Christchurch City Council

Agenda

 

 

Notice of Meeting:

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

 

Date:                                     Thursday 2 November 2017

Time:                                    9.30am

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

 

 

27 October 2017

 

 

 

Principal Advisor

Dr Karleen Edwards

Chief Executive

Tel: 941 8554

 

Jo Daly

Council Secretary

941 8581

jo.daly@ccc.govt.nz

www.ccc.govt.nz

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

 


Council

02 November 2017

 

 

 


Council

02 November 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

Council

5.       Council Minutes - 28 September 2017.................................................................................... 7

6.       Council Minutes - 5 October 2017......................................................................................... 23

7.       Council Minutes - 10 October 2017....................................................................................... 29

Social, Community Development and Housing Committee

8.       Social, Community Development and Housing Committee Minutes - 4 October 2017.... 41

Finance and Performance Committee

9.       Christchurch City Holdings Ltd - Appointment of Proxy for 2017 Annual General Meeting 47

10.     Regenerate Christchurch - August 2017 Status Report....................................................... 57

11.     Development Christchurch Ltd - Progress Update August/September 2017.................... 65

12.     Finance and Performance Committee Minutes - 4 October 2017...................................... 71

Audit and Risk Management Committee

13.     Audit and Risk Management Committee Minutes - 3 October 2017................................. 77

Infrastructure, Transport and Environment Committee

14.     Conversion of Road lighting to Light Emitting Diodes (LED)  ............................................. 81

15.     Close out Horizontal Infrastructure Governance Group (HIGG) report .......................... 103

16.     Secure Cycle Parking Update............................................................................................... 119

17.     Infrastructure, Transport and Environment Committee Minutes - 21 September 2017 129

18.     Infrastructure, Transport and Environment Committee Minutes - 11 October 2017..... 141

Regulatory Performance Committee

19.     Options to support the relocation of street-based sex workers to address residents' concerns ................................................................................................................................ 149

20.     Regulatory Performance Committee Minutes - 11 October 2017.................................... 173

Strategic Capability Committee

21.     Greater Christchurch Regeneration Act - Canterbury Sports Limited ............................ 179

22.     Strategic Capability Committee Minutes - 10 October 2017............................................ 281

Te Hononga Council - Papatipu Rūnanga Committee

23.     Te Hononga Council – Papatipu Rūnanga Committee Minutes - 3 October 2017.......... 285

Innovation and Sustainable Development Committee

24.     Staff Briefing - Enviro Mark, Carbon Neutrality and Climate Change............................. 291

25.     Development Contribution Remission Application - Zhu Badminton Development Limited. ................................................................................................................................................ 305

26.     Innovation and Sustainable Development Committee Minutes - 13 October 2017....... 323

STAFF REPORTS

27.     Accessibility Charter, Canterbury ....................................................................................... 329

28.     Placement of the Lions Transitional Facility at MacFarlane Park, Shirley, Christchurch. 339

29.     Hearings Panel report to the Council on the Proposed Lease to Canterbury Car Club Incorporated at Ruapuna Park............................................................................................ 349

30.     Hearings Panel Report to the Council on the Proposed Land Transfer to Lyttelton Historical Museum Society.................................................................................................................... 421

31.     Online Voting Trial - 2019 Triennial Election...................................................................... 541

32.     Resolution to Exclude the Public......................................................................................... 543  

 

 

 


Council

02 November 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

Deputations may be heard on a matter or matters covered by a report on this agenda and 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

02 November 2017

 

 

5.        Council Minutes - 28 September 2017

Reference:

17/1231070

Contact:

Jo Daly

jo.daly@ccc.govt.nz

941 8581

 

 

1.   Purpose of Report

For the Council to confirm the minutes from the Council meeting held 28 September 2017.

 

2.   Recommendation to Council

That the Council confirm the Minutes from the Council meeting held 28 September 2017.

 

 

Attachments

No.

Title

Page

A

Minutes Council - 28 September 2017

8

 

 

Signatories

Author

Jo Daly - Council Secretary

  


Council

02 November 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


Council

02 November 2017

 

 

6.        Council Minutes - 5 October 2017

Reference:

17/1231133

Contact:

Jo Daly

jo.daly@ccc.govt.nz

941 8581

 

 

1.   Purpose of Report

For the Council to confirm the minutes from the Council meeting held 5 October 2017.

 

2.   Recommendation to Council

That the Council confirm the Minutes from the Council meeting held 5 October 2017.

 

 

Attachments

No.

Title

Page

A

Minutes Council - 5 October 2017

24

 

 

Signatories

Author

Jo Daly - Council Secretary

  


Council

02 November 2017

 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


Council

02 November 2017

 

 

7.        Council Minutes - 10 October 2017

Reference:

17/1211327

Contact:

Chris Turner-Bullock

christopher.turner@ccc.govt.nz

941 8233

 

 

1.   Purpose of Report

For the Council to confirm the minutes from the Council meeting held 10 October 2017.

 

2.   Recommendation to Council

That the Council confirm the Minutes from the Council meeting held 10 October 2017.

 

 

Attachments

No.

Title

Page

A

Minutes Council - 10 October 2017

30

 

 

Signatories

Author

Christopher Turner-Bullock - Committee Advisor

  


Council

02 November 2017

 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


Council

02 November 2017

 

 

8.        Social, Community Development and Housing Committee Minutes - 4 October 2017

Reference:

17/1186438

Contact:

Liz Ryley

liz.ryley@ccc.govt.nz

941 8153

 

 

1.   Purpose of Report

The Social, Community Development and Housing Committee held a meeting on 4 October 2017 and is circulating the Minutes recorded to the Council for its information.

 

2.   Recommendation to Council

That the Council receives the Minutes from the Social, Community Development and Housing Committee meeting held 4 October 2017.

 

 

Attachments

No.

Title

Page

A

Minutes Social, Community Development and Housing Committee - 4 October 2017

42

 

 

Signatories

Author

Liz Ryley - Committee Advisor

  


Council

02 November 2017

 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


Council

02 November 2017

 

Report from Finance and Performance Committee  – 4 October 2017

 

9.        Christchurch City Holdings Ltd - Appointment of Proxy for 2017 Annual General Meeting

Reference:

17/1193172

Contact:

Linda Gibb

Linda.gibb@ccc.govt.nz

941 6762

 

 

 

 

1.  Finance and Performance Committee Recommendation to Council

 

That the Council:

1.         Notes Christchurch City Holdings Ltd’s annual general meeting will be held on Wednesday 15 November 2017 in the Function Room, Level 1, Civic Offices;

2.         Appoints Councillor Manji as proxy and Councillor Davidson as alternate to exercise the Council’s voting rights at the AGM by executing the Instrument to Appoint a Proxy as set out in Attachment A of this report by Friday, 10 November to ensure it reaches Christchurch City Holdings Ltd no later than 48 hours before the meeting;

3.         Notes the agenda for Christchurch City Holdings Ltd’s 2017 annual general meeting (Attachment B) and minutes of its 2016 meeting (Attachment C);

4.         Agrees to direct the proxy and alternate to vote in favour of the matters to be put to Christchurch City Holdings Ltd’s shareholders for approval.

 

 

Attachments

No.

Report Title

Page

1

Christchurch City Holdings Ltd - Appointment of Proxy for 2017 Annual General Meeting

48

 

No.

Title

Page

a

Christchurch City Holdings Ltd - Instrument to Appoint a Proxy to vote at the 2017 annual general meeting

50

b

Christchurch City Holdings Ltd - agenda for 2017 annual general meeting

52

c

Christchurch City Holdings Ltd - Minutes of annual general meeting, 2016

54

 

 


Council

02 November 2017

 

 

Christchurch City Holdings Ltd - Appointment of Proxy for 2017 Annual General Meeting

Reference:

17/1031537

Contact:

Linda Gibb

Linda.gibb@ccc.govt.nz

941 6762

 

 

1.   Purpose and Origin of Report

Purpose of Report

1.1       The purpose of this report is for the Finance and Performance Committee to appoint a proxy and an alternate to exercise the Council’s voting rights at the upcoming Christchurch City Holdings Ltd (CCHL) annual general meeting (AGM).

Origin of Report

1.2       This report is staff generated in response to receiving notice from CCHL of its AGM.

2.   Significance

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

2.1.1   The level of significance was determined by the impact of the decision on the community.

 

3.   Staff Recommendations

That the Finance and Performance Committee recommends that Council:

1.         Notes Christchurch City Holdings Ltd’s annual general meeting will be held on Wednesday 15 November 2017 in the Function Room, Level 1, Civic Offices;

2.         Appoints a proxy [insert Councillor name] and an alternate [insert name] to exercise the Council’s voting rights at the AGM by executing the Instrument to Appoint a Proxy as set out in Attachment A of this report by Friday, 10 November to ensure it reaches Christchurch City Holdings Ltd no later than 48 hours before the meeting;

3.         Notes the agenda for Christchurch City Holdings Ltd’s 2017 annual general meeting (Attachment B) and minutes of its 2016 meeting (Attachment C);

4.         Agrees to direct the proxy and alternate to vote in favour of the matters to be put to Christchurch City Holdings Ltd’s shareholders for approval.

 

4.   Key Points

4.1       The Council has received notice that CCHL’s annual general meeting will be held at 4.30pm on Wednesday 15 November 2017, in the Function Room, Level 1, Civic Offices.

4.2       The following documents pertaining to the AGM are attached:

·    Attachment A - Instrument to Appoint a Proxy (and alternate) for execution by the Council as shareholder; and

·    Attachment B - Agenda setting out the order of business and the matters that shareholders are required to vote on;

·    Attachment C - Minutes of CCHL’s 2016 AGM, which will be voted on by shareholders at the 2017 AGM.

4.3       The AGM requires a quorum of shareholders to be present if votes are required to be exercised on the majority of the shares.  If a quorum is not present within 30 minutes after the time appointed for the meeting, it may be dissolved and/or adjourned to a later date.

4.4       In order to meet the requirement for a quorum of shareholders, the Council needs to appoint a proxy to vote on the business of the meeting.  An alternate should also be appointed to act should the proxy become unavailable to attend the meeting.  The voting rights for a particular share can be exercised by either the proxy or the alternate, not both. 

4.5       The proxy and alternate can be a Councillor, a Council staff member or any other person that is not a director of CCHL.  In 2016, the proxy was Councillor Manji and the alternate was Councillor East.

4.6       To enable the proxy to be validated, the document must be received by CCHL 48 hours before the meeting is scheduled to be held (before 4.30pm on Monday 13 November).

4.7       The matters that are subject to shareholder voting are recorded on the AGM agenda at Attachment B.  Council staff consider the matters to be voted on are not contentious, and therefore the proxy or alternate should vote in favour of the proposed resolutions on behalf of the Council.

 

 

Attachments

No.

Title

Page

a 

Christchurch City Holdings Ltd - Instrument to Appoint a Proxy to vote at the 2017 annual general meeting

 

b 

Christchurch City Holdings Ltd - agenda for 2017 annual general meeting

 

c 

Christchurch City Holdings Ltd - Minutes of annual general meeting, 2016

 

 

 

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

Linda Gibb - Performance Monitoring Advisor

Approved By

Diane Brandish - Head of Financial Management

Carol Bellette - General Manager Finance and Commercial (CFO)

 


Council

02 November 2017

 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


Council

02 November 2017

 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


Council

02 November 2017

 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


Council

02 November 2017

 

Report from Finance and Performance Committee  – 4 October 2017

 

10.    Regenerate Christchurch - August 2017 Status Report

Reference:

17/1193199

Contact:

Linda Gibb

Linda.gibb@ccc.govt.nz

941 6762

 

 

 

 

 

1.  Staff and Finance and Performance Committee Recommendation to Council

 

That the Council:

1.         Notes Regenerate Christchurch’s August 2017 Status Report set out in Attachment A;

2.         Notes the following issues that Councillors may wish to raise with Regenerate Christchurch:

a.            Ōtākaro Avon River Corridor regeneration area – whether and when Regenerate Christchurch will brief shareholders on the feedback received on the shortlist of options and supporting cost and technical studies, and what the next steps for Regenerate Christchurch are for progressing this project; 

b.            Cathedral Square and surrounds – what is the general indication of feedback received on the draft Concept, and what are the next steps for Regenerate Christchurch to progress this project following its development of a draft Strategy; and

3.         Notes that Regenerate Christchurch will be making a presentation to Councillors in November 2017 on the evaluation and progress of regeneration of the Central City.

 

 

Attachments

No.

Report Title

Page

1

Regenerate Christchurch - August 2017 Status Report

58

 

No.

Title

Page

a

Regenerate Christchurch - August 2017 Status Report

61

 

 


Council

02 November 2017

 

 

Regenerate Christchurch - August 2017 Status Report

Reference:

17/1024418

Contact:

Linda Gibb

Linda.gibb@ccc.govt.nz

941 6762

 

 

1.   Purpose and Origin of Report

Purpose of Report

1.1       The purpose of this report is for the Finance and Performance Committee to note Regenerate Christchurch’s progress and performance for July and August 2017.

Origin of Report

1.2       This report is staff generated as a result of the August 2017 Status Report submitted to joint Council-Crown shareholders by Regenerate Christchurch.

2.   Significance

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

2.1.1   The level of significance was determined by applying the Council’s Significance and Engagement Policy, taking into consideration the possible costs/risks to Council, ratepayers and the wider community of carrying out the decision.

 

3.   Staff Recommendations

That the Finance and Performance Committee recommends that Council:

1.         Notes Regenerate Christchurch’s August 2017 Status Report set out in Attachment A;

2.         Notes the following issues that Councillors may wish to raise with Regenerate Christchurch:

(i)            Ōtākaro Avon River Corridor regeneration area – whether and when Regenerate Christchurch will brief shareholders on the feedback received on the shortlist of options and supporting cost and technical studies, and what the next steps for Regenerate Christchurch are for progressing this project; 

(ii)          Cathedral Square and surrounds – what is the general indication of feedback received on the draft Concept, and what are the next steps for Regenerate Christchurch to progress this project following its development of a draft Strategy; and

3.         Notes that Regenerate Christchurch will be making a presentation to Councillors in November 2017 on the evaluation and progress of regeneration of the Central City.

 

4.   Key Points

4.1       From 1 July 2017, Regenerate Christchurch will report its progress and performance against its work programme each month to shareholders.  Every second month, Council staff will provide a report, and any advice to the Finance and Performance Committee for its review. 

4.2       Regenerate Christchurch representatives will attend the Committee meeting to address issues and questions raised by Councillors.  In attendance at this meeting will be the board’s Chair, André Lovatt, Director Humphry Rolleston, Chief Executive Ivan Iafeta and General Manager Corporate Services, Jason Rivett.

4.3       Regenerate Christchurch’s August 2017 Status Report is at Attachment A.  Councillors may wish to raise the following matters with Regenerate Christchurch staff:

Ōtākaro Avon River Corridor Regeneration Area – the report notes that a shortlist of options and supporting cost and technical studies will be published for feedback between 11 September and 10 October.  There is no indication within the report of when feedback will be received.

Cathedral Square and Surrounds – the report notes that following Regenerate Christchurch’s analysis of feedback on the draft Concept, a draft Strategy will be developed.  The report does not indicate the nature of the feedback.

4.4       The financial information provided in the status report is for the month of July only (due to timing difficulties with Committee agenda deadlines and board meetings).  The notable issues are that:

·   Revenue is ahead of budget by $4 million which is the Council’s annual payment that was made at the end of July, but which was expected by Regenerate Christchurch at the beginning of August; and 

·   Total operating expenses are $279,000 (30%) under budget, mostly relating to staff salaries and consulting expenditure.  Regenerate Christchurch’s work programme anticipates the 2017/18 year as having its highest expenditure and output across its five year work programme.  It is very important that momentum is maintained to achieve the ambitious delivery targets.

·   Regenerate Christchurch has advised that total spend on consultants is at a level consistent with June and July 2017, however the budget for this financial year has been increased to reflect the increased delivery of the work programme and therefore an additional spend on external consultants.  With changing timelines for some projects, some consultant expenditure is being pushed out and therefore this is a timing difference rather than a permanent difference.

Staff Comment

4.5       We expect there to be some refinements made to the content of the status reports as time progresses.  At this early stage, we would like to see more discussion about material variances in expenditure, and identification of next steps following conclusion of current project milestones. 

4.6       By the time this report is considered by the Finance and Performance Committee, Regenerate Christchurch may be able to informally discuss its September activities. 

Central City Progress Report

4.7       At its meeting on 25 May, the Council passed a resolution (refer CNCL/2017/00158) as follows:

Request a written report, as soon as practicable, to the Finance and Performance Committee from Regenerate Christchurch on the evaluation and progress of regeneration of the Central City, particularly the private sector response to the investment of public funds and the Christchurch Central Recovery Plan (and associated measures), as referenced in the 14 April 2016 Letter of Expectations for Regenerate Christchurch.

4.8       We understand that Regenerate Christchurch is intending to give a presentation to Councillors on the outcome of its work in the central city in November.  The report from this briefing could then be referred to the Finance and Performance Committee, if required.

 

Attachments

No.

Title

Page

a 

Regenerate Christchurch - August 2017 Status 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

Authors

Linda Gibb - Performance Monitoring Advisor

Patricia Christie - Manager External Reporting and Governance

Approved By

Diane Brandish - Head of Financial Management

Carol Bellette - General Manager Finance and Commercial (CFO)

 


Council

02 November 2017

 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


Council

02 November 2017

 

Report from Finance and Performance Committee  – 4 October 2017

 

11.    Development Christchurch Ltd - Progress Update August/September 2017

Reference:

17/1193224

Contact:

Linda Gibb

Linda.gibb@ccc.govt.nz

941 6762

 

 

 

 

1.  Staff and Finance and Performance Committee Recommendation to Council

 

That the Council:

1.         Notes Development Christchurch Limited’s progress report for August and September 2017.

 

 

Attachments

No.

Report Title

Page

1

Development Christchurch Ltd - Progress Update August/September 2017

66

 

No.

Title

Page

a

Development Christchurch Ltd - August/September 2017 Progress Report

68

 

 


Council

02 November 2017

 

 

Development Christchurch Ltd - Progress Update August/September 2017

Reference:

17/1038247

Contact:

Linda Gibb

Linda.gibb@ccc.govt.nz

941 6762

 

 

1.   Purpose and Origin of Report

Purpose of Report

1.1       The purpose of this report is to note Development Christchurch Ltd’s (DCL) progress report for August and September 2017.

1.2       The information in this report is an update on the activities and projects which DCL is currently undertaking.  Reporting of DCL’s performance against its Statement of Intent targets is provided quarterly, alongside that of other council-controlled organisations.

Origin of Report

1.3       The report was prepared and submitted by the Chief Executive of DCL. 

2.   Significance

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

 

3.   Staff Recommendations

That the Finance and Performance Committee recommends that the Council:

1.         Notes Development Christchurch Limited’s progress report for August and September 2017.

 

4.   Key Points

4.1       DCL’s progress report for August and September 2017 is at Attachment A.

 

 

 

Attachments

No.

Title

Page

a 

Development Christchurch Ltd - August/September 2017 Progress 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

Authors

Linda Gibb - Performance Monitoring Advisor

Patricia Christie - Manager External Reporting and Governance

Approved By

Diane Brandish - Head of Financial Management

Carol Bellette - General Manager Finance and Commercial (CFO)

 


Council

02 November 2017

 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


Council

02 November 2017

 

 

12.    Finance and Performance Committee Minutes - 4 October 2017

Reference:

17/1193325

Contact:

Aidan Kimberley

Aidan.kimberley@ccc.govt.nz

941 6566

 

 

1.   Purpose of Report

The Finance and Performance Committee held a meeting on 4 October 2017 and is circulating the Minutes recorded to the Council for its information.

 

2.   Recommendation to Council

That the Council receives the Minutes from the Finance and Performance Committee meeting held 4 October 2017.

 

 

Attachments

No.

Title

Page

A

Minutes Finance and Performance Committee - 4 October 2017

72

 

 

Signatories

Author

Aidan Kimberley - Committee and Hearings Advisor

  


Council

02 November 2017

 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


Council

02 November 2017

 

 

13.    Audit and Risk Management Committee Minutes - 3 October 2017

Reference:

17/1195145

Contact:

Margaret Henderson

Margaret.henderson@ccc.govt.nz

941 8185

 

 

1.   Purpose of Report

The Audit and Risk Management Committee held a meeting on 3 October 2017 and is circulating the Minutes recorded to the Council for its information.

 

2.   Recommendation to Council

That the Council receives the Minutes from the Audit and Risk Management Committee meeting held on 3 October 2017.

 

 

Attachments

No.

Title

Page

A

Minutes Audit and Risk Management Committee - 3 October 2017

78

 

 

Signatories

Author

Margaret Henderson - Committee Advisor

  


Council

02 November 2017

 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


Council

02 November 2017

 

Report from Infrastructure, Transport and Environment Committee  – 11 October 2017

 

14.    Conversion of Road lighting to Light Emitting Diodes (LED) 

Reference:

17/1213877

Contact:

Geoff English

geoff.english@ccc.govt.nz

941 8943

 

 

 

 

1.   Staff Recommendations

 

That the Infrastructure, Transport and Environment Committee recommends that the Council:

1.         Agree to the design and purchase of 7,000 LED lights by 30 June 2018.

2.         Agree to the installation of 4,000 lights with a central management system before 30 June 2018.

3.         Agree to the installation of 3,000 pre-purchased lights with a central management system before 22 December 2018.

4.         Notes to complete the conversion to LED with a central management system by 30 June 2021, subject to being programmed as part of the 2018 Long Term Plan.

 

2.  Infrastructure, Transport and Environment Committee Recommendation to Council

 

That the Council:

1.         Agree to the design and purchase of 7,000 LED lights by 30 June 2018.

2.         Agree to the installation of 4,000 lights with a central management system before 30 June 2018.

3.         Agree to the installation of 3,000 pre-purchased lights with a central management system before 22 December 2018.

4.         Notes the intention to complete the conversion to LED with a central management system by 30 June 2021, subject to being programmed as part of the 2018 Long Term Plan.

 

 

Attachments

No.

Report Title

Page

1

Conversion of Road lighting to Light Emitting Diodes (LED) 

82

 

No.

Title

Page

a

NZTA Business Case

90

b

NZTA Business Case Appendix A

100

c

NZTA Business Case Appendix B

101

 

 


Council

02 November 2017

 

 

Conversion of Road lighting to Light Emitting Diodes (LED) 

Reference:

17/960457

Contact:

Andy Cameron

Andy.Cameron@CCC.govt.nz

03 941 5916

 

 

1.   Purpose and Origin of Report

Purpose of Report

1.1       The purpose of this report is to inform the Infrastructure, Transport and Environment Committee about the opportunity of accelerating the replacement of Council’s road lights with Light Emitting Diodes (LED). This report identifies the strategic case, and the potential economic benefits.

Origin of Report

1.2       This report is staff generated in response to the findings of a report commissioned into the benefits of LED conversion.

2.   Significance

2.1       This report is of low significance in relation to the Council’s Significance and Engagement Policy.

2.1.1   The level of significance was determined by comparing factors relating to this decision against the criteria set out in Council's significance and Engagement Policy.

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

 

3.   Staff Recommendations 

That the Infrastructure, Transport and Environment Committee recommends that the Council:

1.         Agree to the design and purchase of 7,000 LED lights by 30 June 2018.

2.         Agree to the installation of 4,000 lights with a central management system before 30 June 2018.

3.         Agree to the installation of 3,000 pre-purchased lights with a central management system before 22 December 2018.

4.         Notes to complete the conversion to LED with a central management system by 30 June 2021, subject to being programmed as part of the 2018 Long Term Plan.

 

4.   Key Points

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

4.2       The LED conversion project is strongly aligned to the following council policies documents, schemes and plans:

·   Christchurch City Council Sustainability Policy (2008)

·   Christchurch City Council Supply Chain Sustainability Policy (2003)

·   Christchurch City Council Resource Efficiency & Greenhouse Gas Emission Policy (2017)

·   Council Energy Management Programme Framework

·   Council Emission Management Programme Framework

·   Council Energy Efficiency

·   Council Emissions Reduction Scheme

 

4.3       The following feasible options have been considered:

·   Option 1 – (Preferred option) Accelerate the existing LED replacement programme for FY18 to maximise the benefits of the 85% elevated NZTA subsidy.

·   Option 2 – Do Nothing.

4.4       Option Summary - Advantages and Disadvantages (Preferred Option)

4.4.1   The advantages of this option include:

·     Reduced operational costs

·     Reduced carbon footprint

·     Increased efficiency

·     Reduced maintenance periods

·     A 24 hour centrally controlled system

·     Smarter city capability

4.4.2   The disadvantages of this option include:

·    There are no perceived disadvantages

 

5.   Context/Background

5.1       Background

·    Council are responsible for the management/operation of 39,500 council owned lights as part of the Christchurch road lighting network.  Of these, 38,000 lights are associated with the road network and LED lights represent 12% of the current network.  In recent years council has converted approximately 1,000 lights per year, at this current rate it could take another 34 years before all Council road lights are converted to LED.

·    Development of LED technology for use in road lighting has matured to a point where many cities throughout the world are embarking on major replacement programmes. In the last 18 months there has been further improvements to LED technology resulting in greater energy savings.

·    From 2012 all new lights on Council roads (including renewals and subdivisions projects) have been LED.  This was to minimise energy costs and limit the number of lights that would need to be replaced in the future.

·    In 2015 NZTA provided guidance on the benefits of converting to LED lighting including the use of a Central Management System enabling wireless communication to each light, allowing for switching, dimming and reporting of faults. In March 2017 this was further reinforced with NZTA increasing the subsidy from 49% to 85% covering the council’s upgrades in financial years 2016, 2017 and 2018.  Also included in the subsidy is the installation of a central management system and the pre-purchase of lights before 30 June 2018 for installation (at the normal subsidy) before 31 December 2018.  NZTA cannot indicate what the subsidy will be for future years until the next Long Term Plan is developed.

·    Council commissioned Beca in February 2017 to provide an independent report on accelerating the conversion of the Council’s road lighting network to LEDs. The report explored the benefits and risks of the project and includes benefit cost analysis which shows an 8 to 10 year return on investment for the option that includes a central management system.

·    The NZTA Present Value Calculator for LED conversions has been used to analyse the outcome when the total network is converted with and without a central management system, the payback period for the conversion to LED without a central management system is 8 years and with a central management system 9 years. The only economic benefits included in the analysis for the a central management system option is reduced energy costs due to dimming which is 26% for local roads and 22.5% for arterial and collectors roads. As outlined above there will also be maintenance benefits which are not included in the analysis for the option with a central management system.

5.2 Context

·    Council has two priority goals related to climate change leadership and maximising opportunities to develop a vibrant, prosperous, and sustainable 21st century city which this proposal contributes towards.

·    The project will deliver significant economic and environmental benefits to the community.  Benefits include;

·    Energy consumption of the existing network would decrease by greater than 59% (the saving increases to 69% if a central management system is installed as part of the upgrade). 

·     Approximately 40% of the electricity charges are fixed line charges (i.e. cents per connection per day) so the electricity cost reduction is not directly related to the energy savings.  The load on the electricity network will be reduced by approximately 3.1 megawatts.  This reduces council’s total electricity consumption by 17%.

·     Carbon dioxide emissions would reduce due to lower energy consumption and reduced maintenance.  Road lighting makes up 17.4% of council’s carbon consumption.  The total project would save 1,510 tonnes of carbon or 8.5% of council’s carbon emissions.

·     Reduced maintenance costs due to longer lamp life and 10 year warranty periods on new LED lights.  Periodic cleaning will still be required.

·     LEDs produce white light that has been attributed to improved safety. 

·     Better light control reducing upward waste light.

·     Greater directional capabilities leading to reduced spill lighting in adjacent residential properties.

·     Reduced hazardous waste due to ongoing disposal of lamps (currently these are recycled).

·   Additional benefits can be achieved by installing a Central Management System in conjunction with the upgrade to LED.  A central management system enables wireless communication between the software system and each light.  The a central management system will;

·     Enable dimming of the lights when there is low use which would increase the overall energy and CO2 reduction to 69%.

·     Provide opportunities for providing intelligent transport systems and would support the implementation of the smart city technologies.

·     Identify light failures enabling earlier repair and reducing the need for night patrols.

·     Enable an interactive map to be developed that would allow the public to see the status of each light and expected repair date, reducing call centre enquiries.

·     Provide data will support any future warranty claims relating to luminaire failure.

·     Improve asset data and allow electricity consumption to be measured for billing purposes rather than a database and calculation method currently used.  The Electricity Authority is considering how a central management system can be used for electricity billing purposes.

 

·     There are approximately 10,000 lamps replaced each year under the planned maintenance lamp replacement programme. Instead of replacing lamps the conversion programme for the 2018 financial year would replace the complete light with a new LED light.  This uses existing resource and is the most economic option to accelerate the upgrade.  The programme would focus on local and low volume collector roads as the design of lighting for busy collector and arterial routes is more complex.  The project would be based on a one for one replacement.


 

6.   Option 1 – (preferred) Accelerate the existing LED replacement programme for FY18 to maximise the benefits of the 85% elevated NZTA subsidy.

Option Description

6.1       This project aims to:

6.1.1   Design and purchase 7,000 luminaires by 30 June 2018.

6.1.2   Replace 4,000 luminaires with a central management system by 30 June 2018.

6.1.3   Replace the remaining 3,000 luminaires with a central management system by 22 December 2018.

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 consistent with this level of significance.

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       Engagement will be carried out through an inform process which will have three stages:

·    Web based frequently asked questions/live update on progress.

·    October 2017 – letter drop to those residents in the area being worked in prior to the rates update.

·    January 2018 – Letter drop city wide combined with the rates update.

 

Alignment with Council Plans and Policies

6.6       This option is consistent with Council’s Plans and Policies as it reduces costs, energy consumption, carbon output, and increases efficiency’s and aligns with a smarter city.

Financial Implications

6.7       Cost of Implementation – For the 2018 financial year NZTA have agreed that the additional funding from the two previous years would be applied to the 85% subsidy for this year.  This will provide an adjusted subsidy of 102.14% on the $4,380,000 total expenditure. To replace 4,000 lights with LED lights and establish the central management system network is estimated at $2,902,000, and the additional cost to pre-purchase 3,000 LED luminaires for installation between July and December 2018 is $1,534,000, bringing the total expenditure for 2017/18 to $4,380,000.

6.8       The additional funding to complete the conversion to LED would be considered as part of the development of the 2018 Long Term Plan. The total estimated cost to convert all NZTA subsidised lights is $27M.

6.9       Maintenance and Electricity Costs – The replacement of the complete network would bring Opex savings estimated at $600,000 for maintenance and $1,000,000 for electricity.

6.10    Funding source – NZTA subsidy

Legal Implications

6.11    None

Risks and Mitigations

·   Weight and size of luminaires and impact on existing poles and arms. This can be managed during product selection phase.

·   Concerns that LED lighting may impact on public health.  The US Department of Energy have prepared a paper titled “Street Lighting and Blue Light Frequently Asked Questions” in response to questions relating to this topic. This risk can be minimised through good design of road lighting installations and changing the output of lights when appropriate. 

·   The ongoing improvements to LED will mean the installed technology will become outdated.  The technology is now considered mature and future benefits are likely to be marginal compared to the benefits of this project.

·   There is a risk that the LEDs will not last as expected.  This is mitigated through a 10 year warranty period which is longer than the payback period.  Failures in the Los Angeles project which is 140,000 luminaires installed since 2009 show exceptionally low failure rates to date.

 

Implementation

6.12    Implementation dependencies - FY18 none, Future accelerated programme depends upon NZTA subsidy level and Long Term Plan budget.

6.13    Implementation timeframe - 4 years if the accelerated programme is maintained through to completion of the network, and 28 years if the current replacement rate is returned to after the FY18 accelerated programme is complete.

 

Option Summary - Advantages and Disadvantages

6.14    The advantages of this option include:

·     Reduced operational costs

·     Reduced carbon footprint

·     Increased efficiency

·     Reduced maintenance periods

·     A 24 hour centrally controlled system

·     Creates a platform for Smart city capabilities

 

6.15    The disadvantages of this option include:

·    There are no perceived disadvantages


 

7.   Option 2 – Do Nothing

Option Description

7.1       Lighting upgrades get carried out at current levels of approximately 1,000 per year.

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 consistent with this level.

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       No engagement would take place.

Alignment with Council Plans and Policies

7.6       This option is not consistent with Council’s Plans and Policies as it does not maximise efficiency’s and minimise costs.

Financial Implications

7.7       Cost of Implementation – Existing budgets would continue.  The opportunity of savings that can be achieved from a large scale project would not be available.

7.8       Maintenance and Electricity Costs – The existing operational expenditure would be required until the network is replaced.

7.9       Funding source - Council

Legal Implications

7.10    None

Risks and Mitigations

7.11    This option does not take advantage of known city wide benefits.

7.12    Maintenance costs of the existing technologies are likely to increase as demand for the lamps currently used on the road lighting network declines. Two of the least common lamps on the Council’s network have been withdrawn from the market.

Implementation

7.13    Implementation dependencies - N/A

7.14    Implementation timeframe - N/A

 

Option Summary - Advantages and Disadvantages

7.15    The advantages of this option include: None

7.16    The disadvantages of this option include:

 

The following are not taken advantage of

·    Reduced operational costs

·    Reduced Carbon footprint

·    Increased efficiency

·    Reduced maintenance periods

·    A 24 hour centrally controlled system

·    Smarter city capability

 

 

Attachments

No.

Title

Page

a 

NZTA Business Case

 

b 

NZTA Business Case Appendix A

 

c 

NZTA Business Case Appendix 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

Authors

Geoff English - Team Leader Transport Asset Management

Lois Cairns - Public Information & Participation

Andy Cameron - Junior Project Manager

Approved By

Lynette Ellis - Manager Planning and Delivery Transport

Peter Langbein - Finance Business Partner

David Adamson - General Manager City Services

 


Council

02 November 2017

 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


Council

02 November 2017

 

PDF Creator


Council

02 November 2017

 

PDF Creator


Council

02 November 2017

 

Report from Infrastructure, Transport and Environment Committee  – 11 October 2017

 

15.    Close out Horizontal Infrastructure Governance Group (HIGG) report

Reference:

17/1213923

Contact:

John Mackie

john.mackie@ccc.govt.nz

941 6548

 

 

 

 

1.   Staff Recommendations

 

That the Infrastructure, Transport and Environment Committee recommends that the Council:

1.         Review the Independent Chairperson’s report on the Horizontal Infrastructure Governance Group.

2.         Notes the contents of the report and the learning’s in support of the establishment of a governance programme to oversee future significant events.

 

2.  Infrastructure, Transport and Environment Committee Recommendation to Council

 

That the Council:

1.         Review the Independent Chairperson’s report on the Horizontal Infrastructure Governance Group.

2.         Notes the contents of the report and the learning’s in support of the establishment of a governance programme to oversee future significant events.

3.         Notes that the Council/Committees not included in the “governance arrangements” illustration, as per page 58 of the agenda has been identified as a gap.

4.         Notes that the land drainage recovery programme was not deemed eligible in the cost share agreement but a recommendation in the cost share agreement review stated that there should be continued discussions.

5.         Requests a further report, (including summaries of earthquake responses (MCDEM) and lessons learned) on the establishment of the governance programme to oversee future significant events, by February 2018, if possible.

 

Secretarial Note:  Staff advice is provided that the Committee’s recommendation 4. above should refer to the recommendation in the Independent Chairperson’s report on the Horizontal Infrastructure Governance Group, not the cost share agreement review.  Staff recommend the Council consider and resolve correctly as below:

 

  4.       Notes that the land drainage recovery programme was not deemed eligible in the cost share agreement but a recommendation in the Independent Chairperson’s report on the Horizontal Infrastructure Governance Group stated that there should be continued discussions.

 

 

 

 

Attachments

No.

Report Title

Page

1

Close out Horizontal Infrastructure Governance Group (HIGG) report

105

 

No.

Title

Page

a

Horizontal Infrastructure Governance Group - Independent Chairs report 20 July ex CCC 2017-07-20

107

 

 


Council

02 November 2017

 

 

Close out Horizontal Infrastructure Governance Group (HIGG) report

Reference:

17/973560

Contact:

David Adamson

david.adamson@ccc.govt.nz

941 8235

 

 

1.   Purpose and Origin of Report

Purpose of Report

1.1       The purpose of this report is for the Infrastructure, Transport and Environment Committee to receive the attached Close Out Report and recommend that it be noted, and its learnings be supported by the Council.

Origin of Report

1.2       This report is staff generated after receiving the Close Out Report on the Horizontal Infrastructure Governance Group.

2.   Significance

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

2.1.1   The level of significance was determined as low by the author David Adamson in accordance with the Significance and Engagement Policy.

2.1.2   No community engagement or consultation is required as a result of this assessment.

 

3.   Staff Recommendations

That the Infrastructure, Transport and Environment Committee recommends that the Council:

1.         Review the Independent Chairperson’s report on the Horizontal Infrastructure Governance Group.

2.         Notes the contents of the report and the learning’s in support of the establishment of a governance programme to oversee future significant events.

 

 

4.   Key Points

4.1       In putting this report together the chairperson of the Horizontal Infrastructure Governance Group Mr Chris Mackenzie, circulated a draft to his colleagues who also sat on the Horizontal Infrastructure Governance Group, for comments.  The report and these comments were confined to those of the operation and lessons learnt during what the chairperson considered was a messy beginning to a structure which delivered a significant rebuild of a portion of the Christchurchs’ horizontal infrastructure

4.2       The chairperson highlighted that there was an element of disagreement over some decisions made at certain stages of the rebuild. There were however excellent group dynamics and the decision making process was unanimous.

4.3       The chairperson thanked the current and former members of the horizontal infrastructure governance group for their dedication to the task of rebuilding Christchurch's infrastructure to a point where it could stand on its own feet.

5.   Context/Background

5.1       As part of the Agreement between the Independent Chairperson of the Horizontal Infrastructure Governance Group (HIGG) and the Minister of Earthquake Recovery that he would produce a close out report covering the HIGG.

5.2       The Independent Chairperson agreed to forward the same report to the Mayor.  

5.3      The report in itself is self-explanatory and therefore does not need to or be replicated in the body of this report. It is important however to draw the Committees attention to the following sections of the report

·   Section 4 – Key programme achievements of the HIGG

·   Section 5 – Key Learnings

5.4       The Chairperson asks the Council to note the contents of his report including his learnings.

 

Attachments

No.

Title

Page

a 

Horizontal Infrastructure Governance Group - Independent Chairs report 20 July ex CCC 2017-07-20

 

 

 

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

David Adamson - General Manager City Services

Beverley Mills - Executive Assistant

John Mackie - Head of Three Waters and Waste

Piers Lehmann - Head of Asset Management

Approved By

David Adamson - General Manager City Services

 


Council

02 November 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

02 November 2017

 

Report from Infrastructure, Transport and Environment Committee  – 11 October 2017

 

16.    Secure Cycle Parking Update

Reference:

17/1221169

Contact:

Trudy Jones

Trudy.jones@ccc.govt.nz

941 8060

 

 

 

 

1.  Infrastructure, Transport and Environment Committee Consideration

 

1.         The Committee received an update report on the current status of secure cycle parking at trip generators and connections with public transport.

2.         The Committee requested for the Council to include a budget of $20,000 per annum to be included in the draft 2018 Long Term Plan for cycle parks across the city.

 

2.   Staff Recommendations

 

That the Infrastructure, Transport and Environment Committee:

1.         Notes the ongoing bi-annual (spring and autumn) monitoring of on-street and public secure cycle parking facilities by operations team. This will allow for improved understanding of asset conditions and use patterns in the Central City to allow for a more agile response to demand.

 

3.  Infrastructure, Transport and Environment Committee Decisions Under Delegation

 

Part C

That the Infrastructure, Transport and Environment Committee:

1.         Notes the ongoing bi-annual (spring and autumn) monitoring of on-street and public secure cycle parking facilities by operations team. This will allow for improved understanding of asset conditions and use patterns in the Central City to allow for a more agile response to demand.

 

4.  Infrastructure, Transport and Environment Committee Recommendation to Council

 

Committee Recommendation to Council/Committee

That the Council:

1.         Include a budget of $20,000 per annum in the draft 2018 Long Term Plan for cycle parks across the city.

 

 

Attachments

No.

Report Title

Page

1

Secure Cycle Parking Update

121

 

No.

Title

Page

a

Examples of Cycle Parking in the Central City(2)

127

 

 


Council

02 November 2017

 

 

Secure Cycle Parking Update

Reference:

17/1027412

Contact:

Trudy Jones

Trudy.jones@ccc.govt.nz

9418060

 

 

1.   Purpose and Origin of Report

Purpose of Report

1.1       The purpose of this report is to update the Infrastructure, Transport and Environment Committee on the current status of secure cycle parking at trip generators and connections with public transport.

Origin of Report

1.2       This report is being provided to fulfil Infrastructure, Transport and Environment Committee query ITEC/2017/00014.

2.   Significance

2.1       The information 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 as medium

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

 

3.   Staff Recommendations

That the Infrastructure, Transport and Environment Committee:

1.         Notes the ongoing bi-annual (spring and autumn) monitoring of on-street and public secure cycle parking facilities by operations team. This will allow for improved understanding of asset conditions and use patterns in the Central City to allow for a more agile response to demand.

 

4.   Key Points

4.1       Public Transport Futures Business Case is currently being commissioned with AECOM in order to gauge rapid transport options for the long term 20-30 year horizon. The global ‘Movement as a Service’ trend suggests any review of the existing networks will need to include Public Transport hubs and other modes.

4.2       The Bike Share Business Case analysis suggests end of journey is the focus for expanding that particular operation to support mobility in the city.

4.3       Given the travel distances involved within urban Christchurch, the Major Cycleways Network does not require a bike and ride component to operate effectively.

4.4       Through An Accessible City and the Streets and Spaces Design Guide Central City and will have more casual on-street cycle parking provided over time by CCC.

4.5       The delivery of Suburban Master Plans will also improve on-street cycle parking provision outside the Central City. There is currently no plan or budget allocation to address any needs for secure cycle parking outside of the Central City.

4.6       The Replacement District Plan will ensure that new commercial development provides suitable levels of staff cycle parking facilities. For visitors, shoppers and workers with no secure cycle parking provision the Council and Private Car Parking buildings as well as some Anchor Projects will address at least some of that likely demand for secure cycle parking.

 

 

5.   Context/Background

Policy Background

5.1       The Christchurch Transport Strategic Plan (2012) outlined the need for improved cycle facility provision. The Cycle Design Guide policy document (2013) includes principles to consider for the design of short and long stay cycle parking provision. The Central City Parking Plan (2015) adapted data from car parking demand models, reviewed existing cycle parking provision and occupancy levels and likely future on-street short stay provision to calculate projected secure cycle parking demand.  The Central City Cycle Parking Demand and Supply Analysis; Short Stay Cycle Parking (July 2015) established existing and likely future needs for short stay parking.  A policy recommendation was developed to reflect projected demand, indicating areas where cycle parking hubs would best be located throughout the central city area. There are long term (2041) and medium term (2026) forecasts for cycle parking demands associated with the cycle number targets for the central city. The medium term demand has been estimated at 2800 cycle park spaces made up of 1600 long stay and 1200 short stay. https://www.otakaroltd.co.nz/assets/BalanceOfLand/CentralParkingPlan2015.pdf

5.2       The Replacement District Plan (2015) incorporated cycle parking forecasts from the Central City Parking Plan with requirements for improved public and private cycle parking and clearly differentiates between short stay visitor cycle parking and the need for long term secure staff cycle parking and associated facilities based on Gross Floor Areas for different activity types. New commercial buildings consented after December 2015 will be required to provide the levels of service outlined in the Replacement District Plan. Minimum requirements differ between developments within and outside the Central City. (Ref: http://districtplan.ccc.govt.nz Appendix 7.5.2).

5.3       Standards relating to the design of stands are specified (ie; stands must be securely anchored to immovable object, support the frame and front wheel of the bike, and allow the frame to be secured).

5.4       Cycle parking needs to be clearly signposted or visible to cyclists entering a site whilst not impeding pedestrian thoroughfares or being at risk from vehicle movements.

5.5       Facilities should be located no more than 30 metres from at least one main public entrance. Buildings with no setback are an exception to this rule and are a feature in the Central City (as well as Key Activity Centres). This has been considered within the Central City Parking Plan (2015) and the expectation is that the CCC will provide on-street public short stay cycle parking stands incorporated into new streetscapes for Central City (and those Key Activity Centres being upgraded through Suburban Masterplans) to address this need for casual cycle parking.

5.6       Note; commercial buildings with no setback are still required to provide adequate secure cycle parking facilities for staff as outlined in the Replacement District Plan (Ref: Table 7.5.2.1 for Minimum numbers of cycle parks required associated with different activity types; educational, entertainment and recreation, healthcare, industrial, residences, retail and commercial services).

5.7       Ensuring that compliance with the minimum cycle parking requirements and associated standards continues to be met by new development will require ongoing enforcement. However, expert witness evidence at the Replacement District Plan hearings (2015) suggested that the demand for cycle parking was at that stage already being met by the market irrespective of the minimum requirements outlined in the now superseded City Plan.

 

Potential locations/numbers of long stay cycle parking by 2041 (Central City Parking Plan 2015)

 

 

5.8       With the current and planned level of new development throughout the central city the effects of the Replacement District Plan requirements and associated standards are being realised relatively quickly.  New Public Parking Buildings and many Anchor Projects will have significant cycle parking hubs available to the public. Commercial requirements as outlined in the Replacement District Plan (2015) have been provided in new Central City building stock eg: Westend Parking Building, Innovation Precinct Parking Building, ECan offices, New BNZ Building. There is allocation in the draft LTP for a CCC/partner Car Parking Building north of the core which could incorporate public secure cycle parking.  The CCC Lichfield Car Park Building with semi-secure parking for 96 cycles opens late 2017. This all makes for a very dynamic supply and demand picture.

5.9       The Next Bike Share scheme pilot in the Central City currently has one stand of cycles on Colombo located outside the Bus Interchange for end of trip public use. CCC has recently received Expressions of Interest and Public Transport Committee has now asked for Request for Proposals in order to extend the current Bike Share trial to serve the University and Riccarton education and commercial areas. This proposed expansion is based on expert analysis of likely demand, presented within the Bike Share Business Case. There is demonstrable potential to expand this enterprise. Under the first three financial years 2018-20 of the draft LTP funds are allocated to support operational costs of a Bike Share scheme. 

5.10    As land use changes and new developments with no set back increase in Central City and in Key Activity Areas on-going monitoring will be required to ensure on-street casual parking supply matches demand. The Central City Cycle Parking Demand and Supply Analysis; Short Stay Cycle Parking (July 2015) will be used as a basis for monitoring distribution of supply as demand patterns evolve.

5.11    Urban Renewal budget has been made available in FY 2017/18 for the purchase and installation of 20 cycle parking stands at four sites within the Central City where public casual on-street cycle parking gaps have been identified (incl; Worcester Street Boulevard, Civic Office entrance, and Ash Lane within the Innovation Precinct).

5.12    To identify any additional gaps in provision of central city on-street cycle parking public the Operations Parking Team has recently audited the number, type and occupancy of on-street CCC cycle stands to update the asset management database. This updated information will inform future planning and provision, and be used to keep cycle parking information current on the CCC Transport for Christchurch website. It is likely the private sector will continue to provide a significant proportion of the on-street casual as well as secure cycle parking needs of the city associated with their businesses.

5.13    Outside the Central City the Replacement District Plan regulations apply to new builds with additional casual public cycle parking provision provided by CCC within Suburban Master Plan streetscapes such as the recently completed Edgeware and Linwood Villages.

5.14    The Major Cycleway delivery programme has responsibility for short stay casual cycle parking provision associated with those routes. The project team look for opportunities to install cycle stands along routes, in particular around businesses. For example, on the Papanui Parallel route, there is cycle parking at Edgeware Village (due to a collaboration between MCR and Masterplan implementation), the Rutland Street shops and at the Main North Road/Sawyers Arms Road block of shops.

5.15    There are currently no plans to deliver secure cycle parking at public transport hubs or key activity centres other than the central city. A full Public Transport Network Review is currently being commissioned. The need for secure cycle parking may be considered as an operational aspect of enhancing the public transport network in Greater Christchurch. As the Bike Share analysis suggests, end of trip rather than start of trip journeys by bicycle have greatest demand due to volume and efficiencies associated with destination areas. The possibility of any bike and ride developments in the future would need to be considered within the full range of strategies to improve public transport patronage, with a full analysis of start of trip cycle catchments, likely uptake and integration with the public transport network.

5.16    Key Activity Centres, (some with public transport Super Stops) currently offer some pre-existing casual cycle parking:

·   Addington (Lincoln Road)

·   Shirley – Superstop relocation planned, negotiations with school continue (with limited space for cycle parking on existing or new site)

·   Northlands – Limited space on road reserve; (existing cycle parks in Northland Mall carpark are hidden by commercial bins; to improve this facility access needs to be maintained and signage improved)

·   Riccarton – Limited space on road reserve; (as with Northland Mall, visibility of existing casual cycle parking at the Mall would benefit from improved signage)

·   Linwood – Eastgate Mall; planned improvements; pedestrian crossings, bus stops and larger shelters being investigated

·   New Brighton – Improved cycle parking provision should be provided with delivery of Master Plan

·   Halswell – Key Activity Area; improved cycle parking possible within Plan Change 68 interchange

·   Barrington – Barrington Mall; no upgrades currently planned

·   Other sites where public transport and cycle parking needs could intersect include; Merivale, Princess Margaret Hospital, Northwood (Super Centre), Burwood, Hornby and Selwyn/ Waimakariri Districts.

 

Anchor Projects

5.17    While new anchor projects designated under the Public Work Act do not have to comply with the Replacement District Plan cycle parking requirements, as key destination attractors they can be expected to provide a mixture of long and short stay cycle parking. Anchor Projects include; QE2 Sport and Leisure Centre, New Central Library,  Performing Arts Precinct, Metro Sports Facility,  Nga Puna Wai, and the New Health Precinct.

Conclusion

5.18    This report summarises the current focus on ensuring provision of secure cycle parking in association with key end of trip destinations. To date there are no plans or budgets for CCC to provide secure cycle parking for the public in association with any existing projects other than the new CCC Lichfield Car Parking Building where 96 cycle parks will be provided along with associated locker facilities and allocation has been made for a new CCC/partner Parking Building north of Cathedral Square where similar cycle parking facilities will be provided. The Major Cycleways focus is on the urban catchment and therefore do not warrant secure cycle parking facilities.

5.19    While there is potential for ‘bike and ride’ to support public transport at major public transport hubs outside the central city, a Greater Christchurch demand analysis of park/bike and ride demand within a multi modal integrated transport framework would be needed to gauge how usefully any additional secure cycle parking facilities might assist in optimising public transport uptake. The pending full Public Transport Network Review may be a good basis for revisiting ‘park/bike and ride’.

5.20    The idea of a one-off ‘bike and ride’ secure lock up facility located at the Gondola has been raised, potentially for use primarily by recreational as well as cycle commuters from Lyttelton Harbour. Observations suggest that bus bike racks on buses coming through the Lyttelton tunnel are often at carrying capacity (two bikes) in peak commuter times. This would be a limiting factor for more Harbourside commuters adopting a mixed mode bike and bus travel pattern. However, the idea of a cycle lock up facility may still be worth investigating commercially if recreational demand is sufficient (particularly as and when the Heathcote Express Major Cycleway is completed). Commercial and community interests would need to ascertain sufficient sustained demand, establish asset ownership, secure a site, resolve security and management issues, confirm appropriate design for location (secure compound versus individual boxes), as well as resolve the costs of on-going operation, maintenance and security.

 

 

Attachments

No.

Title

Page

a 

Examples of Cycle Parking in the Central City(2)

 

 

 

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

Trudy Jones - Transport Planner, Sustainable Transport

Approved By

Richard Holland - Team Leader Asset Planning

Lynette Ellis - Manager Planning and Delivery Transport

David Adamson - General Manager City Services

 


Council

02 November 2017

 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


Council

02 November 2017

 

 

17.    Infrastructure, Transport and Environment Committee Minutes - 21 September 2017

Reference:

17/1214099

Contact:

Samantha Kelly

samantha.kelly@ccc.govt.nz

941 6227

 

 

1.   Purpose of Report

The Infrastructure, Transport and Environment Committee held a meeting on 21 September 2017 and is circulating the Minutes recorded to the Council for its information.

 

2.   Recommendation to Council

That the Council receives the Minutes from the Infrastructure, Transport and Environment Committee meeting held 21 September 2017.

 

 

Attachments

No.

Title

Page

A

Minutes Infrastructure, Transport and Environment Committee - 21 September 2017

130

 

 

Signatories

Author

Samantha Kelly - Committee and Hearings Advisor

  


Council

02 November 2017

 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


Council

02 November 2017

 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


Council

02 November 2017

 

PDF Creator


Council

02 November 2017

 

 

18.    Infrastructure, Transport and Environment Committee Minutes - 11 October 2017

Reference:

17/1221186

Contact:

Samantha Kelly

samantha.kelly@ccc.govt.nz

941 6227

 

 

1.   Purpose of Report

The Infrastructure, Transport and Environment Committee held a meeting on 11 October 2017 and is circulating the Minutes recorded to the Council for its information.

 

2.   Recommendation to Council

That the Council receives the Minutes from the Infrastructure, Transport and Environment Committee meeting held 11 October 2017.

 

 

Attachments

No.

Title

Page

A

Minutes Infrastructure, Transport and Environment Committee - 11 October 2017

142

 

 

Signatories

Author

Samantha Kelly - Committee and Hearings Advisor

  


Council

02 November 2017

 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


Council

02 November 2017

 

Report from Regulatory Performance Committee  – 11 October 2017

 

19.    Options to support the relocation of street-based sex workers to address residents' concerns

Reference:

17/1209835

Contact:

Teena Crocker

Teena.crocker@ccc.govt.nz

941 8851

 

 

 

 

1.  Regulatory Performance Committee Consideration

 

The Regulatory Performance Committee made the following additions to the staff recommendations:

·    Adding the words ‘at this stage’ to clause 1. to clarify that the Council may pursue a regulatory approach in the future.

·    Amending clause 5. to clarify that reporting should go to the Regulatory Performance Committee and not the full Council, and on a quarterly basis instead of 12 months.

·    Adding a 6th clause to clarify that the Council will consider funding for initiatives presented by the collaborative community working group.

 

2.  Regulatory Performance Committee Recommendation to Council

 

That the Council:

1.         Agree not to develop a bylaw at this stage that regulates the location of street-based sex workers away from residential areas.

2.         Agree that Council staff continue to work with all parties to encourage street based sex workers to relocate away from the current area of concern or future areas of concern.

3.         Agree that Council, in partnership with the New Zealand Prostitutes Collective, form a collaborative community working group that will include the Non-Government Organisations, the New Zealand Police, and affected residents, to develop and undertake further actions to support the relocation of street-based sex workers.

4.         Agree that the Linwood-Central-Heathcote Community Board be invited to support the collaborative community working group.

5.         Instruct staff to monitor and evaluate the actions and outcomes and report to the Regulatory Performance Committee on a quarterly basis on the progress of the collaborative community working group.

6.         Agree that the Council will consider funding in support of initiatives presented by the collaborative community working group.

 

 

Attachments

No.

Report Title

Page

1

Options to support the relocation of street-based sex workers to address residents' concerns

151

 

No.

Title

Page

a

Attachment 1 - Further information on the development of a bylaw to regulate SBSW

164

b

Attachment 2 - Working party background and bylaw options

169

 

 


Council

02 November 2017

 

 

Options to support the relocation of street-based sex workers to address residents' concerns

Reference:

17/809218

Contact:

Teena Crocker

Teena.Crocker@ccc.govt.nz

941 8851

 

 

1.   Purpose and Origin of Report

Purpose of Report

1.1       The purpose of this report is for the Regulatory Performance Committee to consider options to support the relocation of street-based sex workers to address the residents’ concerns, and to make a recommendation to Council on this issue.

Origin of Report

1.2       This report is being provided to fulfil Council’s resolution (CNCL/2017/00154) directing staff to bring a report to the Regulatory Performance Committee by the end of September 2017 to consider options for a new bylaw clause that regulates the location of street-based sex workers (SBSW) away from residential areas.

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.

2.2       The level of significance is medium because this issue is likely to be of wide public interest.  It impacts on a small number of residents and a small geographical area, but is of high concern to those residents.  It will impact on street based sex workers (SBSW) operating in the area.  There are a number of non-governmental organisations (NGOs) with an interest, including the New Zealand Prostitutes Collective (NZPC), Youth and Cultural Development (YCD), and the Salvation Army, all of whom run outreach services and advocate for SBSWs.  The New Zealand Police also have an interest.

 

3.   Staff Recommendations 

That the Regulatory Performance Committee recommend that Council:

1.         Agree not to develop a bylaw that regulates the location of street-based sex workers away from residential areas.

2.         Agree that Council staff continue to work with all parties to encourage street based sex workers to relocate away from the area of concern.

3.         Agree that Council, in partnership with the New Zealand Prostitutes Collective, form a collaborative community working group that will include the Non-Government Organisations, the New Zealand Police, and affected residents, to develop and undertake further actions to support the relocation of street-based sex workers.

4.         Agree that the Central-Linwood-Heathcote Community Board be invited to support the collaborative community working group.

5.         Instruct staff to monitor and evaluate the actions and outcomes and report to the Council in twelve months.

 

 

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:

·     Option 1 – Develop a package of further actions to encourage all street based sex workers to relocate away from the area of concern.

·     Option 2 – Finalise, for community consultation, bylaw clauses that regulate the location of street based sex workers in the area of concern. 

The area of concern is the residential area around Manchester Street, north of Bealey Avenue.

4.3       Option Summary - Advantages and Disadvantages of option 1 Encouraging relocation

4.4       The advantages of this option include:

·     It has the support of the Police. The Police have committed to working directly with the residents to help alleviate tensions, as well as working with the NGOs and SBSWs.

·     It has the support of the NGOs best placed to influence the location of SBSWs – New Zealand Prostitutes Collective, Salvation Army, and Youth and Cultural Development.

·     It is more likely to result in the relocation of SBSWs than a bylaw.  A relationship-building approach has been shown to significantly reduce community tensions concerning SBSW activities in Auckland, and endure over time.  Research strongly indicates that relationship-building approaches are likely to be more effective than regulatory responses.

·     This approach will complement other developments that may impact on where SBSWs chose to locate, including the ongoing development of the central city post-earthquake and the New Zealand Prostitutes Collective’s plans to relocate their offices back to the central city.

·     It builds on the current efforts of NGOs to relocate SBSWs, the numbers of which have reduced in the area of concern from 16, to one or two, over recent months.

·     This option will be less expensive than a regulatory response.

4.5       The disadvantages of this option include:

·     The residents engaged with the Council in a bylaw options development process in good faith and may be expecting a bylaw to be developed. The Council commenced the process with residents on the basis that the Police supported, and would enforce, a bylaw. 

·     Residents will be concerned that issues will re-emerge, that non-regulatory approaches will not be effective, or that active engagement in reducing issues may decline over time.

4.6       Option Summary - Advantages and Disadvantages of option 2 Bylaw development

4.7       The advantages of this option include:

·     This option is supported by the known affected residents.

·     Full public consultation as part of the bylaw development process will help the Council to understand wider community views.

4.8       The disadvantages of this option include:

·     Developing a bylaw to regulate the location of SBSWs is legally complex under the current legislative framework.  This is largely due to the limited enforcement tools available under the Local Government Act’s (LGA 2002) general bylaw-making powers.

·     The Council cannot create enforcement tools or penalties, and must work within the legal framework of the LGA 2002.

·     Under the LGA 2002, there is no legal ability to issue instant fines or to make an arrest for the breach of a bylaw. The main enforcement tool is prosecution.  The penalty is a fine on conviction of up to $20,000.  A matter needs to be sufficiently serious to warrant a prosecution, and low-level behavioural issues (though a nuisance and cause of community tensions), are often not sufficiently serious to warrant a prosecution. 

·     The Police have advised that as there are no specific powers in the LGA 2002 to enable the enforcement of a SBSW bylaw (or national legislation which regulates this issue), there are difficulties from a practical enforcement and evidence-gathering perspective that, in their view, makes Police enforcement unworkable. This is new information (the Police had previously indicated a willingness to enforce a bylaw, should the Council develop one).

·     Enforcement of a bylaw by Council staff is theoretically possible, but is likely to be complex and expensive.   Enforcement costs could be considerable given the nature of the activities (in terms of hours of operation, the need for staff with specialist skills, and health and safety issues), and any evidence gathering and prosecution costs (and the same issues apply as identified by the NZ Police). 

·     There is no strong evidence to indicate that a bylaw will have the intended impact and work as a deterrent to move SBSWs from the area of concern, particularly without Police involvement.

·     A bylaw to regulate this activity may be challenged in the High Court, which could have financial and reputational costs for the Council.

·     The NGOs involved, including the New Zealand Prostitutes Collective, Salvation Army, and Youth and Cultural Development, do not support a bylaw.

·     A regulatory response is disproportionate to the relatively small scale of the problem.  

 

5.   Context/Background

History of the issue

5.1       Residents in a section of Manchester Street, north of Bealey Avenue, are concerned about the impact of street-based sex workers (SBSWs) operating in the area.

5.2       The issues have been occurring over the last six years, since the earthquakes displaced the SBSWs from the city end of Manchester Street, south of Bealey Avenue, when the central city was cordoned off post-quake.  

5.3       There is a history of tension between the residents and the SBSWs.  The impacts are causing stress to the residents particularly due to late night noise, offensive and hazardous litter, intimidation, vandalism, trespassing and other issues.

5.4       The residents have sought a regulatory response from the Council, with the view that a bylaw would give the Police a tool to require the SBSWs to move on and act as a deterrent to SBSWs choosing to operate in the area.  

5.5       The Council formed a working party and directed staff to report back to the Regulatory Performance Committee with bylaw options. The working party consisted of Councillors Pauline Cotter and Deon Swiggs, and Community Board Member Alexandra Davids.  It engaged with the affected residents, the NGOs with an interest, and the Police.

Current situation (August 2017)

5.6       Earlier estimates from the NGOs undertaking outreach work put the number of SBSWs operating in the area in question at around sixteen, with the number fluctuating, depending on circumstances. 

5.7       The SBSW activity north of Bealey Avenue has markedly reduced in recent months.  The current estimate is that there are only one or two SBSWs operating in the residential area. 

5.8       This reduction is considered to be more than just the winter months having an effect, and is attributed to NGOs working with SBSWs to encourage them to move further south, towards the city. 

Legislative Framework

5.9       Developing a bylaw to regulate the location of SBSWs is legally complex under the current legislative framework, and a bylaw would present practical issues due to the limited enforcement tools available under the general bylaw-making powers provided by the LGA 2002.

5.10    In the absence of any legislative changes at the national level, a bylaw to regulate SBSWs is unworkable from a Police enforcement perspective.  Enforcement of a bylaw by Council staff is theoretically possible, but is likely to be complex and expensive, and it is not certain a bylaw would have the intended impact. 

5.11    Background information on the legislative framework was canvassed in the 25 May 2017 Council report. The table below summarises the issues considered by the working party when determining how a bylaw might be developed. Attachment 1 covers the information in more detail.

 Issue

Quick summary

Bylaw-making powers in the Prostitution Reform Act 2003

·    No bylaw-making power to regulate SBSW

Bylaw-making powers in the Local Government Act 2002

·    Some bylaw-making powers that could regulate SBSW impacts / associated activities (nuisance, offensive behaviour, public health and safety)

·    No other councils with evidence of issues have made a bylaw to regulate SBSW

The Council’s Public Places Bylaw 2008 commercial activities clause

·    Not applicable to SBSW (confirmed by external legal advice)

·    No strong parallels between enforcement of the issues relating to car window-washing and SBSW issues

Bylaw-making tests under the LGA 2002 (s.155)

·    Assessment needs to demonstrate whether a bylaw is the most appropriate way of addressing the perceived problem

·    Also requires an assessment of any Bill of Rights Act implications (this is a specific requirement for bylaw-making, set out in the LGA 2002)

New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990 (NZBoRA) and bylaws (s.155 tests)

·    Need to assess the impacts of any bylaw on rights and freedoms protected in the Bill of Rights Act

·    Any bylaw that impacts on people’s rights to access or pass through public places may raise issues in relation NZBoRA

·    Bylaws can limit freedoms if the limitation is ‘demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society’

Bylaw challenges in the High Court

·    Need to follow best practice and lessons from case law

·    Any bylaw may be open to challenge in the High Court

·    Considerations include whether a bylaw could be considered invalid, unreasonable or repugnant

Manukau City Council (now Auckland Council) experience with trying to regulate street-based sex work via bylaw

·    Believed the LGA did not provide sufficient powers

·    Attempted to create legislation that would have empowered the Council to develop a bylaw to regulate issues arising from the location of SBSW activities

·    Would have given extra powers to the Police to make a bylaw more effective / enforceable

·    Would only have applied in Manukau

·    The two attempts at legislation failed to progress through Parliament and into law

Auckland’s current situation in relation to SBSW

·    Auckland Council has not regulated SBSW activities with a bylaw, despite having had significant issues with SBSW

·    Relationship-building and working with NGOs, Police, and the community, has helped to reduce issues

Enforcement of bylaws made under the general bylaw-making powers of the LGA 2002

·    No infringements (instant fines)

·    No powers of arrest

·    Penalty for a bylaw breach is a fine of up to $20,000 on conviction (in the District Court)

·    Judicial discretion as to the level of a fine on conviction

·    In order to take a prosecution, the Solicitor-General’s guidelines recommend that the Evidential Test and the Public Interest Test are met (these can be difficult for anti-social behaviour bylaws or low-level nuisance issues)

Bylaw enforcement – role of the Police

·    The Police do not have to enforce Council bylaws

·    The Police now have a firm view against taking a lead role in enforcing any bylaw to regulate SBSW

·    The Police have indicated concerns about a bylaw to regulate this issue from an enforcement perspective

Bylaw enforcement – role of the Council, and costs

·    Cost implications and practical issues (training, health and safety, and workforce issues for enforcement officers)

·    Limited tools to take enforcement action

·    Concerns about enforcement practicalities

·    Cost implications for taking prosecutions

Bylaws to address antisocial behaviour

·    Difficult, unless people are willing to comply voluntarily

·    May not work as a deterrent for marginalised sectors of society

·    Normal sanctions may not impact behaviour (eg threat of reputational damage or fines from prosecution)

Non-regulatory approaches

·    Outreach work is based on relationship-building and encouraging good outcomes

·    Evidence indicates it is likely to have more impact on behaviour change than regulating

·    Non-regulatory actions will be ongoing, whether a bylaw is pursued or not.

 

Working party’s findings

5.12    The working party considered the possible rationale for a bylaw, how a bylaw might be made, and how it could work in practice, and recognised the difficulties and complexity of developing a bylaw to regulate SBSW under the current legislative framework (set out in the table above and in attachment one).

5.13    The working party worked with the affected residents, the NGOs and the Police, to explore bylaw options and settle on the best bylaw approach, despite the identified legal and enforcement complexities.

5.14    In working through how a bylaw could describe activity to be regulated, and the area in which the activity could be prohibited, the views of the residents and NGOs differed markedly (specific vs general wording, wide vs narrow area).  Attachment 2 has more information on the bylaw options, views of the residents and NGOs, and conclusions of the working party.

5.15    It was not until the completion of the working party process that the Police advised that their view was against being involved in any bylaw enforcement action, and that they did not support a bylaw to regulate an issue now being caused by a small number of SBSWs. The Police view against being involved in enforcement is due to:

·     the limited enforcement tools available under the Local Government Act’s general bylaw-making powers (no instant fines, no powers of arrest, no other enforcement powers)

·     concerns about practical enforcement issues, including gathering sufficient evidence to be able to take a prosecution, and the costs involved in taking a prosecution for what is essentially a low-level antisocial behaviour issue.

5.16    The working party considered non-regulatory options to address issues, however, the majority of its time was spent considering how SBSW could be regulated via a bylaw.

No potential for legislative change

5.17    The Prostitution Reform Act 2003 (PRA 2003) is largely silent on SBSWs.  The only possible current option to regulate SBSW via bylaw is through the general bylaw-making powers in the LGA 2002.

5.18    There are no signs from central government that there is likely to be any change to either the PRA 2003 or the LGA 2002 in relation to SBSW – neither the Police and nor Justice policy teams in Wellington are actively working on SBSW policy or legal issues.

5.19    When the PRA 2003 came into force, its outcomes were uncertain, and there were concerns that the decriminalisation of the sex industry would lead to a proliferation of brothels and sex workers. The Act required a review after five years of coming into force. The Prostitution Law Reform Committee report was the result, and, in relation to SBSW, it: 

·     Recommends that areas where SBSWs operate ‘are managed in a way that will minimise the potential for disturbance to local residents and provide as much protection and support for street-based workers as possible’ (p.131). 

·     Notes that ‘solutions proposed for the management of street-based prostitution must have the support of all parties affected…[and]… must include sex workers and their advocates, as well as local authorities, Police and NGOs’ (p.131).   

The experience of other councils

5.20    Christchurch is not the only council that has struggled to find a workable regulatory solution through a bylaw. 

5.21    Several other councils have included a bylaw clause about SBSWs in their brothel bylaws.  However, none of these councils have evidence of SBSW issues, so the bylaws have not been enforced or otherwise tested.

5.22    Of the councils with evidence of problems relating to SBSW (Auckland and Wellington) neither has created a bylaw to regulate SBSW activities or impacts (despite, in Auckland’s case, investing significant resources into trying to find a regulatory solution).

5.23    A relationship-building approach has significantly reduced community tensions in Auckland, and has endured over time.  Auckland Council now focuses on relationship-building and working with NGOs, Police, and the community, which has helped to reduce issues.

Research into regulating SBSW

5.24    International and New Zealand-based research indicates that the course of action most likely to have an impact on minimising the impacts of SBSWs (regardless of where they are located) is working with SBSWs, advocates / outreach workers to build relationships, develop good lines of communication and to effect culture change. The community and Police also have a role to play.  There is also evidence internationally that attempts to regulate SBSW may increase harm to SBSWs.

5.25    Associate Professor at Otago University, Dr Gillian Abel, has extensive expertise in research into the sex industry, including leading the national research on the impact of the PRA 2003 that led to the Prostitution Law Reform Committee report (referred to above).

5.26    Dr Abel has recently secured Lottery Health Research funding to undertake a two-year study into SBSW in New Zealand. The research project is titled: Street-based sex workers in the Community: exploring community tensions, and experiences of violence and coercion. The research will focus on violence and exploitation; coercion (particularly under-age SBSWs); the relationship between SBSWs and the Police; community tensions (residents, business and SBSWs); and local council perceptions of regulation.

5.27    The research will take place over two years, in Auckland, Wellington and Christchurch, with the Christchurch research already underway. The Christchurch component should be completed by the end of 2017.  Dr Abel has fast-tracked the Christchurch research because of the current tensions.  The work being undertaken by Dr Abel and the findings of her research could soon provide valuable insights into possible community-based approaches to addressing issues currently being seen.

6.   Option 1 – Encouraging relocation of SBSWs away from the area of concern (preferred)

Option Description

6.1       Council staff would continue to work with the affected residents, NGOs and the Police to develop approaches to encourage SBSWs to relocate away from the problem area and towards the central city.

6.2       A relationship-building approach to managing SBSWs has been taken by Auckland Council, and has reduced the negative impacts and complaints to the Council, and endured over time.

6.3       The Council would establish a community partnership with the NZ Prostitutes Collective (NZPC) to form a collaborative community working group to support the relocation of SBSWs. 

6.4       The collaborative community working group could include members from the Central-Linwood-Heathcote Community Board, stakeholder groups such as the Salvation Army, Youth and Cultural Development, the NZ Police, and affected residents. The collaborative community working group would be supported by Council’s community governance staff.

6.5       The collaborative working group will focus on ways to encourage SBSWs towards the central city, which may include:

·     access to toilets

·     the application of Crime Prevention through Urban Design (CPTED) principles (which had a positive impact in Auckland’s management of SBSW issues)

·     potential changes to lighting, CCTV, rubbish bins and /or street cleaning

·     avenues for funding to otherwise support the successful relocation of SBSWs.

6.6       This approach would complement other developments that will encourage the relocation of SBSWs back to the central city. These include the ongoing development of the central city post-earthquake (including traffic flow changes) and the New Zealand Prostitutes Collective’s plans to relocate their offices back to the central city (on Manchester Street, south of Bealey Avenue)

Significance

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

6.8       This option would involve ongoing engagement with affected residents, NGOs and the Police.

Impact on Mana Whenua

6.9       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

6.10    Residents in Manchester Street and surrounds are affected by this option due to their experience of the impacts of SBSW activities. 

6.11    The views of the residents that have approached the Council on this issue are known. Generally, the residents involved are supportive of regulation (with some being very supportive).  Residents may also be supportive of other solutions that adequately address and reduce their concerns.

6.12    The views of other residents in the area are not yet known.

6.13    The shared view of NGOs working with SBSWs is that regulation is not the answer, and may increase harm.  NZPC, YCD and the Salvation Army all support taking a partnership approach. 

6.14    This view is shared by the Police.  The Police do not support a bylaw to regulate this issue.

Alignment with Council Plans and Policies

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

Financial Implications

6.16    Cost of Implementation – the costs of taking this option are low for the Council. However, staff time, and any non-regulatory actions may have some costs, which would be determined through the partnership’s work.

Legal Implications

6.17    There are no legal implications for taking a non-regulatory partnership approach.

6.18    However, the residents have threatened legal action over the Council’s approach to this issue, but the likelihood of this occurring, or succeeding, is uncertain. The basis for a claim is unclear at this stage.

Risks and Mitigations   

6.19    There is a risk that non-regulatory and partnership activities may not be effective, or may not endure over the long-term. 

6.20    Auckland Council has taken a partnership approach and it has endured to date.

Implementation

6.21    Council staff would work with the relevant parties to continue the non-regulatory approach and develop further actions, as discussed above.

6.22    Council staff will monitor and evaluate the outcomes of the actions and report to the Council on the evaluation of the actions in twelve months. 

Option Summary - Advantages and Disadvantages

6.23    The advantages of this option include:

·     It has the support of the Police. The Police have committed to working directly with the residents to help alleviate tensions, as well as working with the NGOs and SBSWs.

·     It has the support of the NGOs best placed to influence the location of SBSWs - New Zealand Prostitutes Collective, Salvation Army, and Youth and Cultural Development.

·     It is more likely to result in the relocation of SBSWs than a bylaw.  A relationship-building approach has been shown to significantly reduce community tensions concerning SBSW activities in Auckland, and endure over time.  Research strongly indicates that relationship-building approaches are likely to be more effective than regulatory responses.

·     This approach will complement other developments that may impact on where SBSWs chose to locate, including the ongoing development of the central city post-earthquake and the New Zealand Prostitutes Collective’s plans to relocate their offices back to the central city.

·     It builds on the current efforts of NGOs to relocate SBSWs, the numbers of which have reduced in the area of concern from 16, to one or two, over recent months.

·     This option will be less expensive than a regulatory response.

6.24    The disadvantages of this option include:

·     The residents engaged with the Council in a bylaw options development process in good faith and will be expecting a bylaw to be developed. The Council commenced the process with residents on the basis that the Police supported, and would enforce, a bylaw. 

·     Residents will be concerned that issues will re-emerge, that non-regulatory approaches will not be effective, or that active engagement in reducing issues may decline over time.

7.   Option 2 – Bylaw development

Option Description

7.1       Council staff would undertake further work to finalise draft bylaw clauses for inclusion in the Public Places Bylaw 2008 for public consultation.  

7.2       The draft clauses would be under a new title: “Activity prohibited in public places in specified areas”.  The draft clauses would set out the following:  

7.2.1   an introductory clause to describe the issues generally, linking back to the LGA 2002 bylaw-making power (nuisance, health and safety, and offensive behaviour)

7.2.2   a second clause that uses the definitions from the PRA 2003, including the ‘business of prostitution’ (which is defined to include ‘arranging the provision of commercial sexual services’), and prohibits these activities in any place specified by the Council.  Under this clause, the Council could declare a specified area, by resolution, having given effect to the views of affected and interested parties (as required by the LGA 2002);

7.2.3   a third clause could set out the relevant definitions from the PRA 2003; and

7.2.4   a register of any specified areas could be added, in this case, the area proposed is that bounded by and including: Bealey Avenue, Springfield Road, St Albans Street, Rutland Street, Westminster Street, Cranford Street, Warrington Street, and Geraldine Street, accompanied by a map.

7.3       Under this option staff would develop bylaw clauses and undertake the associated assessments required under the Local Government Act 2002, and report back to the Regulatory Performance Committee, then to the Council, for consideration.  Subject to Council approval, the proposal would then go out for full public consultation and hearings, before returning to Council for a final decision.

7.4       Under this option the Council would be responsible for enforcement of the bylaw and any prosecutions under the bylaw. 

Significance

7.5       The level of significance of this option is medium consistent with section 2 of this report, as bylaw development would require further work and reconsideration by the Council, before proceeding to public consultation and hearings.

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       SBSWs would be affected by this option, as a bylaw would limit where SBSW activities could occur. 

7.8       Residents in Manchester Street and surrounds are affected by this option due to their experience of the impacts of SBSW activities.  The views of the residents that have approached the Council on this issue are known, but the views of other residents in the area are not yet known. Generally, the residents involved are supportive of a bylaw (with some being very supportive).

7.9       The shared view of NGOs working with SBSWs is that regulation is not the answer.  NZPC, YCD and the Salvation Army all support taking a partnership approach.

7.10    The Police do not support a bylaw to regulate this issue, and have raised concerns about a bylaw being developed within the current legislative framework.  The Police have indicated they would not take a lead enforcement role.

Alignment with Council Plans and Policies

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

Financial Implications

7.12    There would be costs to the Council associated with the development of bylaw clauses and undertaking the public consultation process.  If this proceeds, there would be ongoing enforcement costs, and the potential for additional costs if the bylaw were to be challenged in the High Court.

7.13    As the Police have indicated that they are not willing to enforce a bylaw to regulate this issue, and a bylaw was put in place, enforcement would have significant costs for the Council.

7.14    Enforcement by the Council has been estimated to be up to $544,000 per year by the Regulatory Compliance Unit. A bylaw would require new staff, with special training, due to the nature of the activity being regulated.  Costs could vary, depending on the enforcement and compliance monitoring approach, as well as expectations around responsiveness to complaints.

7.15    The Regulatory Compliance Unit is not able to adequately resource this, without securing additional funding via the Annual Plan or Long Term Plan, or reducing other services. 

7.16    The costs associated with initiating a prosecution in response to any identified breaches would be additional (including surveillance, evidence gathering and prosecutorial expertise).

7.17    If the Council created a bylaw to regulate the location of SBSW, and it was challenged in the High Court, there would be both financial and reputational costs to the Council to defend the challenge.  Total staff and external legal costs would likely be in excess of $100,000.

Legal Implications

7.18    The Council cannot require that the Police enforce a bylaw made by the Council under section 145 of the LGA2002. 

7.19    Further legal work would be undertaken in the development of a bylaw option, including the preparation of the material for the section 155 determinations required to be made by the Council under the LGA 2002.

7.20    A bylaw may be challenged in the High Court on the grounds that it is invalid, unreasonable or repugnant.  Any bylaw that impacts on people’s rights to access or pass through public places may raise issues in relation to the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990. 

7.21    Council staff will endeavour to draft a bylaw that addresses all these matters so as to minimise the risk of a legal challenge. 

7.22    Enforcement of any bylaw that is drafted is anticipated to present some difficulties, particularly in respect of gathering evidence, given the nature of the activities and persons involved.

Risks and Mitigations    

7.23    The bylaw may not have the intended impact due to:

·     the limited tools for enforcement under the LGA 2002, and evidence gathering difficulties

·     the lack of Police support may lessen the impact of enforcement activities or the bylaw working as a deterrent

7.24    The above risks can be partially mitigated through sufficient resourcing of enforcement and prosecutions. The risk rating is medium.

Implementation

7.25    Implementation dependencies – as discussed above, public consultation and resourcing needs to occur prior to implementation of a new bylaw.

7.26    Implementation timeframe – Subject to consultation and approval processes, the earliest a bylaw would likely come into effect would be April/May 2018.

Option Summary - Advantages and Disadvantages

7.27    The advantages of this option include:

·     This option is supported by the known affected residents.

·     Full public consultation as part of the bylaw development process will help the Council to understand wider community views.

7.28    The disadvantages of this option include:

·     Developing a bylaw to regulate the location of SBSWs is legally complex under the current legislative framework.  This is largely due to the limited enforcement tools available under the Local Government Act’s (LGA 2002) general bylaw-making powers.

·     The Council cannot create enforcement tools or penalties, and must work within the legal framework of the LGA 2002.

·     Under the LGA 2002, there is no legal ability to issue instant fines or to make an arrest for the breach of a bylaw. The main enforcement tool is prosecution.  The penalty is a fine on conviction of up to $20,000.  A matter needs to be sufficiently serious to warrant a prosecution, and low-level behavioural issues (though a nuisance and cause of community tensions), are often not sufficiently serious to warrant a prosecution. 

·     The Police have advised that as there are no specific powers in the LGA 2002 to enable the enforcement of a SBSW bylaw (or national legislation which regulates this issue), there are difficulties from a practical enforcement and evidence-gathering perspective that, in their view, makes Police enforcement unworkable. This is new information (the Police had previously indicated a willingness to enforce a bylaw, should the Council develop one).

·     Enforcement of a bylaw by Council staff is theoretically possible, but is likely to be complex and expensive.   Enforcement costs could be considerable given the nature of the activities (in terms of hours of operation, the need for staff with specialist skills, and health and safety issues), and any evidence gathering and prosecution costs. 

·     There is no strong evidence to indicate that a bylaw will have the intended impact and work as a deterrent to move SBSWs from the area of concern, particularly without Police involvement.

·     A bylaw to regulate this activity may be challenged in the High Court, which could have financial and reputational costs for the Council.

·     The NGOs involved, including the New Zealand Prostitutes Collective, Salvation Army, and Youth and Cultural Development, do not support a bylaw.

·     A regulatory response is disproportionate to the relatively small scale of the problem.  

 

 

Attachments

No.

Title

Page

a 

Attachment 1 - Further information on the development of a bylaw to regulate SBSW

 

b 

Attachment 2 - Working party background and bylaw options

 

 

 

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

Teena Crocker - Senior Policy Analyst

Judith Cheyne - Senior Solicitor

Approved By

Helen Beaumont - Head of Strategic Policy

Brendan Anstiss - General Manager Strategy and Transformation

 


Council

02 November 2017

 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


Council

02 November 2017

 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


Council

02 November 2017

 

 

20.    Regulatory Performance Committee Minutes - 11 October 2017

Reference:

17/1210051

Contact:

Aidan Kimberley

Aidan.kimberley@ccc.govt.nz

941 6566

 

 

1.   Purpose of Report

The Regulatory Performance Committee held a meeting on 11 October 2017 and is circulating the Minutes recorded to the Council for its information.

 

2.   Recommendation to Council

That the Council receives the Minutes from the Regulatory Performance Committee meeting held 11 October 2017.

 

 

Attachments

No.

Title

Page

A

Minutes Regulatory Performance Committee - 11 October 2017

174

 

 

Signatories

Author

Aidan Kimberley - Committee and Hearings Advisor

  


Council

02 November 2017

 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


Council

02 November 2017

 

Report from Strategic Capability Committee  – 10 October 2017

 

21.    Greater Christchurch Regeneration Act - Canterbury Sports Limited

Reference:

17/1214083

Contact:

Richard Osborne

richard.osborne@ccc.govt.nz

941 8407

 

 

 

 

1.  Strategic Capability Committee Recommendation to Council

 

Part A (original staff recommendation accepted without change)

That the Council:

1.         Direct staff to undertake the necessary technical work to support a potential Greater Christchurch Regeneration Act proposal for the Canterbury Sports Limited site at 466‑482 Yaldhurst Road. 

2.         Direct staff to report back to Council once resolution 1. is complete.

 

 

Attachments

No.

Report Title

Page

1

Greater Christchurch Regeneration Act - Canterbury Sports Limited

180

 

No.

Title

Page

a

CSL section 71 summary Novo group

188

b

RSU Commentary on CSL Memo

277

 

 


Council

02 November 2017

 

 

Greater Christchurch Regeneration Act - Canterbury Sports Limited

Reference:

17/1009146

Contact:

Richard Osborne

richard.osborne@ccc.govt.nz

941 8407

 

 

1.   Purpose and Origin of Report

Purpose of Report

1.1       The purpose of this report is for the Strategic Capability Committee to recommend to Council that staff progress work on a proposed Greater Christchurch Regeneration Act proposal (either a ‘Section 71’ or a draft Outline for a Regeneration Plan), for the Canterbury Sports Limited site at 466-482 Yaldhurst Road (the subject site).

Origin of Report

1.2       This report staff generated.

2.   Significance

2.1       The decisions 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 because this report only seeks Council approval to undertake the necessary technical work needed to prepare a ‘proposal’ under the Greater Christchurch Regeneration Act.  Further approval will be required by Council prior to submitting any Greater Christchurch Regeneration Act document to the Strategic Partners, Regenerate Christchurch and the Chief Executive of the Department of Prime Minister and Cabinet. 

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

 

3.   Staff Recommendations

That the Strategic Capability Committee recommend that the Council:

1.         Direct staff to undertake the necessary technical work to support a potential Greater Christchurch Regeneration Act proposal for the Canterbury Sports Limited site at 466-482 Yaldhurst Road. 

2.         Direct staff to report back to Council once resolution 1 is complete.

 

4.   Key Points

4.1       This report supports the Community Outcomes in Council’s proposed Strategic Framework around safe and healthy communities by potentially enabling further sports and recreation facilities at the subject site. 

4.2       Canterbury Sports Limited (CSL) are wanting to broaden the range and scale of sports facilities on the subject siteHowever, it is outside of the Projected Infrastructure Boundary on Map A of the Canterbury Regional Policy Statement and the proposal, being urban in nature, is unlikely to give effect to the Regional Policy Statement.  If the Regional Policy Statement was amended, it would be possible to consider a change to the District Plan to enable further development potential on the subject site.

4.3       The following feasible options have been considered:

·          Option 1 – Direct staff to undertake the technical work needed to prepare a Greater Christchurch Regeneration Act proposal, and undertake initial engagement with strategic partners, Regenerate Christchurch and the Chief Executive of DPMC, in support of a potential Regeneration Act process.  Officers expect the bulk of the work will be met by CSL.  (Preferred Option).

·          Option 2 – Do nothing

·          Option 3 – Direct staff to consider change the relevant statutory documents under the RMA, if the Canterbury Earthquake (Christchurch Replacement District Plan) Order 2014 is revoked.

4.4       Option Summary - Advantages and Disadvantages (Preferred Option)

4.4.1   The advantages of this option include:

·          A Greater Christchurch Regeneration Act process appears to be most efficient and timely process for changing the Canterbury Regional Policy Statement and the Christchurch District Plan at the present time. 

·          A change to the key statutory documents would enable further development of the subject site for sports and recreational purposes.  This may result in the provision of a range of facilities that would not otherwise be available in Christchurch.

4.4.2   The potential disadvantages of this option include:

·          Potential for the proposal to compete with other existing and proposed facilities, such as Metro Sports and Nga Puna Wai.  This will depend on the scale and type of facilities enabled by any change to the statutory documents. 

·          The proposal will result in more peripheral urban development which could be inconsistent with the overall philosophy of urban consolidation outlined in the Urban Development Strategy and the Canterbury Regional Policy Statement.

 

5.   Context/Background

5.1.1   The subject site is approximately 19.87 hectares in area, and resource consent is held for approximately 2.3 hectares (11.9% of the site) of building and impervious surfacing coverage on the site.  Of this, building footprints account for approximately 0.4 ha (2.1%) and impervious surfacing accounts for the balance of approximately 1.9 ha (9.7%).  The existing and consented development of the site provides for football activities including two full size artificial football pitches, four artificial mini-pitches, a full size natural turf pitch, clubroom facilities, café, administrative offices, and grandstand seating for approximately 1,000 people.  Parking for approximately 530 car plus tour coaches is provided on site. 

5.1.2   The site is located outside the projected infrastructure boundary in the CRPS and is zoned Open Space Community Park in the District Plan.  The site, however, is subject to bespoke site-specific rules permitting more intensive development on the site than what would normally be anticipated in the Open Space Community Park zone.  The rules permit all types of indoor and outdoor recreation activities, including outdoor playing fields/courts, indoor sports and recreation facilities, swimming pool complexes/aquatic centres; stadiums, athletic complexes; and accessory facilities (such as club rooms/clubhouses, spectator seating, and lighting).  Proposals for individual buildings greater than 1,000m2 in area, or total building site coverage exceeding 5% are discretionary activities under the District Plan.  The overall scale of development is restricted to better align with the character of the Open Space Community Park Zone. Development on the site is also subject to compliance with the Development Plan which requires setbacks from boundaries, areas of landscaping and restricts activities in certain areas of the site in order to maintain the amenity of the neighbouring rural properties.

5.1.3   CSL ultimately wish to develop, with joint venture partners and sporting bodies, a metropolitan recreational facility on the site which enables larger scale multiple sport and recreation codes to operate from a single site with shared resources and site infrastructure.  The primary facilities targeted by CSL include a gymnastics centre, an indoor sports stadium (catering for team sports such as netball, basketball, futsal etc.), a swimming facility (with diving facilities and catering for youth, triathletes etc. and outdoor fields or sports courts (e.g., athletics, hockey, tennis, rugby).  A description of the proposal and an assessment against the Greater Christchurch Regeneration Act prepared by Novo Group forms Attachment A.

5.1.4   To facilitate these aspirations there would need to be amendments to both the Canterbury Regional Policy Statement and the Christchurch District Plan.  If the proposal is supported in principle there is a number of potential pathways for enabling a greater degree of development on the subject site.  These include the following:

 

·        Council initiated plan change;

·        Streamlined Process – Section 80C and Part 5 of Schedule of the RMA;

·        Settlement Pattern Review: Future Development Strategy and Capacity Assessment – National Policy Statement on Urban Development Capacity (NPS-UDC);

·        RMA, Schedule 1, clause 21 – Private Plan Change; and

·        Resource consent; and

·        Greater Christchurch Regeneration Act process.

 

5.1.5   Under the Greater Christchurch Regeneration Act 2016 the Canterbury Earthquake (Christchurch Replacement District Plan) Order 2014 (OiC) continues until 2021.  The OiC prevents the Council from notifying any plan change under the normal Schedule 1 process until 2021, other than for coastal hazards.  Council considers that the OiC also limits our ability to use a streamlined process, and notwithstanding this, the proposal may not meet the criteria for initiating such a process. 

5.1.6   Considering the proposal as part of the Settlement Pattern Review is a possibility, but this is wider process which focuses on residential and business land supply and has longer timeframes than a possible Greater Christchurch Regeneration Act proposal.  Furthermore, any change to the Christchurch District Plan as part of the Settlement Pattern Review process would also be limited by the OiC. 

5.1.7   These options are dependent on the Christchurch District Plan being made Operative and the OiC being revoked.  This is not a decision that can be made by Council and there is no certainty it will occur.  Even if it does occur, any subsequent process to change the District Plan via the RMA would start later and likely take longer than a Greater Christchurch Regeneration Act process.

5.1.8   A private plan change request could technically be prepared by CSL.  Such a request would be considered by the Independent Hearings Panel, however, it is Council staff view that the Panel are unlikely to entertain such a request since the matter has already being considered as part of the Replacement District Plan process, and the Christchurch District Plan is one appeal away from being made Operative.  Notwithstanding that, any private plan change request would be unlikely to give effect to the Regional Policy Statement because the subject site remains outside the ‘urban limits’.  Environment Canterbury have indicated they do not favour a stand-alone change to the Regional Policy Statement through the Resource Management Act for the subject site.

5.1.9   Given the site is currently located outside of the ‘urban limits’ outlined in the Regional Policy Statement and the current zoning does not enable the intensity of development sought by CSL, a resource consent pathway would be uncertain, and unlikely to succeed. 

5.1.10 Therefore, if Council were supportive in principle of the proposal by CSL, there are currently very limited statutory means by which it could enable the development to occur, other than through an amendment to the Regional Policy Statement and the District Plan via a Greater Christchurch Regeneration Act process, such as a the use of ‘Section 71’, or a Regeneration Plan. 


 

6.   Option 1 – Greater Christchurch Regeneration Act Proposal (preferred)

Option Description

6.1       Staff prepare the necessary technical information and supporting documents in support of a Greater Christchurch Regeneration Act proposal.

Significance

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

6.3       The level of significance was determined because further approval will be required by Council prior to submitting any Greater Christchurch Regeneration Act proposal to the Strategic Partners, Regenerate Christchurch and the Chief Executive of the Department of Prime Minister and Cabinet. 

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.  However, it is noted that TRoNT is a strategic partner for a possible Greater Christchurch Regeneration Act process. 

Community Views and Preferences

6.5       As no approval has been sought as part of this report to proceed with a Greater Christchurch Regeneration Act proposal it is not considered appropriate to seek the community’s views and preferences.  However, it is noted that should a Regeneration Act process proceed that adjacent properties are potentially affected by this option as a greater degree of development would be enabled by the proposal.  Sports bodies are also potentially affected by this option as it would enable future sports facilities on the periphery of Christchurch.  The site also sits within the 50-55 airport noise contour, consideration will need to be given to CIAL’s operations. 

Alignment with Council Plans and Policies

6.6       This option will not lead to any immediate conflict with Council’s Plans and Policies.  This report does not seek Council approval to proceed with a Regeneration Act process that will alter current land use patterns.  However, should there be subsequent approvals, then it will raise potential issues around consistency with the Urban Development Strategy, the Land Use Recovery Plan and the Canterbury Regional Policy Statement, which all encourage urban consolidation.  One of the key mechanisms for implementing this is the projected infrastructure boundary which is outlined in Map A of the Canterbury Regional Policy Statement.  There would therefore need to be a change to the Regional Policy Statement, but this would need to be assessed against the overarching direction around urban consolidation.

Financial Implications

6.7       Cost of Implementation – there is currently no budget for undertaking the necessary technical work. 

6.8       Maintenance / Ongoing Costs – Nil.

6.9       Funding source – Discussions would need to occur with CSL around potential funding. 

Legal Implications

6.10    There would be legal implications associated with a Regeneration Act proposal, but any decision to proceed on such a process would be subject to a separate Council approval. 

Risks and Mitigations   

6.11    There is limited risk around this stage of the process because it doesn’t commit Council to a particular course of action.

Implementation

6.12    Implementation dependencies  - Nil

6.13    Implementation timeframe – 3 months to complete the investigations.

Option Summary - Advantages and Disadvantages

6.14    The advantages of this option include:

·   This report does not bind Council to a particular path and there will be another opportunity for the organisation to decide whether to proceed with a Regeneration Act proposal when the draft proposal and technical information is complete. 

6.15    The disadvantages of this option include:

·   Additional work and costs that do not form part of the current work programme.

7.   Option 2 – Do nothing (status quo)

Option Description

7.1       The Council could choose to do nothing.  CSL could seek to realise their development ambitions via a resource consent pathway.  Alternatively, they may choose not to develop the site further.     

Significance

7.2       The level of significance of this option is medium.  There would be an impact on the proposed developer and those who may use such facilities.

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       CSL would be specifically affected by this, as may other sports organisations who are generally supportive of the proposal. 

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

Financial Implications

7.7       Cost of Implementation – There would not be any costs associated with this option. 

Legal Implications

7.8       Nil.

Risks and Mitigations    

7.9       There would be limited risk associated with this option, aside from the risk for the community of not having further sports and recreational facilities in this location. 

Implementation

7.10    Implementation dependencies  - Nil

7.11    Implementation timeframe - Nil

Option Summary - Advantages and Disadvantages

7.12    The advantages of this option include:

·   It does not involve additional Council resource and potential costs associated with preparing a potential Greater Christchurch Regeneration Act proposal. 

7.13    The disadvantages of this option include:

·   Leaves the issue unresolved.

8.   Option 3 – Use an RMA process

Option Description

8.1       As noted in sections 5.1.4 - 5.1.10 of this report the Christchurch District Plan cannot currently be changed using a Resource Management Act process because of the OiC.  This significantly limits the currently available options for enabling a greater degree of development to occur on the subject site.  Therefore, this option is largely dependent on the Christchurch District Plan being made Operative and the OiC being revoked.  This is not a decision that can be made by Council and there is no certainty it will occur.  Even if it does occur, any subsequent process would likely start later and take longer than a Greater Christchurch Regeneration Act process.

Significance

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

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.  However, as part of any RMA process, TRoNT would be consulted with. 

Community Views and Preferences

8.5       Sports and recreational organisations are specifically affected by this option due to the uncertainty around the District Plan being made operative and the potential revocation of the OiC, as well as any subsequent RMA process taking longer than a Regeneration Act process. 

Alignment with Council Plans and Policies

8.6       This option would not alter Council’s Plans and Policies in the short term, and would enable an integrated assessment of future land use options, including for this proposal.

Financial Implications

8.7       Cost of Implementation – There would be costs associated with preparing changes to RMA documents. 

8.8       Maintenance / Ongoing Costs – Nil.

8.9       Funding source – A public plan change, or a change via the Settlement Pattern Review process, would be publicly funded.  A private plan change would be charged back to the proponent.   

Legal Implications

8.10    None at this stage. 

Risks and Mitigations   

8.11    There is a risk that delaying decisions under this option could result in the project not proceeding either because of a loss of interest by the developer, or not falling within a future policy framework.

8.12    This will result in a lost opportunity for the City.

8.12.1 Mitigation treatment is limited to not proceeding this option.

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

Implementation

8.13    Implementation dependencies - Work for the SPR is scoped and the process undertaken within current anticipated timeframes.

8.14    Implementation timeframe – 2020-21.

Option Summary - Advantages and Disadvantages

8.15    The advantages of this option include:

·   Decision on the proposal made in the context of the review of the settlement pattern/future RMA process.

8.16    The disadvantages of this option include:

·   The uncertainty around the OiC and potential timeframes involved continues the current uncertainty for the project.

 

Attachments

No.

Title

Page

a 

CSL section 71 summary Novo group

 

b 

RSU Commentary on CSL Memo

 

 

 

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

Richard Osborne - Head of Planning and Strategic Transport

Approved By

Brendan Anstiss - General Manager Strategy and Transformation

 


Council

02 November 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


Council

02 November 2017

 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


Council

02 November 2017

 

 

22.    Strategic Capability Committee Minutes - 10 October 2017

Reference:

17/1214103

Contact:

Chris Turner-Bullock

christopher.turner@ccc.govt.nz

941 8233

 

 

1.   Purpose of Report

The Strategic Capability Committee held a meeting on 10 October 2017 and is circulating the Minutes recorded to the Council for its information.

 

2.   Recommendation to Council

That the Council receives the Minutes from the Strategic Capability Committee meeting held 10 October 2017.

 

 

Attachments

No.

Title

Page

A

Minutes Strategic Capability Committee - 10 October 2017

282

 

 

Signatories

Author

Christopher Turner-Bullock - Committee Advisor

  


Council

02 November 2017

 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


Council

02 November 2017

 

 

23.    Te Hononga Council – Papatipu Rūnanga Committee Minutes - 3 October 2017

Reference:

17/1193366

Contact:

Aidan Kimberley

Aidan.kimberley@ccc.govt.nz

941 6566

 

 

1.   Purpose of Report

The Te Hononga Council – Papatipu Rūnanga Committee held a meeting on 3 October 2017 and is circulating the Minutes recorded to the Council for its information.

 

2.   Recommendation to Council

That the Council receives the Minutes from the Te Hononga Council – Papatipu Rūnanga Committee meeting held 3 October 2017.

 

 

Attachments

No.

Title

Page

A

Minutes Te Hononga Council – Papatipu Rūnanga Committee - 3 October 2017

286

 

 

Signatories

Author

Aidan Kimberley - Committee and Hearings Advisor

  


Council

02 November 2017

 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


Council

02 November 2017

 

Report from Innovation and Sustainable Development Committee  – 15 September 2017

 

24.    Staff Briefing - Enviro Mark, Carbon Neutrality and Climate Change

Reference:

17/1020919

Contact:

Chris Turner-Bullock

christopher.turner@ccc.govt.nz

941 8233

 

 

 

 

1.   Innovation and Sustainable Development Committee Consideration

 

1.         The Committee received a briefing from staff on Enviro Mark, Carbon Neutrality and Climate Change.

2.         The Committee made the following recommendations to Council. 

3.         Staff have provided the report:  Christchurch City Council Net Carbon Neutral by 2030 (Attachment A) staff recommendations from that report are below.

 

2.   Innovation and Sustainable Development Committee Recommendation to Council

 

That the Council:

 

1.         Agree to set a target of Christchurch City Council being net carbon neutral by 2030.

2.         Request Resource Efficiency Programme staff to work with the Innovation and Sustainable Development Committee to develop the framework and strategies to meet the Christchurch City Council net carbon neutral 2030 target.

3.         Request staff to work with the Innovation and Sustainable Development Committee to investigate a framework and strategies for setting a target of Christchurch being net carbon neutral by 2050.

4.         Invite and challenge all other Canterbury Councils, especially Environment Canterbury, to adopt the same targets and develop their path to achievement.

5.         Request that all new transport initiatives of the Joint Public Transport Committee have a significant positive weighting to battery electric and other low carbon transport options and signal to the industry that all new contracts will be electric within 6 years.

6.         Request that staff look at options to sequester carbon by tree planting and management, including options on the Peninsula, Port Hills and Residential Red Zone.

 

Staff recommendations from the attached report: Christchurch City Council Net Carbon Neutral by 2030

3.   Staff Recommendations from the report:  Christchurch City Council Net Carbon Neutral by 2030

 

That the Council:

 

1.         Set a target date of 2030 for Christchurch City Council to be net carbon neutral.

2          Request staff to look at options to sequester carbon by tree planting and management, including options on the Peninsula, Port Hills and Residential Red Zone.

3.         Request the Resource Efficiency Programme staff report to the Innovation and Sustainable Development Committee, every six months, on progress towards Council operations becoming net carbon neutral.

4.         Request the Council members of the Joint Public Transport Committee to advocate for low carbon options for the public transport fleet.

5.         Consider a target date for Christchurch City (as opposed to the City Council organisation) to be net carbon neutral as part of the programme of works to implement the Global Covenant of Mayors for Climate and Energy, subject to a Council decision on signing up to the Global Covenant.

 

 

 

Attachments

No.

Report Title

Page

1

Staff Briefing - Enviro Mark, Carbon Neutrality and Climate Change

293

 

No.

Title

Page

a

Staff Report:  Christchurch City Council Net Carbon Neutral by 2030

294

 

 


Council

02 November 2017

 

 

Staff Briefing - Enviro Mark, Carbon Neutrality and Climate Change

Reference:

17/829332

Contact:

Helen Beaumont

helen.beaumont@ccc.govt.nz

941 8999

 

 

 

 

Attachments

There are no attachments to this report.

 


Council

02 November 2017

 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


Council

02 November 2017

 

Report from Innovation and Sustainable Development Committee  – 13 October 2017

 

25.    Development Contribution Remission Application - Zhu Badminton Development Limited.

Reference:

17/1228072

Contact:

Katrina Guest

katrina.guest@ccc.govt.nz

941 6596

 

 

 

 

1.   Staff Recommendations

 

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

1.         Decline the remission application for the development contributions payable under BCN/2017/852 and require payment in full.

2.         Request staff explore the postponement of the development contributions payable with Zhu Badminton Development Ltd for an appropriate period in accordance with clause 3.6.1 of the Development Contributions Policy.

 

2.  Innovation and Sustainable Development Committee Recommendation to Council

 

That the Council:

1.         Decline the remission application for the development contributions payable under BCN/2017/852 and require payment in full.

2.         Request staff explore the postponement of the development contributions payable with Zhu Badminton Development Ltd for a five years in accordance with clause 3.6.1 of the Development Contributions Policy.

3.         Request staff provide a report updating the Innovation and Sustainable Development Committee on the review of the Development Contributions Policy.

 

 

Attachments

No.

Report Title

Page

1

Development Contribution Remission Application - Zhu Badminton Development Limited.

306

 

No.

Title

Page

a

Remission applicatiion and supporting letters.

314

b

Postponement of development contributions

321

 

 


Council

02 November 2017

 

 

Development Contribution Remission Application - Zhu Badminton Development Limited.

Reference:

17/958445

Contact:

Katrina Guest

Katrina.guest@ccc.govt.nz

941-6596

 

 

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 information to assist it to make a recommendation to Council whether to approve or decline a request for a remission of Development Contributions of $151,482.69 levied under BCN/2017/852.

Origin of Report

1.2       This report is in response to a request from Davie, Lovell-Smith on behalf of the developer (Zhu Badminton Development Ltd) to consider granting a remission of development contributions payable under clause 6.3.2 of the Development Contributions Policy.

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 based on the significance criteria used by the Council.

2.1.2   There is no community engagement or consultation required for the preferred option.

 

3.   Staff Recommendations

That the Innovation and Sustainable Development Committee:

1.         Recommend the Council decline the remission application for the development contributions payable under BCN/2017/852 and require payment in full.

2.         Request staff explore the postponement of the development contributions payable with Zhu Badminton Development Ltd for an appropriate period in accordance with clause 3.6.1 of the Development Contributions Policy.

 

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 City.

4.2       The following feasible options have been considered:

·     Option 1 – Decline the remission application of the development contributions payable and require payment in full.

·     Option 2 – Approve a full remission of the development contributions payable.

·     Option 3 – Direct staff to negotiate the postponement of the development contributions payable for an appropriate period in accordance with clause 3.6.1 of the Development Contributions Policy.

4.3       Option Summary - Advantages and Disadvantages (Preferred Option)

4.3.1   The advantages of this option include:

·     It is consistent with the development contributions policy.

·     It is consistent with how the policy is applied to other similar developments.

·     Ratepayers do not have to fund the development contribution component of this development.

4.3.2   The disadvantages of this option include:

·     It may limit access to badminton for junior age ranges.

 

5.   Context/Background

Zhu Badminton Club

5.1       Zhu Badminton Club has been part of the local badminton scene since 2008.  They are currently building a badminton facility on the western and southern side of the city to support the sport which as a result of the earthquakes lost several facilities where badminton had been played.

5.2       A building consent application was made and granted on 25 May 2017 and in accordance with the Council’s Development Contributions Policy (2015), a development contribution assessment of $151,429.69 was issued.

5.3       An application for reconsideration of the development contributions payable was received on 19 March 2017 and was declined on 13 April 2017 as it did not meet the criteria for reconsideration under Section 199A of the Local Government Act 2002.

6.   Remission Application

6.1       Attached to this report are a letter from Davie, Lovell- Smith seeking a remission under clause 6.3.2 of the Development Contributions Policy, the reconsideration request from Zhu Badminton Development Ltd and supporting letters from Badminton Canterbury and Cr. Anne Galloway.

6.2       The letters state that Zhu Badminton are providing a recreational facility for the wider Christchurch community that neither the Christchurch City Council nor Badminton Canterbury can provide at this time.

6.3       Zhu Badminton have advised that, in conjunction with Badminton Canterbury, they will be providing the facility free of charge for 500 court hours per year (9.6 hours per week) for development of the sport for junior age ranges.  In addition they will be providing Christchurch primary and intermediate schools with use of the facility for three hours each morning during the school term free of charge, as well as providing support for a coach for beginners.  These arrangements are to be provided initially for the first ten years following the opening of the facility.  If they are granted a remission they have signalled that they would be prepared to enter into a Memorandum of Understanding or Private Development agreement to provide the Council with undertakings with respect to the community access and use of the facility.

6.4       The letters also state that as a result of the earthquake damage and appropriation of facilities for other uses, the number of community facilities available for use by badminton clubs, and junior development squads has dramatically decreased since the earthquakes.  Badminton Canterbury also notes that this has also impacted on clubs with the city having a reduced ability to offer junior programmes to school children, primarily due to travel times to available facilities.

7.   Development Contributions Policy

7.1       The Council requires development contributions in accordance with Sections 197, 198(2) and 199 of the LGA and in accordance with its Development Contributions Policy. Development contributions enable the Council to require developers to make a fair contribution towards the provision of infrastructure that specifically service the needs of new development.  Without this revenue stream these costs would fall entirely on ratepayers.

7.2       The Council’s Development Contributions Policy does not provide for specific remissions from the requirements to pay Development Contributions.  However clause 3.6.2 states “This DCP does provide for the Council, at its sole discretion, to consider and grant remission and/or reductions in ‘unique and compelling circumstances’.

7.3       In situations where development contributions are remitted the cost of providing the infrastructure growth capacity used by the development in question must be met by ratepayers.

7.4       Development Contribution remissions are paid for by rates, but this is not a direct mechanism:  Development Contributions are a capital revenue, they reduce the amount that we have to borrow to pay for our infrastructure investment.  Remissions are therefore funded in the first instance by borrowing, because they reduce how much of our capital investment is paid for by capital revenues.  All borrowing costs (interest and principal repayments) are ultimately met by rates – mostly the General Rate, although some is allocated to the Targeted Rates for water supply and sewerage.

 

8.   Comment

8.1       The Development Contributions Policy is clear that the Council can only make exemptions for payment of development contributions in unique and compelling circumstances.  The term ‘unique and compelling’ is not defined in the DCP.  However, a dictionary definition describes ‘unique’ as ‘having no like or equal’ ‘remarkable’ or ‘unusual and ‘compelling’ as ‘not able to be refuted’ convincing’ or ‘persuasive’.  The decision for the Council is largely based on whether it considers this situation to be unique and compelling in the sense that it is such a remarkable case that it justifies a remission to be granted.

8.2       When assessing this remission application consideration should be given to other privately developed recreation and sports facilities that have paid development contributions over recent years.  Such facilities include but are not limited to:

·   Christchurch Football Academy

·   Hagley Oval

·   High Performance Sport New Zealand

·   Kings Swim School

·   Canterbury Swim School

8.3       The circumstances of this current application for remission of development contributions charges is not considered to be different from any of the above to an extent as to warrant being treated as unique or compelling.

8.4       Approving this remission would set a precedent for similar developments in the future and could cause owners of similar facilities that have already paid development contributions to seek a retrospective review of that requirement to pay.  Or for others that have been assessed but not yet paid to also seek a remission.

8.5       It is important to note that Christchurch City Council is also required to pay Development Contributions for its own recreation and sports facility developments unless the project itself is being funded in part by Development Contributions. 

8.6       The Council doesn’t have a specific policy regarding Badminton, but the Recreation and Sport Unit are regularly involved in facility and planning work in collaboration with the sports involved, most recently post the earthquakes. The Recreation and Sport Unit also contributed to work specifically looking at indoor sports courts facility needs.  This work identified the need for more indoor sports courts (which include badminton). This need is aimed to be addressed through the construction of Metro Sports facility, which will provide Badminton capability within the indoor community sports courts, the repair of Wharenui indoor sports court, the planning for indoor sports courts at Rolleston and other private community proposals.  I understand that Christchurch Sports Limited located at 466 Yaldhurst Road are also proposing indoor sports courts that can include Badminton courts in their future development. Considering these development and proposals there are no plans to develop indoor sports courts as part of the South West Recreation and Sport Centre.

8.7       It is acknowledged that this facility will provide benefit to at least part of the community and that the facility is an asset for the city. The intention to provide opportunities to develop junior age range badminton is also acknowledged. This needs to be balanced with Badminton Canterbury having rebuilt its Christchurch facility in Wainoni Road and the other future facilities discussed above. Christchurch City Council facilities, Pioneer, Graham Condon and Cowles Stadium have badminton facilities and schools using these facilities are provided discounted rates.

8.8       No financial information has been supplied with this application, but it would appear from the letter dated 17 March 2017 from Zhu Badminton Development Limited that they do intend to make a profit in the future.  Zhu Badminton Club Limited is listed on the Companies Register but is not listed as an Incorporated Society or a Charitable Trust.

8.9       There are other providers of funding more aligned to what they are proposing.  While I can’t comment on whether such an application would be successful in securing funding, organisations such as Kiwisport do provide funding to groups offering new or enhanced sporting opportunities for young people between the ages of 5 and 18.

8.10    Overall, staff considering this request for remission of development contribution charges have been unable to identify features of the development that would enable it to be recommended for treatment as “unique and compelling”.  However consideration can be given to postponing the payment for a set period as allowed for in clause 3.6.1 of the Development Contributions Policy and set out in option 3 of this report.

 

 


 

 

9.   Option 1 – Decline the remission application.

Option Description

9.1       Decline the remission application or a reduction of the development contributions payable and require payment in full.

Significance

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

9.3       Engagement requirements for this level of significance are nil.

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       Zhu Badminton Development Limited, Badminton Canterbury and members of the badminton community are affected by this option.  Their views are expressed in the letters attached to this application.

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 - Nil

9.9       Funding source – Not applicable

Legal Implications

9.10    Nil

Risks and Mitigations   

9.11    There is a risk that declining this remission could limit access to facilities for the junior age ranges and Christchurch Primary and Intermediate schools.

9.12    Treatment: Nil

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

Implementation

9.14    Implementation dependencies  - Not applicable

9.15    Implementation timeframe – Not applicable

Option Summary - Advantages and Disadvantages

9.16    The advantages of this option include:

·   It is consistent with the Development Contributions Policy.

·   It is consistent with how the policy is applied to other developments.

9.17    The disadvantages of this option include:

·   It may limit access to badminton for junior age ranges.

10. Option 2 – Approve a remission

Option Description

10.1    Approve a remission of the Development Contributions payable subject to the condition the developer enters into, and pays the cost of an appropriate legal instrument to provide the Council with undertakings with respect to the community access and use of the facility.

Significance

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

10.3    Engagement requirements for this level of significance are nil.

Impact on Mana Whenua

10.4    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

10.5    Ratepayers are affected by this option as any remission would be funded from rates.

10.6    Zhu Badminton Development Limited, Badminton Canterbury and members of the badminton community are affected by this option.  Their views are expressed in the letters attached to this application.

Alignment with Council Plans and Policies

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

Financial Implications

10.8    Cost of Implementation – Development Contribution remissions are paid for by rates, but this is not a direct mechanism:  Development Contributions are a capital revenue, they reduce the amount that we have to borrow to pay for our infrastructure investment.  Remissions are therefore funded in the first instance by borrowing, because they reduce how much of our capital investment is paid for by capital revenues.  All borrowing costs (interest and principal repayments) are ultimately met by rates – mostly the General Rate, although some is allocated to the Targeted Rates for water supply and sewerage.

10.9    This would impact all ratepayers.

10.10  Maintenance / Ongoing Costs - Rates

10.11  Funding source - Rates

Legal Implications

10.12  There will be a need for legal advice on (and preparation of) the appropriate legal instrument.

Risks and Mitigations    

10.13  Approving this remission would set a precedent for similar developments in the future and could cause owners of similar facilities that have already paid development contributions to seek a retrospective review of that requirement to pay.  Or for others that have been assessed but not yet paid to also seek a remission.

10.14  There are currently no mechanisms in place to monitor such an agreement. 

Implementation

10.15  Implementation dependencies - Delegate to an appropriate council officer to ensure an appropriate legal instrument is entered into to provide the Council with undertakings with respect to the community access and use of the facility.

10.16  Implementation timeframe – two months.

Option Summary - Advantages and Disadvantages

10.17  The advantages of this option include:

·   It will provide access to badminton for junior age ranges.

10.18  The disadvantages of this option include:

·   It would reduce the development contributions revenue and the amount would be funded from rates over the coming years.

·   Granting this remission would set a precedent for similar developments in the future and could cause owners of similar facilities that have already paid development contributions to seek a retrospective review of that requirement to pay.  Or for others that have been assessed but not yet paid to also seek a remission.

11. Option 3 – Approve a postponement

Option Description

11.1    Approve the postponement of the Development Contributions payable with interest, as allowed for under 3.6.1 of the Development Contributions Policy.

Significance

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

11.3    Engagement requirements for this level of significance are nil.

Impact on Mana Whenua

11.4    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

11.5    Zhu Badminton Development Limited, Badminton Canterbury and members of the badminton community are affected by this option.  Their views are expressed in the letters attached to this application.

Alignment with Council Plans and Policies

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

Financial Implications

11.7    Cost of Implementation – Nil

11.8    Maintenance / Ongoing Costs – N/A

11.9    Funding source – N/A

Legal Implications

11.10  There will be a need for legal advice on (and preparation of) the appropriate legal instrument.

Risks and Mitigations   

11.11  Other similar developments may also seek a postponement of development contributions payable.

Implementation

11.12  Implementation dependencies – Requires approval from two members of the executive team.

11.13  Once approved, delegate to an appropriate council officer to ensure an appropriate legal instrument is entered into.

11.14  Implementation timeframe – two months.

Option Summary - Advantages and Disadvantages

11.15  The advantages of this option include:

·   Christchurch City Council would still receive the revenue required and ratepayers do not have to fund the development contribution component of this development.

·   Zhu Badminton Development Limited would be given additional time to pay.

11.16  The disadvantages of this option include:

·   Zhu Badminton Development Limited would still be required to pay the assessed development contributions with the cost of interest.

 

 

Attachments

No.

Title

Page

a 

Remission applicatiion and supporting letters.

 

b 

Postponement of development contributions

 

 

 

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

Katrina Guest - Team Leader Development Support

Approved By

John Higgins - Acting Head of Legal Services

Leonie Rae - General Manager Consenting and Compliance

 


Council

02 November 2017

 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


Council

02 November 2017

 

PDF Creator


Council

02 November 2017

 

 

26.    Innovation and Sustainable Development Committee Minutes - 13 October 2017

Reference:

17/1228081

Contact:

Christopher Turner-Bullock

christopher.turner@ccc.govt.nz

941 8233

 

 

1.   Purpose of Report

The Innovation and Sustainable Development Committee held a meeting on 13 October 2017 and is circulating the Minutes recorded to the Council for its information.

 

2.   Recommendation to Council

That the Council receives the Minutes from the Innovation and Sustainable Development Committee meeting held 13 October 2017.

 

 

Attachments

No.

Title

Page

A

Minutes Innovation and Sustainable Development Committee - 13 October 2017

324

 

 

Signatories

Author

Christopher Turner-Bullock - Committee Advisor

  


Council

02 November 2017

 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


Council

02 November 2017

 

 

27.    Accessibility Charter, Canterbury

Reference:

17/1074872

Contact:

Aaron Haymes

aaron.haymes@ccc.govt.nz

Ext 8075

 

 

1.   Purpose and Origin of Report

Purpose of Report

1.1       The purpose of this report is for the Council to consider endorsing the signing of the Accessibility Charter Canterbury and implementing operational aspects to support the vision of the charter and its principles.

Origin of Report

1.2       This report is staff generated as a result of a directive by the Executive Leadership Team at a meeting on 18 of September requesting a briefing to Councillors and a report directly to the Council seeking endorsement of the Charter and noting the work in progress.

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 assessment against the Council Significance and Engagement policy. 

 

 

3.   Staff Recommendations

That the Council:

1.         Endorse the Council signing of the Accessibility Charter Canterbury and implementation of operational aspects to support the vision of the charter and its principles.

 

 

4.   Key Points

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

 

4.2       The following feasible options have been considered:

·     Option 1 (Preferred) – Endorse the Council signing of the Accessibility Charter Canterbury and implementation of operational aspects to support the vision of the charter and its principles.

·     Option 2 – Do nothing, remaining with current state.

 

4.3       Option Summary - Advantages and Disadvantages (Preferred Option)

4.3.1   The advantages of this option include:

·     Built environment features with a higher level of functionality for all users.

·     Greater participation in activities by all citizens of Christchurch and visitors.

·     Builds a reputation as a city that is great for people with disabilities.

·     Raises awareness in relation to the usability of facilities and features and leads the development of best practice.

·     Better value for money where higher quality built environment features can be achieved for the same cost.

4.3.2   The disadvantages of this option include:

·     Some low level additional costs to achieve higher quality built environment outcomes, with some of this cost offset by savings in re-work.

 

 

5.   Context/Background

Outline

5.1       The Barrier Free New Zealand Trust (BFNZT), and the Earthquake Disability Leadership Group (EDLG) are leading the development and launch of an Accessibility Charter for Canterbury.

5.2       The charter is a high level document with the goal to promote best practice accessibility from design through to construction. The aim is for the charter to be endorsed and adopted across multiple organisations, including the Council. The initial focus of the charter is the built environment, with acknowledgement that it is often the precondition for participation and inclusion in the community.

5.3       The charter has two key outcomes: Christchurch (and Canterbury) will become a genuinely accessible, useable and liveable city for all people; and Christchurch will be a model for New Zealand in terms of integrating best practice accessibility standards. 

5.4       The regeneration of Christchurch city creates an opportunity to achieve outcomes at a standard that exceeds typical levels of accessibility that exist elsewhere in the built environment.  Accessibility provisions that are not meeting legislative minimums could be better controlled and where appropriate provided at a ‘best practice level’, rather than achieving minimum compliance.

5.5       BFNZT and EDLG have collaborated with Christchurch City Council and other lead agencies in Canterbury, in an effort to successfully create and implement an Accessibility Charter for the rebuild and regeneration of Canterbury.

5.6       The Accessibility Charter includes four guiding principles:

·    Leadership

·    Education

·    Technical knowledge

·    Health and Wellbeing

 

Work in progress

5.7       At an Executive Leadership Team (ELT) meeting on 15 June 2016, ELT supported in principle the Accessibility Charter, and supported the establishment of a staff working group to progress the charter project at the Council.

5.8       An across-unit staff working group was established and worked together to identify collaborative solutions for accessibility issues. The key purpose of the working group was to explore options for giving effect to the charter in the Council and embedding best practice in processes and procedures to improve accessibility across the city.

 

5.9       The group included the following representation:

·    Property, Housing Services

·    Transport

·    Community Support, Governance, and Partnerships

·    Urban design

·    Facilities and Structures

·    Resource consents

·    Building consenting

·    Heritage 

·    Parks

 

5.10    The working group presented a report to the ELT on 18 September outlining initiatives and opportunities that were possible under the charter.

5.11    The working group noted that the following improvements could be made by the Council:

·    Ensuring its own facilities are genuinely accessible and useable by including independent or expert access audits as ‘business as usual’. 

·    Undertake ‘snapshot audits’ of some of the Council’s facilities. The audits would identify improvements that can be done quickly, and at low cost, to improve accessibility.

·    Incorporating agreed accessibility solutions and reporting processes throughout its building checks and new builds. 

·    Staff could identify good accessibility practice ideas for use by Council units, and create a practical booklet with staff checklists.

·    Guidelines for the Council’s units could be identified, and consistency adhered to across the organisation. Currently Council units adopt a range of approaches to meet accessibility challenges.

·    Identify a list of problems that arise due to lack of basic knowledge (not cost factors), and focus staff training on these in the first instance. There is a need to identify improvements that have the most impact with the least cost.

·    Staff and contractor education appropriate to the level of influence over outcomes.

 

5.12    Recommendations were made by staff to establish the necessary operational aspects required to implement the charter.

5.13    On 18 September the Executive Leadership Team:

·    Endorsed the adoption of the Accessibility Charter by the Christchurch City Council.

·    Approved the establishment of a multi-unit Council staff steering group to implement and monitor charter principles and ensure a collaborative best practice approach to accessibility issues. The steering group is to explore options for the following:

            a)  Training of all staff in awareness of disability issues (new staff via Induction workshop on Diversity).

            b)  Specific training for staff whose roles encompass disability issues (and on-going                   training as necessary).

·    That approval is given to formulate a business case for the development of a new staff position: Accessibility Technical Advisor.  The business case will:

            a)  Provide options for the optimum placement of this position, e.g. within an      external organisation but resourced by CCC.

            b)   Provide employment options, i.e. duration/fixed-term/secondment).

·    Noted that the charter will be publicly launched by the Minister for Disability Issues at 3pm on Friday 3 November (tentative); including key signatory organisations.

·    Requested a briefing to Councillors prior to a report going directly to Council seeking endorsement of the Charter and noting the work in progress.  Additionally, the Chair of the Social and Community Development Committee is to be advised of this process which is required to meet the timeframes for the launch.

 

5.14    Staff communicated with the Chair of the Social and Community Development Committee and on 3 October briefed the Council as instructed.

 


 

6.   Option 1 - Support Councils signing of the Accessibility Charter Canterbury and implementing associated initiatives (preferred)

Option Description

6.1       Endorse the Council signing of the Accessibility Charter Canterbury and implementation of operational aspects to support the vision of the charter and its principles.

Significance

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

6.3       Engagement for this level of significance is not required. Communication with members of the community will occur through the Councils Communications Team.

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       No specific community feedback was sought for this initiative however various feedback received over recent years has indicated concern by members of the public about built environment features. This initiative will result in an improvement in the level of amenity for all users and specifically people with disabilities.

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 – Staff attending steering group to implement the Charter will be managed within existing operating budgets.

6.8       Maintenance / Ongoing Costs – Minor increase in costs due to some additional staff time required to achieve higher quality outcomes.

6.9       Funding source – Operational aspects managed within existing Opex budgets and project budgets for Capex projects. Costs associated with the development of a staff position and training will be considered during formulation of the business case and the steering group’s work exploring options for training.

Legal Implications

6.10    This initiative reduces potential legal liability by ensuring that legislative obligations are met where law requires certain features for people with disabilities and in situations of discrimination.

Risks and Mitigations   

6.11    Risks will be managed during implementation.

Implementation

6.12    Implementation dependencies - Collaboration across multiple Council teams.

6.13    Implementation timeframe – Immediate start and progressive implementation of initiatives. Substantially implemented within 12 months.

 

 

Option Summary - Advantages and Disadvantages

6.14    The advantages of this option include:

·   Built environment features with a higher level of functionality for all users.

·   Greater participation in activities by all citizens of Christchurch and visitors.

·   Builds a reputation as a city that is great for people with disabilities.

·   Raises awareness in relation to the usability of facilities and features and leads the development of best practice.

·   Better value for money where higher quality built environment features can be achieved for the same cost.

 

6.15    The disadvantages of this option include:

·   Some low level additional costs to achieve higher quality built environment outcomes, with some of this cost offset by savings in re-work.

 

7.   Option 2 – Do nothing

Option Description

7.1       Elect to remain current state.

Significance

7.2       The level of significance of this option is low.

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       No specific community feedback was sought for this option however various feedback received over recent years has indicated concern by members of the public about built environment features. A choice not to take action to improve built environment features is likely to result in similar levels of feedback from the community to that currently experienced. 

Alignment with Council Plans and Policies

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

Financial Implications

7.7       Cost of Implementation - Nil

7.8       Maintenance / Ongoing Costs – Some unknown re-work costs are likely to result from a decision not to implement an improvement programme.

7.9       Funding source – not applicable.

Legal Implications

7.10    As per current situation, no change. No ability to take advantage of an opportunity to limit legal risk.

Risks and Mitigations    

7.11    Not applicable.

Implementation

7.12    Not applicable

Option Summary - Advantages and Disadvantages

7.13    The advantages of this option include:

·   Avoid any additional costs.

7.14    The disadvantages of this option include:

·   Lost opportunity to improve current state and to ensure Christchurch becomes a truly accessible city for all people.

·   No improvement to the level of access and amenity for Christchurch citizens and visitors. 

·   Likely to be unpopular if some action is not taken to improve access in the built environment.

·   Other key Canterbury organisations are likely to follow Christchurch City Council’s lead so may not adopt the charter.

·   Not as easy to lead the development and implementation of best practice accessibility by creating demand for it and influencing its uptake by others.

7.15    Implementation dependencies – Not applicable.

7.16    Implementation timeframe – Not applicable.

 

 

Attachments

No.

Title

Page

a

Accessibility Charter (Draft Sept 2017)

337

 

 

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

Aaron Haymes - Manager Operations (Transport)

Approved By

David Adamson - General Manager City Services

  


Council

02 November 2017

 

PDF Creator


Council

02 November 2017

 

 

28.    Placement of the Lions Transitional Facility at MacFarlane Park, Shirley, Christchurch.

Reference:

17/1179349

Contact:

Matt McLintock

matthew.mclintock@ccc.govt.nz

941 6231

 

 

1.   Purpose and Origin of Report

Purpose of Report

1.1       The purpose of this report is to request Council to provide partial funding from the Facilities Rebuild Programme Contingency Fund, to complete the placement of the transitional building gifted by Lions International onto MacFarlane Park, Shirley, Christchurch, to serve as a local community centre.

Origin of Report

1.2       This report is staff generated.

2.   Significance

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

2.1.1   The level of significance was determined by the overall low impact on the Council of endorsing and giving effect to the Agreement for Funding.

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

 

3.   Staff Recommendations 

That the Council:

1.         Approve funding from the Facilities Rebuild Programme Contingency Fund to enable the placement of the gifted Lions Transitional Facility on MacFarlane Park, Shirley, Christchurch.

 

4.   Key Points

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

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

·     Level of Service: 4.1.27 Community development projects are provided, supported and promoted .

4.2       The following feasible options have been considered:

·     Option 1 – To fund from the Facilities Rebuild Programme Contingency Fund (preferred option)

·     Option 2 – To fund through the Long Term Plan

·     Option 3 – Not to fund.

4.3       Option Summary - Advantages and Disadvantages (Preferred Option)

4.3.1   The advantages of this option include:

·    The placement of the Transitional Facility on to MacFarlane Park takes advantage of the already committed, generous Lions Clubs Fund International contribution towards enabling the facility to serve a “second” life for another community after its original placement in St Albans to ameliorate the effect on that community of the demolition of the St Albans Community Centre as a result of Earthquake damage.

·    The relocation of the Transitional Facility to MacFarlane Park will benefit both St Albans and Shirley.  Once relocated it will provide a community hub for the MacFarlane Park area as a vital and essential focal point for the community and the removal from its current site will enable rebuild of St Albans Community Centre to start.

·    The original forecast for the direct costs associated with the relocation and placement of the building was $100,000. This was successfully applied for and funded through the Annual Plan process. Since then, regulatory and compliance costs such as the need for accessible car parking, and more detailed planning has revealed a shortfall of $125,000.

 

·    The contribution of the total cost from Lions International and the community is $272,000 as set out below. This equates to 60% of the total project costs.

 

 The contribution from Lions International and the community:

 

 

$

New build cost of 120m2 at $1800m2

216,000

Decks and ramps of 30 m2 and 10 m2 respectively at $500m2

20,000

Relocation Transfer of building

15,000

Foundations (soil tested)

18,000

Lions paying 50% towards reinstating of the decks

3,000

Total Cost of Lions International Contribution

$272,000

(Provided by Dave Greenslade, CCC Senior Architectural Designer)

 

 

 

 

·    The Shirley Community Trust, supported by local community groups, has offered to assist with landscaping and community working days to enhance the facility and the surrounding area.

·    The Papanui Innes Community Board have offered to assist with the fit-out (tables, chairs, kitchen items, etc. from their Discretionary Response Fund to the amount of $3,000.

4.3.2   The disadvantages of this option include:

·     Refer to paragraph 6.20.

 

 

5.   Context/Background

Background

5.1       The Lions transitional building which is currently located at 1047 Colombo St, St Albans, Christchurch, has filled an important post-earthquake need for the St Albans community by serving as a temporary community centre. The building needs to be removed so the construction of the new facility can begin. Lions International has offered to gift the building and pay for its relocation to MacFarlane Park as a gesture of goodwill to the citizens of Christchurch. Macfarlane Park provides an opportunity for the facility to continue to fill this post-earthquake need in one of the long identified community areas in our city that is desperately in need of further support through community development and capacity building.

Current small ex Plunket rooms at MacFarlane Park used as a community drop in.

                        

Lions Building – St Albans temporary community centre 1047 Colombo Street

Evidence of need

5.2       The area bordered by Hills, Shirley, Quinns and Briggs Roads, encompassing MacFarlane Park, includes a high density state housing area. It consists of approximately 2,000 homes that house approximately 7,000 people from approximately 24 ethnic groups live in the area (Shirley Community Trust Wellbeing Survey 2013/14). There are several ‘Decile 4’ schools located in the district and high youth unemployment and low socio-economic features make up the area.

5.3       The community around MacFarlane Park has one of the highest social deprivation scores in Christchurch. Shirley East and Shirley West have a social deprivation score of 8. The area immediately around MacFarlane Park has a social deprivation score of 9-10.

5.4       Over the last two decades initiatives to provide community-based social and physical infrastructure within the MacFarlane Park environs to serve the community and to provide renewal and community focus to the area have been identified by Council and the community.

These initiatives have included:

·    Community Needs Assessment of Shirley; MacGibbon and Morton 2001

·    Acheson Avenue Project Consultation – Urban Renewal 2006

·    Review of Acheson Avenue Renewal Project; Wylie 2006

·    Shirley/MacFarlane Park Community Concept Plan; Di Lucas 2008

·    And, latterly, the Housing New Zealand/Christchurch City Council Master Planning group working on the renewal of Shirley.

5.5       The overwhelming need identified from each process was for an accessible community facility that can be used by the numerous groups and individuals in the area in a location that services the Park, is near to the shops and within walking distance for the community bordering MacFarlane Park. These factors demonstrate that the MacFarlane Park area of Shirley is the area most in need of additional infrastructure support for the development of strong and resilient community building. Each initiative has identified the need for an accessible community facility.

5.6       It is intended that the Shirley Community Trust will manage the Centre and funding to activate the centre when it is completed has been provided to the Trust from the Community Resilience Partnership Fund.

6.   Option 1 - To fund from the Facilities Rebuild Programme Contingency Fund (preferred)

Option Description

6.1       That funds to the amount of $125,000 from the Facilities Rebuild Programme Contingency Fund be made available for the purpose of the relocation and placement of the Lions Transitional Facility on to MacFarlane Park.

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 working with relevant stakeholders to implement the initiative.

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       Since the earthquakes the Shirley Community Trust have indicated to the Community Board that they are keen for a new community facility to be made available for use in the MacFarlane Park area of Shirley.

6.6       For the past four years Council staff, the Papanui-Innes Community Board and the Shirley Community Trust have been seeking a solution to the lack of a community facility in the Shirley area specifically within the MacFarlane Park/Acheson Avenue area.

6.7       The importance of the relocation of the Lions Transitional Facility to the MacFarlane Park area will:

·     Be a physical testament to the ongoing commitment of Lions International to provide for areas of need within Christchurch post-earthquake. The placing of the facility within the environs of MacFarlane Park underlines the Lions International’s partnership with Council to be at the forefront of developing a tangible feeling of place and focus for a community.

·     Deliver an important message to the residents and local community of Shirley that their needs for facilities are not forgotten and are viewed as important by local government and that their requirements, needs and community aspirations are as equitable as their neighbouring suburbs of St Albans and Aranui.

·     Provide a permanent example of how a triumvirate of an international service organisation, local government and a respected community organisation can partner and work together to provide a future, focal point, activated facility and meeting place for the community.

6.8       This is a community-led initiative. It has been developed and will be implemented by several community-based organisations working together alongside local residents. This initiative utilises the resources, skills, knowledge and infrastructure of the local community.

6.9       Community involvement in this process is ongoing and committed to the development of this opportunity.

6.10    The placement and activation of the building on MacFarlane Park will strengthen connections between neighbours, families and Whanau in Shirley while providing the residents of Shirley with increased access to physical, social and wellbeing activities.

Alignment with Council Plans and Policies

6.11    This option is consistent with the Council’s Plans and Policies (refer the Proposed Strategic Framework, Community Outcomes, Strong Communities)

Financial Implications

6.12    Cost of Implementation - $240,000 with $125,000 sought.

6.13    Maintenance/Ongoing Costs:

·    Community Group will pay for cleaning and electricity (cost neutral from rental income from hireage)

·    Building Warrant of Fitness (BWOF) – CCC maintenance costs of $170 per annum

·    Fire Service Contract - $8,345

·    Miscellaneous Maintenance Costs

Grounds Maintenance          $1,914           

Maintenance Variable Rate    $407            

Maintenance Fixed Rate         $667

·    The CCC Consents Team are currently assessing our MacFarlane Park Community Building Project for Development Contributions. From recent experience we would expect the total contributions to be around $13,000.00.

6.14    Funding source - Facilities Rebuild Programme Contingency Fund ($125,000).

Legal Implications

6.15    Resource consent and legislative requirements for the relocation of the building being managed by Council.

Risks and Mitigations   

6.16    Risk of a funding shortfall caused by the Council not funding this initiative would result in loss of momentum, and the probable disestablishment of the initiative and/or the possible interference to the planned St Albans Community Centre rebuild and/or the additional costs of shifting the Transitional building twice, firstly into storage and then on to MacFarlane Park at a later date.

6.16.1    Treatment: Council funding to be considered from the Facilities Rebuild Programme Contingency Fund.

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

Implementation

6.17    Implementation dependencies - The Council funding from the Facilities Rebuild Programme Contingency Fund.

6.18    Implementation timeframe – The Transitional Facility to be moved and established on MacFarlane Park by March 2018

Option Summary - Advantages and Disadvantages

6.19    The advantages of this option include:

·   Establishes and provides a Community Centre which sits at the heart of the MacFarlane Park, within high density of state housing, serving a low decile and high social deprivation area.

6.20    The disadvantages of this option include:

·   Perceived disadvantages to this option are:

·     The cost would be $125,000 out of the Contingency Fund of $6.2M (1.8% of the total fund).

·     The perceived risk of this project being unable to access support from this fund would mean that the project is undeliverable.

·     Risk of the Contingency Fund appearing to be a discretionary fund for any project not already in the programme.

7.   Option 2 – To fund through the 2018-2028 Long Term Plan

Option Description

7.1       That funds to the amount of $125,000 be made available through the 2018-2028 Long Term Plan for the purpose of the relocation and placement of the Lions Transitional Facility on to MacFarlane Park.

       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 working with relevant stakeholders to implement the initiative.

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       Community views and preferences are specifically affected by this option due to the resultant ongoing delay this funding option would achieve as documented in 6.5 to 6.10 of this report.

Alignment with Council Plans and Policies

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

Financial Implications

7.7       Cost of Implementation - $240,000 with $125,000 sought.

7.8       Maintenance / Ongoing Costs - Nil

7.9       Funding source - 2018-2028 Long Term Plan

Legal Implications

7.10    Resource consent and legislative requirements for the relocation of the building being managed by Council.

Risks and Mitigations    

7.11    Delay caused by Long Term Plan as funding source will negatively impact the project momentum, aspirations of community partners and the expectations of a wide range of stakeholders who have been actively engaged in this project over an extended period. Lions International may remove their offer of support and financial assistance and additional costs to Council will be incurred with the need to move the building to make way for the new St Albans Community Centre and store it until funding becomes available.

7.11.1 Council fund the building relocation through the Facilities Rebuild Programme Contingency Fund.

7.11.2 Residual risk rating: the rating of the risk is Medium

Implementation

7.12    Implementation dependencies  - Funding through the Long Term Plan

7.13    Implementation timeframe – Dependant on the activation of funding from the Long term Plan

Option Summary - Advantages and Disadvantages

7.14    The advantages of this option include:

·   Amount of funding requested remaining available in the Facilities Rebuild Programme Contingency Fund

7.15    The disadvantages of this option include:

·   Loss of momentum to establish a Community Centre in an area of very high need

·   Potential loss of support, good will and future financial contribution from Lions International

·   Additional costs of relocation and storage of building

·   Delay in establishment of St Albans Community Centre

8.   Option 3 - Not to Fund.

Option Description

8.1       The Council does not agree to approve funding from the Facilities Rebuild Programme Contingency Fund to place the Lions Transitional Facility on MacFarlane Park, Shirley, Christchurch.

The Council does not agree to approve funding from the Long Term Plan 2018-2028 to place the Lions Transitional Facility on MacFarlane Park, Shirley, Christchurch.

Significance

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

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       Recent expressions of community views, from neighbours, Landlords, local community organisations and the wider community have found widespread support for the placement of the lions Transitional Facility on to MacFarlane Park, Shirley, Christchurch. Community views are documented in 6.5 to 6.10 of this report.

Alignment with Council Plans and Policies

8.6       This option is inconsistent with Council’s Plans and Policies such as the Significance and Engagement Policy and the Community Facilities Long Term Plan 2015-2025.

8.6.1   Inconsistency – In respect of the Community Facilities Long Term Plan 2015-2025 which seeks to increase community participation by providing facilities that enable a range of social, educational, cultural and recreational activities and services to happen that encourages community involvement.

8.6.2   Inconsistency – In respect of the Significance and Engagement Policy. Decision-makers are well informed, aware of and take into account the community’s views.    

Financial Implications

8.7       Cost of Implementation -Nil

8.8       Maintenance / Ongoing Costs – Not Applicable

8.9       Funding source – Not Applicable

Legal Implications

8.10    None

Risks and Mitigations   

8.11    Risk of not carrying out the relocation caused by non-funding from Council will negatively impact Council’s relationship with our community partners of Lions International, the Shirley Community Trust, Shirley Rugby League, the Macfarlane Park Community Centre Working Party, local businesses and the local community who have been actively involved in this project over the last eighteen months.

8.11.1    Treatment: Macfarlane Park Working Party

8.11.2    Residual risk rating: the rating of the risk is high.

Implementation

8.12    Implementation dependencies  - Not Applicable

8.13    Implementation timeframe – Not Applicable

Option Summary - Advantages and Disadvantages

8.14    The advantages of this option include:

·   No requirement for the Council to contribute funding for the placement of the Lions Transitional building to MacFarlane Park.

8.15    The disadvantages of this option include:

·   Lost opportunity to provide a community centre at low cost to Council in a low decile area experiencing high social deprivation.

·   Loss of goodwill, reputation, future funding and support from Lions International for this and other future community projects

·   Loss of opportunity to build on the longstanding historical Council relationship with the local community and local community organisations and the Lions Clubs International to place the Lions Transitional building to MacFarlane Park.

·   Impact on Council’s relationships with community partners.

·   Delay and additional cost to establish the St Albans Community Centre.

 

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

Authors

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

Trevor Cattermole - Community Development Advisor

Approved By

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

Lester Wolfreys - Head of Community Support, Governance and Partnerships

Darren Moses - Manager Capital Delivery Community

Michael Down - Finance Business Partner

Mary Richardson - General Manager Citizen and Community

  


Council

02 November 2017

 

 

29.    Hearings Panel report to the Council on the Proposed Lease to Canterbury Car Club Incorporated at Ruapuna Park

Reference:

17/1050942

Contact:

Elizabeth Hovell

elizabeth.hovell@ccc.govt.nz

941-8637

 

 

1.   Purpose of Report

1.1       The purpose of this report is to present to the Council the Hearings Panel recommendations following the consultation and hearings process on the Proposed Lease to Canterbury Car Club incorporated at Ruapuna Park. The Hearings Panel Report and associated documentation is attached.

1.2       The Hearings Panel has no decision-making powers but, in accordance with its delegation, has considered the written and oral submission received on the proposal and is now making recommendations to the Council.  The Council can then accept or reject those recommendations as it sees fit bearing in mind that the Local Government Act 2002 s.82 requires that “the views presented to the local authority should be received by the local authority with an open mind and should be given by the local authority, in making a decision, due consideration.”

1.3       The Council, as the final decision-maker should put itself in as good as a position as the Hearings Panel having heard and read all the submissions on the proposal.  This report discusses the oral and written submission that were presented at the hearing as well as the Hearings Panel considerations and deliberations. 

 

2.   Hearings Panel Recommendations

That the Council:

1.         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.         Acknowledge that the Hearings Panel has considered the objection and:

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.         Grant 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.

e.         That officers review the documentation in clause 15.2 in the lease document on an annual basis in conjunction with the requirements of the District Plan.

 

 

3.   Background

3.1       The parcel of land contained in Lot 1 DP 323836 (CFR96202) where the raceway is situated, is an area of approximately 39.9751 hectares and is classified as Recreation Reserve under the Reserves Act 1977, as shown in Lease Plan RPS856-42.  

3.2       Part of the land is occupied partially occupied by a racetrack, equipment storage shed, etc previously held under a lease to the Car Club which expired 31 December 2016.  Discussions with the Car Club began early 2016 in regards to the lease expiring but discussions only progressed enough for notification after the lease had expired. 

3.3       The Halswell-Hornby-Riccarton Community Board considered a staff report on 14 March 2017 which outlined the background to the proposed lease and sought approval of a lease to the Car club subject to public notification of the proposal. 

3.4       The Council at its meeting on 13 April 2017 resolved to:

Council Resolved CNCL/2017/00096

3.4.1   That it publically 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.

3.4.2   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 Council for a decision

3.4.3   In the event that there are no unresolved objections, then:

(a)       In its capacity of holding the Minister on 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)       Grant 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.   Consultation Process and Submissions

4.1       The process to lease a reserve requires the public notification of the intended lease in accordance with Section 119(1)(b) of the Act.  This requires notification once in a newspapers circulated in the area in which the reserve or proposed reserve is situated and in such other newspapers (if any) the administrating body decides. 

4.2       A notice was published in the Christchurch Press on 1 June 2017 with the period of submissions closing 7 July 2017.

4.3       One submission was received by the closing date, in opposition to the proposal to grant the lease.  The submitter ‘Quieter Please’ indicated they wished to be heard and appear before the Hearings Panel.

4.4       The written submission’s main concern centred on noise and in particular a requirement to reduce noise from Ruapuna Park as set out in the Christchurch City Council 2009 resolution to reduce noise through the lease agreement. 

5.   The Hearing

 

5.1       The Hearings Panel consisting of Councillors’ Mike Davidson, David East and Sara Templeton (Chair) convened on Monday 18 September 2017 to consider and deliberate on the submission received in relation to the proposed lease.  Councillor East declared a conflict of interest and did not take part in the hearing of submissions, considerations or deliberations. 

5.2       Prior to hearing the oral submission Council officers presented a brief overview of the Hearing Panel report on the proposed lease.   Officers addressed the noise issues raised in the submission and noted that non-complying vehicle can be removed from the race track and made to comply before they will be allowed back on the track.  It was also noted that due to technology advances that going forward it is expected that noise will reduce.

5.3       Council officers discussed with the Hearing Panel that the new rules under the District Plan have only been operative since last year and there has not be a full season under the new rules.  Staff also noted that there is a joint “noise liaison committee” that meets every 2-3 month.  The committee membership is made up of the following: two local residents, a member of Quieter Please, an independent chairperson, a representative from the Council and three members from motor sport.

5.4       Quieter Please believes that the staff recommendation is flawed because it fails to include the following:

(a) The catalyst for such a permissive regime the 1995 City Plan.

 

(b) The 2009 Resolution which included the promise to engage with Speedway and the Car Club to vary their current leases so as to introduce measures to control noise.

 

(c) To point out the limitations of PC52 because of existing use rights.

 

(d) The proposed lease agreement prepared with an incorrect section of the Reserves Act 1977 Section 54 (1)(d) and may therefore be ultra vires the Reserves Act and invalid.

5.5       Quieter Please feels that the noise rules for the race track are convoluted and liberal.  It is not possible until the end of the year to determine if the track has been non-complying by exceeding the allowable noise limits of 90 dba Max every day of the year and for 200 of those days 95 dba Max.   It was noted that the race track cannot operate on public holidays and that there is also ‘quiet Mondays’ after every weekend used.  There is a calendar that diarises what events are on what days and therefore the track will be used. 

5.6       Quieter please believes there are limits in relation to Plan Change 52.  The plan change was drafted in response to the noise management issues that arose from the operation of the Ruapuna Motor Sport Park.  There were 44 submissions with 42 opposed to the drafted Plan Change.  The Section 32 assessment of Plan Change 52 notes that existing use rights were critically important on the preparation of the Plan Change and states that Section 10 of the RMA means that the Plan Change cannot reduce activity level at Ruapuna.

5.7       Consequently the existing use rights resulted in Quieter Please feeling that Plan Change 52 caps the noise and activity level at Ruapuna and does not seek to reduce existing noise or activity levels rather maintain the same scale and intensity.  Quieter please feels that as a consequence the Council has not adequately addressed the unreasonable noise levels being experienced by the neighbouring properties to Ruapuna Park including the properties purchased by the Council in 2009. Council officers are comfortable that the resolution has been satisfied.

5.8       Quieter Please believe that the lease dated 23 April 1998 has been entered into in accordance with Section 54(1)(d)  of the Reserves Act and this is the incorrect section of the Act and therefore maybe ultra vires and invalid that lease.  They also believe that the new lease is also under the incorrect section of the Act.  The Hearings Panel clarified with Council officers on the validity of the lease under the Reserves Act section 54 (1) (d).  Staff considered that due to the commercial component of the lease this is the correct section of the Act.  

6.   Consideration and Deliberation of Submissions

6.1       The Hearings Panel considered and deliberated on the submission received on the proposal as well as information received from Council Officers during the hearing.  The key item that was addressed by the Hearings Panel focused on the noise issue raised by the submitter.    The Hearings Panel deemed that the objection not be upheld as the lease was not the correct vehicle for the noise level concerns and that this was sufficiently covered by the District Plan.  However the Hearings Panel felt it important to include a resolution recommending that Council Officers review the documentation in clause 15.2 in the lease document on an annual basis in conjunction with the District Plan requirements.

6.2       It is therefore the Hearings Panel recommendation to Council to grant the lease to Canterbury Car Club Incorporated over the part of Ruapuna Park where the raceway is situated.

 

Signatories

Author                        Elizabeth Hovell - Hearings Advisor

Approved By            Sara Templeton- Chair of Hearings Panel

 

 

 

Attachments

No.

Title

Page

a

Hearings Panel Report and associated reports, submission, public notices etc

353

 

 


Council

02 November 2017

 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


Council

02 November 2017

 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


Council

02 November 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


Council

02 November 2017

 

 

30.    Hearings Panel Report to the Council on the Proposed Land Transfer to Lyttelton Historical Museum Society

Reference:

17/1190994

Contact:

Liz Ryley

liz.ryley@ccc.govt.nz

941 8999

 

 

1.   Purpose of Report

1.1       The purpose of this report is to present to the Council the Hearings Panel recommendations following the consultation and hearings process on the proposed land transfer to Lyttelton Historical Museum Society.

1.2       The Hearings Panel has no decision-making powers but, in accordance with its delegation, has considered the written and oral submissions received on the proposal and is now making recommendations to the Council.  The Council can then accept or reject those recommendations as it sees fit bearing in mind that the Local Government Act 2002 section 82(e) requires that “the views presented to the local authority should be received by the local authority with an open mind and should be given by the local authority, in making a decision, due consideration.”

1.3       The Council, as the final decision-maker should put itself in as good a position as the Hearings Panel having heard and read all the submissions on the proposal.  This report discusses the oral and written submissions that were presented at the hearings, and the Hearings Panel considerations and deliberations. 

 

2.   Hearings Panel Recommendations

That the Council:

1.         Having received a request from the Lyttelton Historical Museum Society Incorporated to gift to it the property at 33-35 London Street, Lyttelton (“Property”); and

2.         Request constituting an unsolicited proposal that would provide the following unique benefits:

·        to the community by improving cultural offering that is not otherwise available; and

·        to the community by creating a unique tourism attraction; and

·        to the Council by supporting the Lyttelton Master Plan; and

3.         Having considered the public submissions received and/or heard by the Hearings Panel;

4.         Resolves to transfer the Property to the Lyttelton Historical Museum Society Incorporated by way of gift; and

5.         Requires that contemporaneously with the registration of the transfer of the Property to the Lyttelton Historical Museum Society Incorporated that there is registered against the Certificate of Title to the Property a first ranking Encumbrance Instrument in favour of the Council requiring that:

5.1       The Property only be used for the purposes of the Lyttelton Museum; and

5.2       If construction of the Lyttelton Museum Building on the Property is not completed within 5 years or if the Property does not continue to be used for Lyttelton Museum purposes at any time after the Lyttelton Museum Building is built, then the Property be (at the option of the Council) transferred back to the Council without any consideration or compensation being payable by the Council; and

6.         Delegates to the Property Consultancy Manager authority to negotiate and enter into such legal documentation with the Lyttelton Historical Museum Society Incorporated as the Property Consultancy Manager shall consider appropriate and expedient to give effect to this resolution.

 

3.   Background

3.1       The Lyttelton Historical Museum Society (LHMS), 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.

 

3.1.1   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.

            

3.1.2   The annual rent was $1.00 per annum.

 

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

 

3.2       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.  Refer to page 16 of Attachment A for a Business Case which expands on this, and other matters.

 

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

3.4       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.

 

3.5       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.

4.   Origin

4.1       The Council at its meeting on 13 April 2017 resolved:

That the Council:

1.    Supports, in principle, a proposal to gift the property at 33 -35 London Street Lyttelton to the Lyttelton Historical 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 -35 London Street by way of gift to the Lyttelton Historical 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 Historical Museum Society, or not.

5.   Proposal

5.1       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.

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

 

5.2.1      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.

 

5.2.2      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.

 

5.2.3      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.

 

5.2.4      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.

 

5.2.5      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.

 

5.2.6      The LHMS 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: $5,400,000

 

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

5.4       It is proposed that once the Museum is operational the LHMS anticipates employing a small number of staff and engaging volunteers to assist with the day to day running of the Museum.

5.5       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.

5.6       It is proposed that an encumbrance be entered into with the LHMS and subsequently registered on the title, reflecting that in the unlikely event of this happening that the land and any building would revert to Council ownership.

Council supported this proposal in principle, as per the above resolution, pending the outcome of a public consultation process in accordance with section 138 of the Local Government Act 2002.

6.   Consultation Process and Submissions

6.1       The consultation period closed on Friday 30 June 2017.  A total of 75 submissions were received.  Overall 70 submitters were in support of the proposal, two were in support but had some concerns, and three did not support the proposal. Refer to page 29 of Attachment A for a volume of submissions received from submitters who wished to be heard in person, and page 33 of Attachment A for a volume of submissions received from submitters who no longer wished to be heard in person, who did not wish to be heard, and late submissions.

 

6.2       The key points raised from written submissions that agreed with the proposal were that:

·          Gifting the property to the Lyttelton Historical Museum Society is a total win/win.

·          This will be great for the town and the wider Christchurch area.

·          This will give the Museum a central location with a certain future for the decades to come.

·          The site provides benefit to both the Museum, the library next door for shared resources, and other businesses in close proximity to it.

·          The Museum will attract a lot of visitors.

·          It is in keeping with historical Lyttelton.

·          It is great to have the Antarctic items back in Lyttelton.

·          This is another step towards the town’s earthquake recovery.

·          This will be an asset for Lyttelton.

·          Gifting the land would give certainty to enable fundraising, and the site is visible and accessible.

·          The Museum will be an added attraction for cruise ship visitors and tourists.

·          This will be a place of community significance as a thoroughfare and market, and will present Lyttelton’s families and children with a sense of place and heritage.

·          This project will complement the work being completed to improve access to the port as part of the waterfront development.

 

The key points raised from written submissions that did not agree with the proposal were that:

 

·          The proposed location will add to parking problems in the area.

·          The proposal has the potential to perpetuate colonial narratives, i.e. gloss over the history of the immediate area and thereby be a liability to the township.  There needs to be close consultation with Te Rūnanga o Ngāti wheke.

·          The proposed Museum would be better located in the new marina development.

 

6.3       The Lyttelton Historical Museum Society considered a number of site locations, of which the marina development was one.  This location was however discounted for various reasons.  LHMS did have a number of discussions with the Lyttelton Port Company (LPC) about this location, and the LPC were desirous to have the Museum as an anchor tenant as part of a commercial development that is being proposed.

 

6.4       Concerns in regards to the location arose from museum professionals and curators in regards to proximity to the sea and protection of the collection in terms of interior environmental controls.

 

6.5       Sea-level rise was a concern and previously tidal waves have swamped over the dry dock gates, further raising concerns in regards to protection of the collection.

 

6.6       However, the most telling issue was that the LPC envisioned that the land upon which the Museum could be constructed would not become available for a period of 10-15 years, perhaps longer.

 

6.7       The LHMS preferred a more central location due to having a higher profile, and to be more readily accessible to members of the community, and visitors alike.

 

6.8       Should the proposal proceed then the LHMS will require a resource consent, which will address the car-parking matters.

7.   The Hearing

7.1       The Hearings Panel consisted of Deputy Mayor Andrew Turner (Chairperson), Community Member Alexandra Davids and Community Member Linda Stewart.

7.2       The Hearings Panel convened on Thursday 21 September 2017 to consider and deliberate on all submissions received on the proposal.

7.3       The Hearings Panel heard from three submitters, Reuben Romany, Ruth Dyson and the Lyttelton Historical Museum Society (Thérèse Angelo and Lizzie Meek) who reiterated points made in their written submissions.

7.4       The submitters responded to questions of clarification from the Hearings Panel, summarised as follows:

·          The next steps for the process if the Council makes a decision to transfer the land will include commencing design and ground works, communicating with major funders, and providing site plans to architects.

·          It is proposed that the building will be completed on the site in three years.

·          A strategic plan for the future of the Museum was completed three years ago and elements of that plan will be used.

·          The Museum reaches a wide range of organisations and people, such as ChristchurchNZ, the local school, Te Rūnanga o Ngāti wheke and the Antarctic office trail, as well as linking Department of Conservation sites around the harbour.

·          The Museum has the potential to work with for example the steam tug, or as an anchor for a lot of other activities.

8.   Consideration and Deliberation of Submissions

8.1       At the conclusion of oral submissions being heard, a Council officer provided the Hearings Panel with further information in relation to the work required to achieve the proposed land transfer and the timeframe associated with that.

8.2       The Hearings Panel supported the option to transfer the property for the reasons noted below:

·          The site is the most appropriate from the information supplied.

·          This will bring casual visitors to the Museum.

·          It is of note that should this project go ahead it means that the first new commercial building to be constructed on the main part of London Street since the earthquakes will be a community owned building.

·          The new building for the museum would form part of the civic end of town, alongside the newly repaired library and service centre, and Albion Square.

·          It provides the opportunity for the Museum to be open in three years as opposed to the waterfront location in the marina development that is not available now, nor Council controlled land.

8.3       Following consideration and deliberation of submissions, the Hearings Panel unanimously agreed to recommend to Council to transfer the property to the Lyttelton Historical Museum Society to be used for the purposes of the Lyttelton Museum.

 

Signatories

Author                        Liz Ryley - Hearings Advisor

Approved By            Deputy Mayor Andrew Turner - Chair of Hearings Panel

 

 

 

Attachments

No.

Title

Page

a

Hearings Panel Agenda - Lyttelton Historical Museum Society

427

 

 


Council

02 November 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


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

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

02 November 2017

 

 

31.    Online Voting Trial - 2019 Triennial Election

Reference:

17/1227287

Contact:

Jo Daly

jo.daly@ccc.govt.nz

941 8581

 

 

1.   Purpose of Report

1.1       The purpose of this report is for the Council to be informed of work underway nationally on a trial of online voting for the 2019 local authority elections as background to participating in the trial.

 

2.   Staff Recommendations

That the Council:

1.         Receive the information in the report

2.         Confirm that the Council will not participate in a trial of online voting for a subset of voters in the 2019 Triennial Election.

 

 

3.   Key Points

3.1       Local Government New Zealand (LGNZ) and the Society of Local Government Managers (SOLGM) are working together, supported by interested Councils, on a project to modernise voting in local government elections.  This project includes working towards a trial of online voting for the 2019 local authority elections, enabling participating local authorities to offer a trial to a subset(s) of voters.

3.2       The project involves LGNZ, SOLGM and councils working together with other agencies on changes required to local electoral regulations to enable online voting, along with public communication and engagement, procurement for online voting systems, identification of a common provider and the resulting systems and security requirements. 

3.3       The trial of online voting will be funded by participating councils, with LGNZ and SOLGM committing resource.  Work on the project has commenced, the project timeline is working towards confirmation of participant councils by March 2018 and Cabinet approval of changes to regulations mid 2018.

3.4       Requirements and expectations for trial councils have been communicated and these include; support from all agencies running elections in the area, community support and commitment to the national project with resources and staff time.

3.5       The cost of participating in the trial is unknown at this time.  Estimates indicate, depending upon the scale of the trial, costs for this Council for a subset of voters could be in excess of $250,000.  Additional resource would be required in staff time, support and community engagement.  No funds have been allocated in the Annual Plan or Long Term Plan for this work or participation in a trial.

3.6       LGNZ and SOLGM have indicated the intention is that if the trial of online voting for 2019 takes place and is successful it will be available to all councils for use in the 2022 triennial local government elections.

3.7       The Council has been informally advised of the work of LGNZ and SOLGM, and has given an initial indication of support for the progression of online voting, however not to be involved in the trial of a subset of voters for the 2019 local authority elections.

 

 

Attachments

There are no attachments to this report.

 

Signatories

Author

Jo Daly - Council Secretary

Approved By

Lester Wolfreys - Head of Community Support, Governance and Partnerships

Mary Richardson - General Manager Citizen and Community

   

 


Council

02 November 2017

 

 

32.  Resolution to Exclude the Public

Section 48, Local Government Official Information and Meetings Act 1987.

 

I move that the public be excluded from the following parts of the proceedings of this meeting, namely items listed overleaf.

 

Reason for passing this resolution: good reason to withhold exists under section 7.

Specific grounds under section 48(1) for the passing of this resolution: Section 48(1)(a)

 

Note

 

Section 48(4) of the Local Government Official Information and Meetings Act 1987 provides as follows:

 

“(4)     Every resolution to exclude the public shall be put at a time when the meeting is open to the public, and the text of that resolution (or copies thereof):

 

             (a)       Shall be available to any member of the public who is present; and

             (b)       Shall form part of the minutes of the local authority.”

 

This resolution is made in reliance on Section 48(1)(a) of the Local Government Official Information and Meetings Act 1987 and the particular interest or interests protected by Section 6 or Section 7 of that Act which would be prejudiced by the holding of the whole or relevant part of the proceedings of the meeting in public are as follows:


Council

02 November 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

33

Public Excluded Council Minutes - 28 September 2017

 

 

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

 

34

Public Excluded Council Minutes - 5 October 2017

 

 

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

 

35

Public Excluded Council Minutes - 10 October 2017

 

 

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

 

36

Public Excluded Social, Community Development and Housing Committee Minutes - 4 October 2017

 

 

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

 

37

Development Christchurch Ltd - Progress Report for August/September 2017

s7(2)(b)(ii)

Prejudice Commercial Position

To allow DCL to protect its commercial position in negotiations for contracts on particular projects.

After resolutions are made, with redactions as necessary

38

Christchurch City Holdings Ltd - Draft Letter of Expectations 2018/19

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.

When the Statement of Intent, 2018/19 is accepted and published

39

Public Excluded Finance and Performance Committee Minutes - 4 October 2017

 

 

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

 

40

Public Excluded Audit and Risk Management Committee Minutes - 3 October 2017

 

 

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

 

41

Christchurch City Holdings Ltd - Appointment of new director to City Care Ltd

s7(2)(a)

Protection of Privacy of Natural Persons

To protect the privacy of the candidate until such time that the appointment is completed so as to avoid any adverse consequences to her reputation should the appointment is not approved by the Council.

After City Care Ltd's AGM or other date for release notified by CCHL.

42

Lichfield Parking Fees

s7(2)(h)

Commercial Activities

Report contains commercially sensitive information.

 After agreed public release by the Council

43

Review of Process

s7(2)(i)

Conduct Negotiations

Enable Council to work with FENZ to ensure the release of this report  does not prejudice or disadvantage the Port Hills Fires 2017 Operational Review sponsored by the New Zealand Fire Service and National Rural Fire Authority and undertaken by an appointed review team

3 November 2017

Release of Indepedent Review