisations undertaking sustainability initiatives;

-      help fill a gap in local funding for environmental projects;

-      support the Council’s Vision and Strategic Priorities especially those relating to climate change leadership and environmental outcomes; and

-      enable local organisations to more effectively apply to national or regional funds because of improved local capacity and experience.

·     Delegating decision making for the fund will allow swift decision making for projects, supporting the momentum of good ideas.

·     Delegating responsibility to establish the systems and processes for supporting the administration of the Fund allows details to be resolved in an efficient and effective manner and provides needed flexibility.

·     Working with the Sustainable Initiatives Fund Trust will make funding simpler for applicants and enable synergies between the funds.

4.3.2   The disadvantages of this option include:

·     The Fund places an extra cost on the Council, albeit already budgeted for within the current Annual Plan.

·     The Fund would need additional administrative support ideally from the Community Grants Team to provide efficiencies with existing grant systems and processes.

·     The donation of Councillors Directors Fees is uncertain and would need to be reconfirmed by each successive Council. There are also possible tax disadvantages in using Councillors Director Fees.

 

 

5.   Context/Background

Origin of the proposed fund was Council deliberations on the 2017/18 Annual Plan

5.1       On 28 February 2017 within the 2017/18 Draft Annual Plan Report (Section 3.8.6) the Council resolved to establish the Innovation and Sustainability Fund.  This was confirmed by Council in approving the 2017/18 Annual Plan in June 2017.  Council allocated $400,000 per year from the 2017/18 Annual Plan and proposed to include $400,000 per year within the 2018-28 Long-Term Plan. The Council also discussed the possibility of including $100,000 per year from Councillors Directors Fees to support the Fund.  This report now seeks to establish the fund and assign decision making and administration roles.


 

5.2       On the 7 July 2017 the Innovation and Sustainable Development Committee asked staff to explore opportunities for working more closely with the Sustainable Initiatives Fund Trust in the delivery of the Council’s fund.  The Sustainable Initiatives Fund Trust (www.sift.net.nz) is an independent fund established in 2005 from a local waste minimisation levy.

6.   Option 1 – Establish a Sustainability and Innovation Fund of $500,000 per year from 2017/18 to 2025/26 (preferred)

Option Description

6.1       Establish an Innovation and Sustainability Fund ($500,000 per year) with the Terms of Reference as set out in Attachment A of this report.

6.2       Delegate to the Head of Urban Design, Regeneration and Heritage, fund administration, funding agreements and decision making for applications seeking up to and including $15,000.  

6.3       Delegate to the Innovation and Sustainable Development Committee decision making responsibility for applications seeking $15,001 to $100,000. The full Council will have decision making responsibility for applications over $100,001.

6.4       Allow any unallocated funds at financial year end (30 June annually) to be carried over to the next financial year for allocation and added to the total funding available.

6.5       Work with the Sustainable Initiatives Fund Trust to make use of potential synergies that exist between funds, such as identifying suitable projects for co-funding. (preferred option)

Significance

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

6.7       Engagement requirements for this level of significance are nil.

Impact on Mana Whenua

6.8       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

6.9       Funding has been allocated for this financial year through the 2017/2018 Annual Plan. 

6.10    For funding to continue beyond this financial year, the Council will need to include the proposal in the draft 2018-2028 Long Term Plan.  Through consultation on the draft Long Term Plan, the Council will be able gather views and preferences of interested and affected persons about the continued existence of the Fund and its goals.

Alignment with Council Plans and Policies

6.11    This option is consistent with Council’s Plans and Policies, for example, the Climate Smart Strategy, Sustainable Energy Strategy, Waste Management Plan, Transport Strategic Plan, Economy Development Strategy and the Resilient Greater Christchurch Plan where projects supported by the Fund would advance on the outcomes within these documents.

6.11.1 Inconsistency - NA

6.11.2 Reason for inconsistency - NA

6.11.3 Amendment necessary - NA

Financial Implications

6.12    Cost of Implementation – $500,000 per year was confirmed for the fund from 2017/18 to 2025/26.

6.13    Maintenance / Ongoing Costs –staff resources (an estimate of 0.6 full time equivalent) would be required to administer this fund to both provide advice and undertake administration. This assumes staff will work proactively with grant applicants including at the pre-application stage.  Further discussion will be needed with the Council’s Community Funding Team regarding administration in 2017/18 and appropriate provision made through the Long Term Plan for subsequent years. An evaluation panel is proposed to consider applications and provide advice to the Committee, Council or Head of Urban Design, Regeneration and Heritage, depending on the level of funding requested.

6.14    Funding source - Through the 2017/18 Annual Plan Council agreed to allocate $400,000 per year to support this Fund.  To bring the fund to $500,000 per year, staff propose to allocate a further $100,000 from Councillors Directors Fees in the 2017/18 year. For this fund to continue beyond 2017/18 funding will need to be included within the Council’s draft 2018-28 Long-Term Plan.  The donation of Councillors Directors Fees will need to be confirmed for 2018/19 and 2019/20 when Council approves the 2018-2028 Long Term Plan.  The donation of Councillors Directors Fees is uncertain beyond election cycles and will need to be confirmed by each successive Council.

6.15    It is noted that at present the donation of Councillors Directors Fees is made to charitable organisations which allows the paying entities to claim a tax credit. Unless the fund is a donee organisation or charity for tax purposes, a payment into the fund will not allow the paying entities to claim the tax credits. On the $100,000 proposed it will increase the tax liability of CCHL by $28,000.

Legal Implications

6.16    The Council’s standard Grant Funding Agreement will be used to establish the terms and conditions for successful applicants to this fund.  The Council’s Legal Services Unit will provide ongoing legal advice on the terms and conditions in the Agreement and other administrative matters. 

6.17    Applicants will need to inform the Council if they wish to have their proposal discussed in a publically excluded meeting, in accordance the Local Government Official Information and Meetings Act 1987.

Risks and Mitigations   

6.18    The risks are related to the ability of grant recipients to deliver on their projects. 

6.19    Risk – A failure of the project to deliver the outcomes agreed to by Council.

6.19.1 Treatment: Maintain communication with grant recipients, ongoing reporting and conduct reviews and audits after the project has been completed.

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

Implementation

6.20    Implementation dependencies - The Council would need to agree, in accordance with the Council Policy on Directors Fees, that a donation is made to this fund of $100,000 for the 2017/18 year.  The donation of Councillors Directors Fees will need to be confirmed for 2018/19 and 2019/20 when Council approves the 2018-2028 Long Term Plan. 

6.21    Implementation timeframe – Once approved by Council, applications to the fund can be received from September 2017 until funds are exhausted.

Option Summary - Advantages and Disadvantages

6.22    The advantages of this option include:

·   The Innovation and Sustainability Fund will allow the Council to more proactively resource projects proposed by the local community to deliver tangible benefits for the city.

·   The Fund aims to be a catalyst for community and business projects that advance on the Council’s Vision and Strategic Priorities. The Vision and Priorities are specifically referenced within the Fund’s Terms Of Reference and projects will be evaluated on the contribution made to these outcomes.

·   The Fund will help fill an important gap and complement existing Council community funds (that often have a community development focus) by extending the range of activities supported and the types of organisations that may apply. For example, this Fund will focus on: climate change leadership, energy and water efficiency, surface water quality, waste minimisation, restoring biodiversity, sustainable transport and other environmental innovations.  Applications from businesses as well as community organisations will be considered by this fund.

·   Local organisations often find it hard to attract funding from over-subscribed national sources such as the Ministry for the Environment’s Waste Minimisation or Community and Environment Funds.  The Council’s Innovation and Sustainability Fund would allow local organisations to build capacity and a successful track record, so future applications to national funds may be more successful (for example, moving from an innovative pilot project supported by the Council, to broader application supported by national funds). In this way, the Council fund supporting innovation would enable wider benefits.

·   Many other funds have a long time between application rounds, notification of success and disbursement of funds. This can hamper innovation and progress especially for community organisations. Delegating decision making to the Head of Urban Design, Regeneration and Heritage (up to and including $15,000) and to the Innovation and Sustainable Development Committee (between $15,001 and $100,000) would allow swift decision making and allocation to successful applicants.  Applications seeking over $100,001 would still be considered by the Committee, but need the approval of the full Council.

·   Delegating administration of the Fund to the Head of Urban Design, Regeneration and Heritage provides needed flexibility in the way applicants are enlisted, supported and the way applications are received, evaluated and presented to the Committee or Council.

·   The proposal for unallocated funds to be shown as a commitment on the Balance Sheet for the following year would enable the Council to make the best use of this Fund.  The Council would be able to be more discerning of applications received towards the end of the financial year ensuring the very best quality applications receive Council support.  This would also allow more or larger scale applications to be supported the following year.

·   Working closely with Sustainable Initiatives Fund Trust (who support projects delivering environmental benefits in Canterbury) will enable co-funding of suitable projects and using a broadly consistent application process will make it easier for applicants to receive support from either the Council or SIFT (no need to apply twice).  Further opportunities for collaboration may emerge and could be considered over time. 

6.23    The disadvantages of this option include:

·   The Fund places an extra cost on the Council. As with any Council expenditure, this could result in lost opportunities to resource other Council activities or increase property rates in the district. This is lessened to some extent, by the proposed contribution made by Councillors Directors Fees.

·   Establishing a new fund requires applicant support and administration services that must be accommodated by the Council. 

7.   Option 2 – Establish an Innovation and Sustainability Fund with reduced levels of funding.

Option Description

7.1       Establish an Innovation and Sustainability Fund with a reduced level of annual funding or with funding provided over a shorter number of years (at the Council’s discretion).

Significance

7.2       The level of significance of this option is low – the same as Option 1.

7.3       Engagement requirements for this level of significance are NIL.

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       Potential applicants to this fund are likely to be disappointed if the Fund is not established. However, no commitments have been made to create the fund other than through Annual Plan decision.  Some potential applicants have had preliminary discussions with the Innovation and Sustainable Development Committee about the Fund, but no expectations have been created. 

Alignment with Council Plans and Policies

7.6       This option would not be consistent with the 2017/18 Annual Plan. However, any level of funding would support the Council policy documents listed in Option 1, but to less extent.

7.6.1   Inconsistency – Funding has already been allocated in the 2017/18 Annual Plan to establish this fund.

7.6.2   Reason for inconsistency - Not providing this fund would go against a previous Council decision, but this is possible.

7.6.3   Amendment necessary – If this options is adopted, Council would need to confirm the new level of annual funding and/or the number of years the fund should be made available within the 2018-28 Long Term Plan.

Financial Implications

7.7       Cost of Implementation – Budget allocations to be determined by the Council.

7.8       Maintenance / Ongoing Costs – This would be proportional to the allocation of funds.

7.9       Funding source – 2018-28 Long Term Plan

Legal Implications

7.10    The legal implications are the same as those for Option 1.

Risks and Mitigations    

7.11    The risks and mitigations are the same as for Option 1.

Implementation

7.12    The Implementation dependencies and timeframe are the same as for Option 1.

Option Summary - Advantages and Disadvantages

7.13    The advantages of this option include:

·   Benefits would be the same as Option 1, but would be reduced in proportion to the level of funding available.

·   Funding would be released to support other Council expenditure or reduce property rates in the district.

7.14    The disadvantages of this option include:

·   Disadvantages would be similar to Option 1 and proportional to the level of funding made available. 

·   Larger projects would be less likely to be supported if funding was reduced.  

·   To have a successful fund of this nature a reasonable critical mass of funding is needed to attract quality projects.  Because this proposed fund is broad in nature, if Council funding was significantly reduced a more condensed scope may be needed.

8.   Option 3 – Do not establish the Innovation and Sustainability Fund.

Option Description

8.1       The Council could decide not to establish the Innovation and Sustainability Fund at all.  Funding allocated within the 2017/18 Annual Plan could be reassigned to other projects or offered as a saving.  The proposed allocation of Councillors Directors Fees and proposed funding within the Long-Term Plan could be withdrawn.

Significance

8.2       The level of significance of this option is low – the same as Option 1.

8.3       Engagement requirements for this level of significance are NIL.

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       Potential applicants to this fund are likely to be disappointed if the Fund is not established. However, no commitments have been made to create the Fund other than through Annual Plan decision.

Alignment with Council Plans and Policies

8.6       This option would not be consistent with the 2017/18 Annual Plan where the Council had previously agreed to establish this fund.

8.6.1   Inconsistency – Funding has already been allocated in the 2017/18 Annual Plan to establish this fund.

8.6.2   Reason for inconsistency - Not providing this fund would be inconsistent with a previous Council decision, but this is possible.

8.6.3   Amendment necessary – If this options is adopted, Council would need to decide what to do with the unallocated funds.

Financial Implications

8.7       Cost of Implementation – Budget reassignment to be determined by the Council.

8.8       Maintenance / Ongoing Costs – No cost incurred.

8.9       Funding source – Not applicable.

Legal Implications

8.10    No legal implications.

Risks and Mitigations    

8.11    No risks.

Implementation

8.12    No implementation needed.

Option Summary - Advantages and Disadvantages

8.13    The advantages of this option include:

·   Funding would be released to support other projects or offered as a saving.

·   Director’s fees could be retained or allocated to other causes.

·   Future costs within the Long Term Plan would be avoided.

8.14    The disadvantages of this option include:

·   This would be inconsistent with a previous Council decision to establish the Fund and the proposed allocation within the Long Term Plan. However, Council is able to make this decision. 

·   The Council would have less resources to support innovative community projects, especially ones with environmental benefits (Council community grants would still support community projects).

·   Synergies between the Council and the Sustainable Initiatives Fund Trust would be lost e.g. the ability to co-fund and leverage further support.

·   Environmental projects would need to apply to other heavily subscribed regional or national funds where Christchurch projects have previously had a poor success.

·   The benefits described in Option 1 would not arise.

 

Attachments

No.

Title

Page

a

Draft Terms of Reference for the proposed Innovation and Sustainability Fund

31

 

 

Confirmation of Statutory Compliance

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

(a) This report contains:

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

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

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

 

Signatories

Authors

Tony Moore - Principal Advisor Sustainability

Vivienne Wilson - Senior Solicitor

Approved By

Patricia Christie - Manager External Reporting and Governance

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

Brendan Anstiss - General Manager Strategy and Transformation

  


Innovation and Sustainable Development Committee

23 August 2017

 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


Innovation and Sustainable Development Committee

23 August 2017

 

 

13.    Master plan capital projects priorities

Reference:

17/825423

Contact:

Carolyn Ingles

carolyn.ingles@ccc.govt.nz

941 8902

 

 

1.   Purpose and Origin of Report

Purpose of Report

1.1       The purpose of this report is to consider the total amount of funding to allocate to suburban centre master plan capital delivery in the Draft 2018-28 Long Term Plan (LTP), and its distribution across the nine adopted master plans.  The level of funding in the current 2015-25 LTP is able to deliver some capital projects across several of the master plans and this report informs possible future budget envelopes to deliver other priority projects.  

Origin of Report

1.2       This report responds to a request by councillors, at the second of two councillor briefings on 7 and 21 March 2017, regarding the master plans’ capital programme. Staff were asked to seek input from the relevant community boards to ensure the prioritisation and sequencing of remaining master plan capital projects reflects current community aspirations. Having obtained feedback on the local level priorities from the relevant community boards, staff are now in a position to report back to the Council on the overall priorities across the master plans and associated budget implications. The process undertaken is outlined in Attachment A.  Further consideration by Council of prioritisation within the overall capital delivery programme will occur as part of the Draft LTP development and associated community engagement processes.

2.   Significance

2.1       The recommendations in this report are of medium significance in relation to the Christchurch City Council’s Significance and Engagement Policy. The people affected are generally limited to the local communities where adopted master plans apply, in which development of the master plans and the subsequent design of associated capital projects have been subject to community engagement. As a result, there is an expectation of funding and delivery, albeit consistent with the Council’s financial capacity and the most efficient and effective means of doing so. The main drivers for the proposed reprioritisation of master plan capital projects will result in tangible environmental, social and cultural benefits in the subject centres. Future LTP and Annual Plan processes provide further opportunities for the Council to reprioritise and fund those capital projects deferred for now.


 

 

3.   Staff Recommendations 

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

1.         Receive the information.

2.         Note that Council resolution CNC/2017/00086 applies to the matter of funding sought by Development Christchurch Limited for public realm projects in the New Brighton Centre Master Plan and, for that reason, this report excludes funding of New Brighton projects.

3.         Confirm that $30.8 million will be included for consideration in the Draft 2018-2028 LTP for the very high and high priority master plan capital projects.

4.         Consider allocating an additional $16.4 million in the Draft 2018-2028 Long Term Plan for the lower priority master plan capital projects, but defer delivery of these projects until later years of the Long Term Plan.

 

4.   Key Points

4.1       Following feedback from those community boards with master plans that have multiple unfunded capital projects, the full range of capital projects has now been prioritised (Attachment B).  This has resulted in adjustments to an earlier prioritisation process undertaken with assistance from GHD and Development Christchurch Ltd (DCL) as discussed with elected members in March. The movement up or down the priority list is indicated in the third column of the table. 

4.2       The prioritisation process explained in this report enables councillors to be aware of which capital projects can be delivered, depending upon the quantum of funding allocated through the Draft LTP. The proposed resolutions reflect community board feedback on local aspirations and enable elected members to direct staff as to the appropriate level of budget to implement some or all of the remaining capital projects identified in the nine adopted master plans.  While there is a sliding scale of budget options, as shown in the ‘cumulative total’ column of Attachment B, the recommendations identify an optimal blend of projects to achieve the more critical public realm improvements across all master plan areas.

4.3       The proposed prioritisation has also taken into consideration:

4.3.1   The extent to which the existing budget has already been committed (projects shown in green rows in Attachment B); and

4.3.2   Project synergies (i.e. overlap with asset renewal projects), interdependencies and sequencing.

4.4       The resulting budget envelope for these very high priority projects (shown in green and blue rows of Attachment B) is $22.8 million.  Additional high priority master plan capital projects require a budget envelope of $8 million (projects shown in pink rows).  The resulting cost estimate which is recommended for early delivery and consideration in the Draft 2018-2028 LTP is $30.8 million.

4.5       Delivery of lower priority master plan capital projects (i.e. projects shown in yellow), which equate to approximately $16.4 million, can be deferred to later years of the Draft 2018-2028 LTP.

4.6       The prioritisation of capital projects and funding allocations across the master plans is shown in Attachment C.


 

Process and scope of work undertaken

4.7       Community Board input to prioritising the range of master plan capital projects was undertaken as shown in Attachment A.  The focus was on the Lyttelton, Sydenham, Sumner Village, Ferry Road and Main Road Master Plans, as these plans have a multitude of unfunded capital projects requiring further, local level consideration and feedback to inform the prioritisation exercise. 

4.8       Other master plans did not require further prioritisation conversations with the Community Boards: the New Brighton Centre Master Plan has been subject to separate funding requests from DCL to implement the public realm capital projects; and the remaining master plans either have only one capital project and/or funding already committed to support implementation.

Community Board feedback - summary

4.9       Highest priority projects identified by the Linwood-Central-Heathcote Community Board are listed below (details are in Attachment D).  Those already underway or with budget committed are indicated with an asterisk*:

4.9.1   Sumner Village: Off-street car parking provision*; Marriner Street west and Wakefield Ave enhancements*; Burgess Street shared space*; viewing platform*;

4.9.2   Ferry Road: Woolston (streetscape improvements*, crossing enhancements*, gateway enhancements*, Heathcote Street pocket park and pedestrian bridge, Heathcote & Oak Street upgrade*, Woolston Park transportation improvements*); Estuary Edge/Coastal Pathway connection*; Humphreys Drive pedestrian crossings*;

4.9.3   Linwood Village: streetscape upgrade*; children’s integrated play/art feature;

4.9.4   Sydenham: Colombo Street upgrade, cycle safety improvements, pedestrian improvements; Buchan Park remodel*; and

4.9.5   Main Road: Pedestrian crossing improvements; Redcliffs Village upgrade*, Moncks Bay parking and bus stop enhancements*; McCormacks Bay streetscape*; Beachville Road streetscape enhancements*.

4.10    There is no funding in the current 2015-25 LTP for projects in Lyttelton.  Highest priority projects identified by the Banks Peninsula Community Board are: Pedestrian linkages; Pool garden off-season access; and partial delivery of London St public realm enhancements (reinstatement of paving outside 33-35 London Street).

4.11    Both boards also identified projects that could readily be deferred to future years.

4.12    The priorities from these two Boards have been merged with priority projects from other master plans in Attachment B.

 

5.   Context/Background

Existing capital project prioritisation

5.1       The nine suburban centre master plans were adopted between 2012 and 2015, and involved extensive community engagement. The plans include projects led by local landowners, businesses, the wider community and the Council.  Council-led projects are both operational and capital in nature.  Budget for several capital projects, across most master plans, was allocated through the current 2015-25 LTP and many of these projects have commenced.

5.2       In late 2016, GHD was commissioned to provide cost estimates for, and prioritise, the remaining master plan capital projects. The prioritisation process involved applying an evaluation framework based on three lenses:

5.2.1   Delivery – the extent to which the project outcomes, risks and other physical works’ interdependences are well understood (i.e. whether they are low risk, well defined and well aligned in terms of good timeframes for delivery).

5.2.2   Amenity – the extent to which the grouping of projects supports a wholly delivered, key spatial outcome (i.e. from the community’s perspective, a particular space appears completed).

5.2.3   Commercial – the extent to which each project catalyses economic regeneration (informed via DCL input).

5.3       The resulting initial GHD prioritisation of capital projects, by master plan and including New Brighton projects, has been used as a basis for the revised prioritisation table in Attachment B.  

Councillors’ request

5.4       At present, there is a funding shortfall between the current allocated budget and the costs to deliver the remaining master plan capital projects. In anticipation of obtaining councillor guidance as to the extent of funding (i.e. which budget envelope option) for master plan capital project delivery to include in the Draft 2018-28 LTP, urban regeneration staff gave the following two briefings to councillors:

5.4.1   An overview of the nine adopted suburban centre master plans, on 7 March 2017; and

5.4.2   Delivering the master plans’ capital programme, on 21 March 2017.

5.5       Given the time lapse since the master plans were adopted, before providing direction, councillors requested that staff seek input from the relevant community boards as to what they consider to be the capital project priorities, or whether there is a need to review any of the master plans. The purpose of this was to ensure the future prioritisation and sequencing of master plan capital projects reflects current community aspirations.

5.6       The process of obtaining feedback from Community Boards is outlined below.

5.6.1   a memo was sent to all community boards to make them aware of the councillors’ request;

5.6.2   staff attended two community board planning workshops of each of the Banks Peninsula and Linwood-Central-Heathcote Community Boards, to:

·     provide the background to master plan development, implementation and capital funding; and

·     obtain the board’s advice on their capital project priorities and the distribution of funding across all master plans, noting that any new ideas could be fed into the draft 2018-28 LTP via the Community Board Plan process and acknowledging that the Boards may also want to undertake a review of the master plans.

5.6.3   A community board planning-related survey also informed the advice of the Linwood-Central-Heathcote Community Board.

5.7       Neither the Linwood-Central-Heathcote nor Banks Peninsula Community Boards considered a full-scale review of any of the master plans is necessary at this time. On the contrary, the plan development process was considered robust and, in recognition of their anticipated longevity, both Boards are supportive of, and remain committed to, their respective master plans.

6.   Other points to note

6.1       GHD cost estimates have been updated where staff considered it was necessary, e.g. a cost estimate was obtained for the reinstatement of paving in Lyttelton (M4) as one did not previously exist.

6.2       Some Council-led master plan projects (particularly those that are ongoing or currently subject to preliminary investigations e.g. heritage restoration, Enliven Places projects) are currently or will continue to be funded through other units’ existing budgets and did not form part of the reprioritisation exercise.

6.3       Any ‘new’ master plan projects (i.e. projects not identified at the time the master plan was adopted, such as a civic square in Sumner), can be considered through the development of Community Board Plans.

6.4       The Council has an important leadership role, in progressing master plan capital projects. Progressing with delivery will support:

Ÿ Current community expectations regarding implementation of the existing master plans;

Ÿ Confidence in the centres and support for catalysing private development; and

Ÿ Confidence and reputation regarding implementation capability for any future Council or community-led master plans.

.

 

 

 

Attachments

No.

Title

Page

a

Attachment A Prioritisation of master plan capital projects - process diagram

41

b

Attachment B Capital Project Prioritisation table

42

c

Attachment C Prioritisation of master plan capital projects - completion totals for each master plan separated by funding levels

43

d

Attachment D Community board master plan capital priorities for 23 Aug 2017 I&SD Committee - 2017-08-07

44

 

 

Confirmation of Statutory Compliance

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

(a) This report contains:

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

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

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

 

Signatories

Authors

Miranda Charles - Senior Planner 

Janine Sowerby - Senior Planner

Philippa Green - Finance Business Partner

Approved By

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

Brendan Anstiss - General Manager Strategy and Transformation

  


Innovation and Sustainable Development Committee

23 August 2017

 

PDF Creator


Innovation and Sustainable Development Committee

23 August 2017

 

PDF Creator


Innovation and Sustainable Development Committee

23 August 2017

 

PDF Creator


Innovation and Sustainable Development Committee

23 August 2017

 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


Innovation and Sustainable Development Committee

23 August 2017

 

 

14.    Development Contributions - Small Residential Unit Rebate

Reference:

17/762059

Contact:

Gavin Thomas

gavin.thomas@ccc.govt.nz

941 8834

 

 

1.   Purpose and Origin of Report

Purpose of Report

1.1       The purpose of this report is for the Innovation and Sustainable Development Committee to recommend to the Council that the Development Contributions Small Residential Unit Rebate is extended beyond its current close-off date.

Origin of Report

1.2       This report is staff generated and is responding to a change in the timeline of the current review of the Development Contributions Policy. 

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 analysis of the cost to the Council, the risk to the Council and the impact on the community. Analysis shows a low level of significance.

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

 

3.   Staff Recommendations

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

1.         Agree to the small residential unit development contributions rebate being extended to 31 December 2018 or until the fund is fully allocated, as detailed in the Small Residential Unit Rebate Scheme Criteria (Attachment A of the report).

 

4.   Key Points

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

4.1.1   Activity: Strategic Planning and  Policy

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

4.2       The following feasible options have been considered:

3.1.1.1.1.                Option 1 – Extend the time limit of the current small residential unit rebate scheme (preferred option)

3.1.1.1.2.                Option 2 – Do nothing

4.3       Option Summary - Advantages and Disadvantages (Preferred Option)

4.3.1   The advantages of this option include:

·   Provides the developer of a small standalone residential unit (mostly what were termed family flats) with some relief from the cost of development contributions

·   Assists the Council to give effect to the intensification goals of the Land Use Recovery Plan and the Christchurch District Plan

·   Provides continuity of the Council’s approach to a reduced development contribution requirement for small residential unit developments

4.3.2   The disadvantages of this option include:

·   The cost of funding the rebate will come from rates

 

5.   Context/Background

Development Contributions Policy context

5.1       The Council’s Development Contributions Policy includes an adjustment for residential units with a gross floor area of less than 100 square metres. The adjustment reduces the cost requirement in proportion with the floor area. For example a residential unit with a gross floor area of 70 square metres is required to pay a development contribution that is 70 per cent of the contribution required for a normal residential unit.

5.2       The adjustment stops at 60 per cent of the normal development contribution charge. Residential unit developments with a gross floor area of less than 60 square metres must pay 60 per cent of the full charge.

5.3       The Council’s development contributions policy is currently being reviewed. The review includes a proposal to extend the small residential unit adjustment to 35 square metres. If the Council adopts this proposal as part of a new development contributions policy this will render the current small residential unit rebate redundant.

5.4       The review of the development contributions policy has been deferred until September 2017, at the earliest and may be held over until 2018, subject to a Council decision. The delay in completing the review of the policy means continuing the current rebate is required to provide a measure of continuity in policy approach. 

Rationale for the small residential unit rebate

5.5       The small residential unit rebate scheme was introduced specifically to target development of what were termed family flats (this terminology is no longer used to differentiate developments of that type).

5.6       While these types of developments received the small residential unit adjustment provided in the Development Contributions Policy, this stopped at a minimum charge of 60 per cent of the cost of a full residential development contribution charge.

5.7       The Council sought to provide further relief for family flat type developments. The rebate scheme enables standalone residential unit developments to claim up to an additional 10 per cent reduction in development contribution charge (meaning a minimum charge of 50 per cent of the full develop contribution charge).

5.8       The rebate is not available to multi-unit dwelling developments.

5.9       The rebate scheme includes limits on duration and funding. It will run until 31 July 2017 or until the funding of $80,000 is allocated.

How the rebate has operated

5.10    The small residential unit rebate was adopted by the Council on 27 August 2015. Up until 17 July there had been 22 developments qualify for the rebate. Five of these developments have progressed to the stage where the rebate has been provided, with total rebates of $11,479.74 completed.

5.11    The other 17 applications are for developments that haven’t yet progressed to the point where the rebate can be completed. The rebate value for these developments in total is approximately $34,000.00.

5.12    This means the approximate amount left from the $80,000.00 rebate fund approved by the Council in 2015 is $34,500.00.

 

6.   Option 1 - Extend the time limit of the current small residential unit rebate scheme (preferred)

Option Description

6.1       The Council agrees to extend the time limit of the rebate scheme to December 2018 or to when the Development Contributions Policy is amended to provide for a small residential unit adjustment commensurate with the rebate provisions, or when the rebate fund is fully allocated. See Attachment A for proposed scheme criteria.

6.2       This will provide continuity for developers of qualifying residential developments until a more wide-ranging adjustment provision is included in the revised Development Contributions Policy.

6.3       While the take-up of the rebate is not large, the impact for developers is likely to be extremely positive. As far as we can tell all developments that have qualified for the rebate are for family flat type developments. By their nature these developments are often price-sensitive and the Development Contributions team who deal with the developers have had positive feedback from appreciative rebate recipients.

Significance

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

6.5       Engagement requirements for this level of significance are nil.

Impact on Mana Whenua

6.6       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

6.7       Developers of qualifying residential homes are specifically affected by this option due to their ability to receive a rebate adjustment.  Their views are unknown other than anecdotal support given to Council’s development contributions team members.

Alignment with Council Plans and Policies

6.8       This option is consistent with Council’s Plans and Policies. In particular the District Plan, the Council’s Housing Policy and community outcomes.

Financial Implications

6.9       Cost of Implementation – Up to $34,500 funding as approved at the rebate inception.

6.10    Maintenance / Ongoing Costs - Nil

6.11    Funding source – The gap between the normal development contribution required and the adjusted requirement is funded from rates.

Legal Implications

6.12    Not applicable.

Risks and Mitigations   

6.13    None identified.

Implementation

6.14    Implementation dependencies  - Not applicable

6.15    Implementation timeframe – Not applicable

Option Summary - Advantages and Disadvantages

6.16    The advantages of this option include:

·   Provides the developer of a small standalone residential unit (mostly what were termed family flats) with some relief from the cost of development contributions

·   Assists the Council to give effect to the intensification goals of the Land Use Recovery Plan and the Christchurch District Plan

·   Provides continuity of the Council’s approach to a reduced development contribution requirement for small residential unit developments

6.17    The disadvantages of this option include:

·   The cost of funding the rebate will come from rates

7.   Option 2 – Do nothing

Option Description

7.1       Rebate ceases to be available for developments applying after 31 July 2017.

Significance

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

7.3       Engagement requirements for this level of significance are Nil.

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       Developers of qualifying residential homes are specifically affected by this option due to their ability to receive a rebate adjustment.  Their views are unknown other than anecdotal support given to Council’s development contributions team members.

Alignment with Council Plans and Policies

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

7.6.1   Inconsistency – District Plan.

7.6.2   Reason for inconsistency - does not encourage intensification of land use in existing residential zones.

7.6.3   Amendment necessary – adoption of preferred option.

Financial Implications

7.7       Cost of Implementation - Nil

7.8       Maintenance / Ongoing Costs - Nil

7.9       Funding source – Not applicable.

Legal Implications

7.10    Not applicable.

Risks and Mitigations    

7.11    Some developments of the type that currently qualify may not proceed due to financial constraints. This will result in affected property owners not being able to undertake family flat type development.

7.11.1 Treatment: This will be addressed at a later date if the Council adopts a reviewed development contributions policy that provides for a less restrictive adjustment than is currently in place.

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

Implementation

7.12    Implementation dependencies  - Nil

7.13    Implementation timeframe – Not applicable

Option Summary - Advantages and Disadvantages

7.14    The advantages of this option include:

·   No cost to the Council.

7.15    The disadvantages of this option include:

·   Lack of policy continuity

·   May result in some developments not proceeding.

 

Attachments

No.

Title

Page

a

Small Residential Unit Rebate Scheme Criteria 2017

52

 

 

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 - Acting Team Leader

Approved By

Helen Beaumont - Head of Strategic Policy

Brendan Anstiss - General Manager Strategy and Transformation

  


Innovation and Sustainable Development Committee

23 August 2017

 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


Innovation and Sustainable Development Committee

23 August 2017

 

 

15.    Development Contributions Policy Review 2017

Reference:

17/829396

Contact:

Gavin Thomas

gavin.thomas@ccc.govt.nz

941 8834

 

 

1.   Purpose and Origin of Report

Purpose of Report

1.1       The purpose of this report is to provide the Innovation and Sustainable Development Committee with a report on the status of the review of the Council’s Development Contributions Policy and to seek a recommendation to the Council that completion of the review be held over until 2018.

Origin of Report

1.2       This report is staff generated and provides an update on Council resolution CNCL/2017/00105 from the meeting of 13 April 2017.

2.   Significance

2.1       The decision(s) 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 there being no change to current policy proposed at this time.

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

 

3.   Staff Recommendations

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

1.         Receive this status report.

2.         Agree that the review of the Council’s Development Contributions Policy be completed in 2018.

 

4.   Key Points

4.1       A review of the Council’s Development Contributions Policy has been undertaken but has not been completed. Reasons for the delay in completing the review are detailed in Section 5 of this report.

4.2       The Working Group undertaking the policy review and the Steering Group overseeing this process agree that the review should be completed in 2018 rather than 2017. This will enable all outstanding policy issues to be fully addressed in a new policy. It would also provide certainty for developers in terms of the development contribution charges for the remaining months of the 2017/18 year.

4.3       The Council will adopt a new Long Term Plan in June 2018. This will include new information essential to the Development Contributions Policy. This includes:

·    Revised and refined capital expenditure programme

·    Key assumptions for interest and inflation

·    Updated population and business growth modelling

 

 

5.   Context/Background

Development Contributions Policy requirements

5.1       Under section 102 (2)(d) of the Local Government Act (2002) (the Act) the Council is required to have a policy on development contributions (DC) or financial contributions. This Council has had a policy since 2004.

5.2       Section 106(6) of the Act requires that a Development Contributions Policy must be reviewed at least once every 3 years using a consultation process that gives effect to the requirements of section 82 of the Act.

5.3       The Council’s Development Contributions Policy was last reviewed in 2016, with the current policy being adopted by the Council on 22 September 2016.

Policy Review

5.4       A further review of the policy has been underway with the aim of having the Council adopt a revised policy in September 2017.

5.5       A report detailing key proposed changes to the policy and seeking committee approval for the approach was provided to the Innovation and Sustainability Committee on 22 March 2017. The review addresses the following key policy issues:

·    Increase the use of catchments to calculate and charge the development contributions. Catchments are areas of the city with similar development activity and infrastructure requirements. It is intended to introduce catchments for water supply, wastewater collection, wastewater treatment and disposal, active transport, and public transport.

·    Include specific provision for the Council to cap development contribution charges in situations where the Council believes this to be in the best interests of the community. 

·    Clarify provisions relating to Council developments.

·    Convert growth and expenditure data (forecast residential and commercial growth and the cost of providing infrastructure) based on Christchurch City Plan zones to the replacement Christchurch District Plan zones.

·    Clarify explanations regarding the calculation of the demand on network infrastructure from particular types of development.

·    Miscellaneous text changes to improve clarity and readability of the document.

·    Update development contribution charges to be based on the new capital expenditure programme, using catchments as described above.

5.6       The Committee and Council agreed with the proposed changes in principle with the draft policy to go to the Council for approval prior to undertaking community engagement.

Current status

1.    The project timeline called for the draft policy to be approved by the Council for community engagement at its meeting of 22 June. This has not happened due to a number of issues that have had to be resolved or are still being resolved:

 

Data cleansing. A large number of projects are being removed from the SPM data base (proprietary software used to determine the DCs) as they were not being used for DC calculations. The inclusion of these projects was recommended by SPM but significantly increased data maintenance for no benefit.

 

Project information. The quality and clarity of project information presented in the schedule of growth assets has been variable. There has been an effort to improve this and there is an ongoing process to get all project information clear to readers of the policy.

 

District Plan zones. The policy uses land-use planning zones to calculate existing and future business growth and floor area which in turn are used for the assessment of development contribution requirements for non-residential developments.

 

Changing the growth and demand data from old Christchurch City Plan zones to the replacement Christchurch District Plan zones has proved more problematic than expected. Overlaying pre-earthquake building use on new zones has resulted in previously reasonable assumptions of land use no longer being appropriate. We therefore need to make the zone changes and the land use changes simultaneously to achieve an appropriate level of accuracy.

 

Identifying the growth component of a project. All projects to be funded from development contributions include growth capacity to service new development. This is not always a straightforward process. To ensure we are using a robust approach to allocating the growth component we are seeking an independent external review of the allocations undertaken.

 

Evolving policy issues.  Further work is required to clarify the policy position on the requirement for the Council to pay development contributions for its own developments.

 

Attachments

There are no attachments to this report.

 

Confirmation of Statutory Compliance

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

(a) This report contains:

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

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

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

 

Signatories

Author

Gavin Thomas - Acting Team Leader

Approved By

Helen Beaumont - Head of Strategic Policy

Brendan Anstiss - General Manager Strategy and Transformation

   

 


Innovation and Sustainable Development Committee

23 August 2017

 

 

16.  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:


Innovation and Sustainable Development Committee

23 August 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

17

Public Excluded Innovation and Sustainable Development Committee Minutes - 7 July 2017

 

 

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