Christchurch City Council

Agenda

 

 

Notice of Meeting:

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

 

Date:                                     Thursday 23 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

 

 

16 November 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

23 November 2017

 

 

 


Council

23 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 - 2 November 2017....................................................................................... 7

6.       Council Minutes - 9 November 2017..................................................................................... 23

Finance and Performance Committee

7.       Annual Report for the year ended 30 June 2017 - Christchurch City Holdings Ltd and subsidiaries.............................................................................................................................. 35

8.       Final Statement of Intent - World Buskers Festival Trust.................................................. 157

9.       Corporate Finance Report for the period ending 30 September 2017............................ 171

10.     Performance report for the three months to 30 September 2017................................... 181

11.     Quarterly Performance Reporting for September 2017.................................................... 201

12.     Finance and Performance Committee Minutes - 1 November 2017................................ 209

Infrastructure, Transport and Environment Committee

13.     Intervention Policy for Earthquake-related Flooding....................................................... 215

14.     Ōpāwaho / Heathcote River Floodplain Management Options....................................... 231

15.     Revised Christchurch Biodiversity Fund and Progress Report.......................................... 255

16.     An Accessible City St Asaph Street - Proposed Road Layout Options............................. 265

17.     An Accessible City: Hospital Corner, Oxford Terrace(Gap), Riccarton Avenue to Antigua Street (Final layout).............................................................................................................. 493

18.     Labelling and composting of biodegradable plastics (bio-plastics) and poly lactic acid (PLA) containers (including takeaway cups, food serviceware and bags)................................. 539

19.     Infrastructure, Transport and Environment Committee Minutes - 30 October 2017..... 549

20.     Infrastructure, Transport and Environment Committee Minutes - 8 November 2017... 555

Insurance Committee

21.     Insurance Committee Minutes - 6 November 2017........................................................... 567

Regulatory Performance Committee

22.     Regulatory Performance Committee Minutes - 8 November 2017.................................. 571


 

STAFF REPORTS

23.     Letter to the Minister with regard to support for alternative fuels................................ 577

24.     2017/18 Metropolitan Discretionary Response Fund........................................................ 579

25.     Hearings Panel Report on the Proposed Amendments to the General Bylaw 2008....... 583

26.     Hearings Panel Report on the Proposed Stock on Roads Bylaw 2017............................. 601

27.     Hearings Panel Report on the Proposed Traffic and Parking Bylaw 2017....................... 679

28.     Hearings Panel Report on the Proposed Marine, River and Lake Facilities Bylaw 2017. 795

29.     St Peter's Church - potential sources of funding............................................................... 845

30.     Adoption of the 2018 meeting schedule for the Council and its Committees, Subcommittees and Working Parties ............................................................................................................ 925

31.     Resolution to Exclude the Public......................................................................................... 940  

 

 

 


Council

23 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.

4.   Presentation of Petitions

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

 


Council

23 November 2017

 

 

5.        Council Minutes - 2 November 2017

Reference:

17/1331226

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 2 November 2017.

 

2.   Recommendation to Council

That the Council confirm the Minutes from the Council meeting held 2 November 2017.

 

 

Attachments

No.

Title

Page

A

Minutes Council - 2 November 2017

8

 

 

Signatories

Author

Jo Daly - Council Secretary

  


Council

23 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

23 November 2017

 

 

6.        Council Minutes - 9 November 2017

Reference:

17/1341603

Contact:

Christopher 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 9 November 2017.

 

2.   Recommendation to Council

That the Council confirm the Minutes from the Council meeting held 9 November 2017.

 

 

Attachments

No.

Title

Page

A

Minutes Council - 9 November 2017

24

 

 

Signatories

Author

Christopher Turner-Bullock - Committee Advisor

  


Council

23 November 2017

 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


Council

23 November 2017

 

Report from Finance and Performance Committee  – 1 November 2017

 

7.        Annual Report for the year ended 30 June 2017 - Christchurch City Holdings Ltd and subsidiaries

Reference:

17/1300888

Contact:

Mushe Shoko

Mushe.shoko@ccc.govt.nz

941 6313

 

 

 

 

1.  Staff and Finance and Performance Committee Recommendation to Council

 

That the Council:

1.         Notes the Christchurch City Holdings Ltd’s 2016/17 annual results incorporating the results of its subsidiary companies.

 

 

Attachments

No.

Report Title

Page

1

Annual Report for the year ended 30 June 2017 - Christchurch City Holdings Ltd and subsidiaries

36

 

No.

Title

Page

a

Christchurch City Holdings Ltd - Summary Report of Performance for 2016/17

41

b

Christchurch City Holdings Ltd - Annual Report for the year ended 30 June 2017

65

 

 


Council

23 November 2017

 

 

Annual Report for the year ended 30 June 2017 - Christchurch City Holdings Ltd and subsidiaries

Reference:

17/983467

Contact:

Mushe Shoko

Mushe.Shoko@ccc.govt.nz

941 6313

 

 

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 the annual results of Christchurch City Holdings Ltd (CCHL) and its subsidiaries for the year ended 30 June 2017.

Origin of Report

1.2       This report is staff generated following receipt of CCHL’s Annual Report and its performance report for the year ended 30 June 2017. 

2.   Significance

2.1       The decision(s) in this report are of low significance in relation to the Christchurch City Council’s Significance and Engagement Policy.  The level of significance was determined by the impact of the decisions on the Council and the community.

 

3.   Staff Recommendations

That the Finance and Performance Committee recommends that the Council:

1.         Notes the Christchurch City Holdings Ltd’s 2016/17 annual results incorporating the results of its subsidiary companies.

 

4.   Key Points

4.1       The Council’s financial statements in its Annual Report for 2016/17 include the consolidated financial results of CCHL and its subsidiaries (the Group). CCHL’s subsidiaries comprise Orion New Zealand Ltd (Orion NZ), Christchurch International Airport Ltd (CIAL), Enable Services Ltd (Enable), Lyttelton Port Company Ltd (LPC), Red Bus Ltd, City Care Ltd, EcoCentral Ltd and Development Christchurch Ltd.

4.2       CCHL wholly owns all its subsidiaries except Orion NZ and CIAL where CCHL’s ownership interest is 89.3% and 75%, respectively.

4.3       CCHL’s report to the Council on the performance of the Group is at Attachment A and its annual report is at Attachment B.

CCHL Group Results

4.4       The Council’s investment in the Group is held by CCHL, on behalf of the Council. The total value of CCHL’s investments in its subsidiaries as at 30 June 2017 is $2.587 billion (an increase of $184 million from 30 June 2016). The appreciation in value of the investments is primarily due to the revaluation of the investment in Orion NZ.


 

4.5       In 2017 the Group made a net profit after tax (NPAT) of $116.4 million, compared with $38.8 million in 2016. For comparability, after removing the net impact of a $75.8m impairment charge by LPC the adjusted NPAT for 2016 is $114.6m. This gives an increase in adjusted NPAT of $1.8 million (1.6%) between 2016 and 2017.

The key contributors to the Group’s NPAT for are Orion NZ ($51.8 million), CIAL ($64.6 million) and LPC ($14.4 million).

4.6       The trend of the Group’s revenue and NPAT over the last 10 years is shown below:

  

 

4.7       Total assets have increased by $214 million from $3.42 billion at 30 June 2016 to $3.63 billion at 30 June 2017.

4.8       Total liabilities are up $197m from $1.61 billion at 30 June 2016 to $1.80 billion at 30 June 2017.

4.9       Net debt at 30 June 2017 is $1.18 billion, up 23% from $958 million at 30 June 2016. This increase is mainly due to the ongoing build of Enable’s fibre network, continued capital programmes for Orion, CIAL and LPC and the funding of the $70m special dividend to Council by CCHL as part of the capital release programme. Net debt to equity for the Group is 39% at 30 June 2017 up from 34.6% at 30 June 2016, relatively low for a group comprising mainly of infrastructure assets.

4.10    The trend of assets and liabilities over the last 10 years is shown below:

 

4.11    The trend of shareholder’s equity and gearing ratios over the last 10 years is shown below:

 

4.12    CCHL paid dividends to the Council totalling $113.7 million, including a $70 million special dividend as part of the capital release programme.

4.13    The return on average equity for 2017 is 6.4% (2016: 2.1%, the lower return is mainly due to the impairment charge by LPC). This return on equity does not take into account the community benefits delivered by the Group which are generally either non-quantifiable or difficult and costly to quantify.

4.14    The memo received from CCHL, Attachment A, provides a summary of the performance of each of its subsidiaries. The report notes some of the positive outcomes achieved in 2017 including:

·    record customer growth by Orion;

·    strong profitability by CIAL arising from improved operational performance and various property developments; and

·    record container volumes and operational efficiency by LPC. 

4.15    CCHL has achieved its other key strategic priorities for the year. 

4.16    There are a number of missed non-financial targets across the Group. However many of the misses are negligible.  This indicates that the Group is setting challenging targets that are however achievable. 

 


 

5.   Context/Background

Local Government Act 2002

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

5.2       Sections 67-69 of the LGA require:

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

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

5.3       CCHL’s governance of the Group includes ensuring profitability and community benefit is optimised, shareholder preferences for distributions of free cash flow, best practice governance is undertaken by each of the subsidiary boards and that their business activities are undertaken in accordance with the Council’s strategic directions. 

5.4       CCHL is accountable directly to the Council for its own performance, as well as that of its subsidiaries.  The efficiency and effectiveness with which CCHL provides its governance activities for the Group is a relevant matter for the Council.

 

 

 

Attachments

No.

Title

Page

a 

Christchurch City Holdings Ltd - Summary Report of Performance for 2016/17

 

b 

Christchurch City Holdings Ltd - Annual Report for the year ended 30 June 2017

 

 

 

Confirmation of Statutory Compliance

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

(a) This report contains:

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

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

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

 

Signatories

Author

Mushe Shoko - Manager External Reporting & Governance

Approved By

Carol Bellette - General Manager Finance and Commercial (CFO)

 


Council

23 November 2017

 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


Council

23 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


Council

23 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


Council

23 November 2017

 

Report from Finance and Performance Committee  – 1 November 2017

 

8.        Final Statement of Intent - World Buskers Festival Trust

Reference:

17/1300924

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 that the final Statement of Intent for the World Buskers Festival Trust for 2017/18 received by Council staff on 2 October 2017 addresses the comments made by the Council on the draft document at its meeting on 28 September (Council resolution CNCL/2017/00272 refers);

2.         Notes that the final Statement of Intent for the World Buskers Festival Trust for 2017/18 meets the minimum statutory requirements for information to be provided as set out in clauses 9 and 10 of Schedule 8 of the Local Government Act 2002; and

3.         Notes that the Statement of Intent will be made public by the World Buskers Festival Trust on its website as soon as possible.

 

 

Attachments

No.

Report Title

Page

1

Final Statement of Intent - World Buskers Festival Trust

158

 

No.

Title

Page

a

World Buskers Festival Trust - Final Statement of Intent for Financial year ending 30 June 2018

160

 

 


Council

23 November 2017

 

 

Final Statement of Intent - World Buskers Festival Trust

Reference:

17/1188858

Contact:

Linda Gibb

Linda.Gibb@ccc.govt.nz

941.6762

 

 

1.   Purpose and Origin of Report

Purpose of Report

1.1       This report notes the changes made to the World Buskers Festival Trust 2017/18 Statement of Intent (SOI) following its consideration of the Council’s comments on the draft document.  The draft SOI was considered at the Council’s meeting on 28 September (Council resolution CNCL/2017/00272 refers). 

1.2       The final SOI is Attachment A to this report.

Origin of Report

1.3       This report is staff generated as a result of the World Buskers Festival Trust’s final SOI being received by the Council on 2 October 2017.

2.   Significance

1.4       The decision(s) in this report are of low significance in relation to the Christchurch City Council’s Significance and Engagement Policy.  The level of significance was determined by applying the Council’s Significance and Engagement Policy, taking into consideration (amongst other things) the possible costs/risks to the Council, ratepayers and the wider community of carrying out the decision, whether the impact of the decision can be easily reversed and the number of people affected and/or with an interest in the matter.

 

2.   Staff Recommendations

That the Finance and Performance Committee recommends that the Council:

1.         Notes that the final Statement of Intent for the World Buskers Festival Trust for 2017/18 received by Council staff on 2 October 2017 addresses the comments made by the Council on the draft document at its meeting on 28 September (Council resolution CNCL/2017/00272 refers);

2.         Notes that the final Statement of Intent for the World Buskers Festival Trust for 2017/18 meets the minimum statutory requirements for information to be provided as set out in clauses 9 and 10 of Schedule 8 of the Local Government Act 2002; and

3.         Notes that the Statement of Intent will be made public by the World Buskers Festival Trust on its website as soon as possible.

 

3.   Key Points

3.1       Clause 3 of Schedule 8 of the Local Government Act 2002 (LGA) provides for the board of a Council-controlled organisation to consider the comments made by shareholders on the draft SOI and to then provide the final SOI to shareholders on or before 30 June each year. 

3.2       The final SOI for the World Buskers Festival Trust was received by Council staff on 2 October 2017.  As noted in our report on the draft SOI, the late delivery of the SOI has been disclosed in the WBFT’s financial statements. 

3.3       WBFT’s final SOI addresses the comments made by the Council on the draft document by including the following:

·   a specific health and safety performance target of zero harm for artists, staff and public; and

·   an undertaking to exercise restraint when setting contract rates for management staff.

3.4       The Council also asked that the WBFT considers holding free events in public spaces in the central city beyond the Art Gallery and Arts Centre.  The SOI does not cover operational matters such as festival venues.  However, the WBFT has advised Council staff that it has considered other options for free street performance venues. 

3.5       The final SOI meets the statutory requirements for content set out in clauses 9 and 10 of Schedule 8 of the LGA. There is no further opportunity for shareholder comment on the SOI.

3.6       The final SOI will be published on the WBFT’s website. Council staff can provide the document on request. 

 

 

Attachments

No.

Title

Page

a 

World Buskers Festival Trust - Final Statement of Intent for Financial year ending 30 June 2018

 

 

 

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

23 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

23 November 2017

 

Report from Finance and Performance Committee  – 1 November 2017

 

9.        Corporate Finance Report for the period ending 30 September 2017

Reference:

17/1300942

Contact:

Mushe Shoko
Steve Ballard

Mushe.shoko@ccc.govt.nz
steve.ballard@ccc.govt.nz

941 6313
941 8447

 

 

 

 

1.  Staff and Finance and Performance Committee Recommendation to Council

 

That the Council:

1.         Receives the information in the report.

 

 

Attachments

No.

Report Title

Page

1

Corporate Finance Report for the period ending 30 September 2017

172

 

No.

Title

Page

a

Debtors Written Off Summary - 30 September 2017

180

 

 


Council

23 November 2017

 

 

Corporate Finance Report for the period ending 30 September 2017

Reference:

17/1213971

Contact:

Mushe Shoko
Steve Ballard

Mushe.Shoko@ccc.govt.nz
Steve.Ballard@ccc.govt.nz

941 6313
941 8447

 

 

1.   Purpose and Origin of Report

Purpose of Report

1.1       The purpose of this report is for the Finance and Performance Committee to receive quarterly information relating to the Council's treasury and debtors risks.

Origin of Report

1.2       This report is staff generated.

2.   Significance

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

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

 

3.   Staff Recommendations

That the Finance and Performance Committee recommends that the Council:

1.         Receives the information in the report

 

 

4.   Key Points

Treasury Risk versus Policy Limits

4.1       Net Debt for treasury risk management purposes is defined as the Council’s borrowing (including borrowing from subsidiaries and the Capital Endowment Fund, but excluding any finance leases), less financial investments such as cash and deposits.

4.2       Movements in this Net Debt figure represent the Council’s net operating and capital spending flows over the period.

4.3       At 30 September 2017, Net Debt was $1,011 million, an increase of $81 million in the financial year to date.  This increase has been funded through a mixture of new borrowing and reduced cash holdings, as shown in the table below.


 

Current Debt and Investments versus June 2017

* Borrowing from Vbase – Vbase’s remaining insurance settlement proceeds are invested on its behalf by the Council, to access higher deposit rates.  This item will decline over time.

* Borrowing from CEF – Special Funds are invested internally where possible (ie. lent to Council, with interest payments funded by general rates).  Council borrowing from the Capital Endowment Fund will increase over time, as CEF’s remaining external investments mature and are invested internally.

* Borrower Notes – As part of its debt arrangements with the Local Government Funding Agency, the Council must invest a small portion of its borrowing in LGFA Borrower Notes.  This item will increase over time, in line with the Council’s total borrowing.

4.4       Treasury risk positions are within policy limits, except for interest rate re-pricing (refer section 5 below).

Debtors

4.5       At 30 September 2017, the debtors' balance stood at $23.0 million, $7.2 million higher than reported in June 2017. The increase is primarily due to General Debtors increasing by $6.7 million from $11.4 million to $18.1 million. More detail is given in 6.2, below. There was also an increase of $0.3 million in Resource Consent debtors, from $2.3 million to $2.6 million.

4.6       Debtors of $48,025 have been written-off in the 3 months to 30 September 2017, compared to $48,599 for the same period last financial year.  Further detail is provided in paragraph 6.4 below.

 


 

5.   Treasury Report

5.1       The Council manages four types of treasury risk relating to its Net Debt:

Treasury Risk

Management Objective

Short-Term Liquidity Risk

To ensure that on-going cash payments can be met in an orderly manner.

Long-Term Funding Risk

To ensure that debt maturities (and anticipated new borrowing) are spread so as to minimise re-financing risk in future years.

Interest Rate Re-pricing Risk

To ensure that interest rates are fixed for varying terms, to minimise the impact of market rate volatility on budgeted interest costs over the Long-Term Planning period.

Counterparty Credit Risk

To minimise the risk of loss due to a counterparty’s inability or unwillingness to make payments to the Council as they fall due.

 

Policy Snapshot

Risk Area

Policy Compliance

Liquidity

Within

Funding

Within

Interest Rate Re-pricing

Breach

Counterparty Credit

Within

 

5.2       Short-term Liquidity Risk

Policy Limit (LGFA Liquidity Ratio must >110%) – Within Limit

* Ratio is calculated as the sum of all three, divided by external debt
* Investments include Borrower Notes plus $22.5 million of realisable CEF investments

 

5.3       Long-term Funding Risk

Policy Limit (existing maturities only) – Within Limit

 

In practice, management considers funding risk in terms of both the re-financing of existing maturities and the need to incur new debt to meet negative operating flows, as shown in the chart below.


 

The Council’s Funding Risk (existing maturities plus expected new borrowing)

* Blue = Maturity of CCC debt

* Red = Maturity of debt on-lent to CCHL

* Green = expected new borrowing based on the published 2017/18 Plan.

 

5.4       Interest Rate Re-pricing Risk

Policy Limit – Breach

* Green line = projected Net Debt (excluding term deposits), based on the 2017/18 Annual Plan

* Red bars = amount of debt at contractually fixed rates as at each 30 June

* Dotted lines = Policy Limits (minimum & maximum amount of fixed rate hedging permitted)

5.4.1   Hedging levels are above maximum Policy limits for the 2018 and 2019 financial years. 

5.4.2   This breach was created by delays in the Council’s debt growth – hedging of up to $1.2 billion from June 2018 originally represented around 60% of anticipated net debt; however, the combination of large insurance settlement and delayed capital programme has caused actual debt growth to be slower.

5.4.3   In discussion with the Council’s external treasury advisor (PricewaterhouseCoopers), management remains of the view that the cost of adjusting the hedging profile is not justified, and that the best course of action is still to retain the existing hedging profile and allow it to come back within Policy limits over time as actual debt levels increase.

5.4.4   Councillors originally approved this approach at the 10 March 2016 meeting, with subsequent ratification on 25 May 2017.

5.5       Credit Risk

Policy Limit – Within Limit

* Derivative exposures are calculated as the current market value plus a buffer to reflect potential future value movements.  If the total exposure for any bank is negative (i.e. the Council would pay the bank upon termination), then a zero exposure is recorded.

 


 

6.   Debtors Report

6.1       At 30 September 2017, the debtors' balance stood at $23.0 million, $7.2 million higher than the balance at 30 June 2017.

6.1.1   In the three month’s period General Debtors have increased from $11.4 million to $18.1 million.

6.2       Significant debtors within the General Debtors balance of $18.1 million include;

·        Vbase Limited (Vbase),

·        Ministry of Business Innovation & Employment (MBIE),

·        Land Transport New Zealand (LTNZ),

·        Land Information New Zealand (LINZ)

·        Christchurch Earthquake Appeal Trust (CEAT) and

·        Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet (DPMC).

 

These six debtors account for $15.4 million of the General Debtors balance. Vbase and MBIE are not yet due for payment, LTNZ has been paid, CEAT has sought more information. The LINZ invoice was due for payment in December 2016 and DPMC in July. Both are covered in more detail in the public excluded report.

Overdue Debtors

6.3       Overdue debtors, (older than 92 days), have increased by $0.8 million from $3.4 million at 30 June 2017 to $4.2 million at 30 September 2017 (18.07 per cent of total debtors compared to 21.31 per cent reported in June 2017). This increase is covered in more detail in the Overdue Debtors Report in the public excluded agenda.

 

 

Debtors Written off

6.4       Debtors of $48,025 have been written-off during the three months to 30 September 2017 compared to $48,599 in the same period in the last financial year. The detail is below:

6.5       The significant write-offs (over $2,000) relate to debtors from Building Consent (Regulatory) ($4,469) and Street Pole damages ($22,187). The Building Consent write-off was the result of a staff error. The Street Pole damage is the result of two separate incidents. In each case the offender is not available to pursue.

6.6       The Library debtors written off comprise a large number of relatively small amounts where the debt collection agency has been unable to locate the debtor or the debtor has refused to pay.  Only amounts over $30 are referred to debt collection agencies for collection. Libraries currently have a lending limit of up to 30 books at a time. This limit is primarily utilised by youth members to develop and support literacy. This limit does not affect the use and enjoyment of other customers.

6.7       A summary report of debtors written off is provided in Attachment A.

 

 

Attachments

No.

Title

Page

a 

Debtors Written Off Summary - 30 September 2017

 

 

 

Confirmation of Statutory Compliance

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

(a) This report contains:

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

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

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

 

Signatories

Authors

Andrea Webb - Financial Accountant

Steve Ballard - Manager Funds and Financial Policy

Approved By

Diane Brandish - Head of Financial Management

Carol Bellette - General Manager Finance and Commercial (CFO)

 


Council

23 November 2017

 

PDF Creator


Council

23 November 2017

 

Report from Finance and Performance Committee  – 1 November 2017

 

10.    Performance report for the three months to 30 September 2017

Reference:

17/1300962

Contact:

Diane Brandish

Diane.brandish@ccc.govt.nz

941 8454

 

 

 

 

1.  Staff and Finance and Performance Committee Recommendation to Council

 

That the Council:

1.         Receives the information in the report.

 

 

Attachments

No.

Report Title

Page

1

Performance report for the three months to 30 September 2017

182

 

No.

Title

Page

a

Sep 2017 - Attach A - Financial Performance

188

b

Sep 2017 -Attach B - Significant Capital Projects

195

c

Sep 2017 - Attach C - Special Funds

200

 

 


Council

23 November 2017

 

 

Performance report for the three months to 30 September 2017

Reference:

17/1215646

Contact:

Diane Brandish

diane.Brandish@ccc.govt.nz

941 8454

 

 

1.   Purpose and Origin of Report

1.1       The purpose of this report is for the Finance and Performance Committee to be updated on the financial results for the first quarter of the 2017/2018 financial year to 30 September 2017.

 

2.   Staff Recommendations

That the Finance and Performance Committee recommends that the Council:

1.         Receives the information in the report.

 

3.   Key Points

3.1       The Council’s operational financial results for the first quarter are unfavourable with a year to date net deficit of $5.3 million and a similar forecast year-end position. This will be followed up between now and December to identify opportunities to reduce costs to offset this.

3.2       Capital expenditure of $93.2 million was incurred during the first quarter, slightly less than budgeted. The current forecast is for 2017/18 delivery to be ahead of budget by $15.8 million, meaning budget will need to be brought forward from next year and funds borrowed earlier. This positive delivery forecast needs to be managed to avoid any adverse effect on rates.

 

Financial Performance Summary

Year to Date Results

Forecast Year End Results

After Carry Forwards

$m

Actual

Plan

Var

Forecast

Plan

Var

Carry Fwd

Result

Operational

 

 

 

 

 

Expenditure

150.5

148.9

-1.6

566.3

559.6

-6.7

-

-6.7

Revenues and Funding, Borrowing

-126.1

-129.8

-3.7

-560.8

-559.5

1.3

-

1.3

Operating Deficit / (Surplus)

24.4

19.1

-5.3

5.5

0.1

-5.4

-

-5.4

 

 

 

 

 

 

Capital

 

 

 

 

 

Gross Programme Expenditure

93.2

118.7

25.5

641.7

638.0

-3.7

-2.9

-0.8

Less planned Carry Forwards

-

-19.2

-19.2

-91.7

-103.8

-12.1

-12.1

-

Expenditure to be financed

93.2

99.5

6.3

550.0

534.2

-15.8

-15.0

-0.8

Revenues and Funding

-61.0

-67.6

-6.6

-430.1

-421.0

9.1

8.6

0.5

Borrowing required

32.2

31.9

-0.3

119.9

113.2

-6.7

-6.4

-0.3

 

3.3       Key commentary on operational and capital results for the quarter is given below.  This is followed by a section for each area giving further details.  A view of the Council’s financial results by activity is provided in Attachment A.


 

3.4       Operational expenditure is $1.6m higher than budget year to date. The significant variances contributing to the year to date results include increased annual rates cost to be paid by Council itself for Council-owned utilities infrastructure as a result of the recent asset revaluation ($6.1m). This is partially offset by timing of Christchurch NZ grant payments ($2.6m) and the timing of spend on Strategic Policy & Planning projects ($1m). The unfavourable forecast is predominantly due to the increased rates (paid by Council itself).  Clause 3.9 provides further details.

3.5       Operational revenues and funding are lower than budget year to date largely due to the delayed 0timing of the Transwaste dividend ($3.1m), and declining revenues from building inspections and commercial building consents ($1.1m). The favourable forecast variance is due to higher rates growth than originally expected ($2.8m), and higher interest revenues ($1.1m). These are partially offset by lower housing revenues ($1.1m) and lower building inspections and commercial building consents revenues ($1.1m). Clauses 3.10 to 3.13 provide further details.

3.6       Capital expenditure is below budget year to date due to timing differences. It is forecast to be $15.8 million ahead of budget by year end, mainly due to earlier scheduling of work within Three Waters for wetland and drainage works; and Roading and Transport for major cycleways. Clauses 3.16 to 3.19 provide further details.

3.7       Capital revenues/recoveries are behind budget year to date, however a favourable variance is forecast for the year. Clauses 3.20 to 3.22 provide further details.

3.8       Required borrowing is currently $0.3 million more than budget but forecast to be $6.7 million higher at year end, mainly due to the timing of capital expenditure. $6.4 million is signalled as a budget bring back (timing).

 

Operational

 

Year to Date Results

Forecast Year End Results

After Carry Forwards

$m

Actual

Plan

Var

Forecast

Plan

Var

C/F

Result

Personnel costs

46.7

46.9

0.2

198.6

196.3

-2.3

-

-2.3

Less recharged to capital

-9.6

-9.7

-0.1

-40.7

-37.8

2.9

-

2.9

Grants and levies

16.1

18.3

2.2

44.6

44.7

0.1

-

0.1

Operating costs

50.3

46.9

-3.4

165.5

160.9

-4.6

-

-4.6

Maintenance costs

24.4

24.0

-0.4

107.2

105.5

-1.7

-

-1.7

Debt servicing

22.6

22.5

-0.1

91.1

90.0

-1.1

-

-1.1

Expenditure

150.5

148.9

-1.6

566.3

559.6

-6.7

-

-6.7

 

 

 

 

 

Operating revenue

-32.4

-34.6

-2.2

-141.9

-145.2

-3.3

-

-3.3

Interest and dividends

-12.3

-13.8

-1.5

-95.6

-94.5

1.1

-

1.1

Rates income

-113.6

-112.8

0.8

-455.2

-452.4

2.8

-

2.8

Revenue

-158.3

-161.2

-2.9

-692.7

-692.1

0.6

-

0.6

 

 

 

 

 

Net Cost

-7.8

-12.3

-4.5

-126.4

-132.5

-6.1

-

-6.1

Other Funding

 

 

 

 

Transfers from Special Funds

-5.1

-5.9

-0.8

-24.0

-23.3

0.7

-

0.7

Borrowing for cap grants /EQ resp

-3.8

-3.8

-

-9.0

-9.0

-

-

-

Less Rates reqd for capex / debt

41.1

41.1

-

164.9

164.9

-

-

-

Funds not available for Opex

32.2

31.4

-0.8

131.9

132.6

0.7

-

0.7

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Operating Deficit / (Surplus)

24.4

19.1

-5.3

5.5

0.1

-5.4

-

-5.4

 

3.9       The operational expenditure year-end forecast is $6.7 million higher than budget, mainly due to:

3.9.1      Increased rates payable by the Council itself in relation to Council-owned utilities infrastructure ($6.1m). This issue has arisen due to substantial asset revaluation increases in the water supply and waste water networks as part of the latest three-yearly general revaluation. The resulting impact should have been addressed as part of finalising the budget for the 2017/18 Annual Plan. If it had been captured as part of the 2017/18 Annual Plan, offsetting items should have been identified. Staff are working on mitigating the impact on this year’s result via other savings.

3.9.2      Higher maintenance costs relating to waste water reticulation ($2m), mainly due to on-going lateral repairs and July 2017 flood remediation works,

3.9.3      Increased debt servicing costs ($1.1m), relating to the prefunded debt due for repayment in December. These are offset by additional revenue.

3.9.4      Higher insurance costs ($0.7m), due to increased premiums reflecting market conditions and increased asset value. These are partially offset by:

a)     a higher recovery of IT costs capitalised to projects ($1.5m);

b)     a reduction in housing expenses relating to the expected transfer of properties to the Ōtautahi Community Housing Trust ($1.2m).

3.10    Operating revenues for Council activities are $2.2 million behind budget year to date due to lower revenues from building inspections and commercial building consents reflecting declining volumes ($1.1m); and lower housing revenues ($0.5m), reflecting the transfer of minor maintenance costs for housing to the Ōtautahi Community Housing Trust.  An unfavourable forecast result of $3.3 million relates to lower housing revenues ($1.8m), due to the expected transfer of properties; and the lower building inspections and consents revenues outlined above.

3.11    Lower interest and dividends revenue year to date are due to the delayed timing of the Transwaste Dividend ($3.1m); partially offset by increased interest revenues ($1.6m). A conservative forecast approach has been taken for the increased interest revenues.  

3.12    Rates revenues favourable variances are due to higher rates growth.

3.13    Special fund drawdowns are lower than budget year to date mainly due to the timing of payment of the Christchurch NZ grant. This is part funded from the capital endowment fund ($0.9m). The forecast is higher than budget, as a result of the net loss of housing revenues and expenses due to the expected transfer of properties to the Ōtautahi Community Housing Trust ($0.5m).

3.14    The year to date net Opex result is $5.3m over budget and forecast to be $5.4m over by year end. It is predominantly driven by the Council rates cost referred to above and, as noted above, offsetting savings will be sought.

3.15    The net cost of individual activities are shown in Attachment A.


 

Capital Programme

 

Year to Date Results

Forecast Year End Results

After Carry Forwards

$m

Actual

Plan

Var

Forecast

Plan

Var

C/F

Result

Three Waters

15.3

20.8

5.5

92.0

81.1

-10.9

-13.7

2.8

Roading and Transport

7.9

13.0

5.1

96.5

88.1

-8.4

-2.9

-5.5

Strategic Land

8.0

-

-8.0

28.0

23.6

-4.4

-4.3

-0.1

IM&CT

4.4

5.1

0.7

18.4

18.5

0.1

0.1

0.0

Other

9.7

12.4

2.7

88.1

81.8

-6.3

-5.9

-0.4

Works Programme

45.3

51.3

6.0

323.0

293.1

-29.9

-26.7

-3.2

 

 

 

 

 

Infrastructure - SCIRT

0.7

-

-0.7

0.7

-

-0.7

-

-0.7

Infrastructure - Non SCIRT

17.2

23.8

6.6

119.3

134.6

15.3

10.8

4.5

Transitional / Recovery Projects

1.3

1.7

0.4

10.2

26.3

16.1

16.3

-0.2

Facilities Rebuild

28.7

40.3

11.6

186.2

182.3

-3.9

-3.3

-0.6

Rockfall and Improv Allowance

-

1.6

1.6

2.3

1.7

-0.6

-

-0.6

Rebuild Programme

47.9

67.4

19.5

318.7

344.9

26.2

23.8

2.4

 

 

 

 

Gross Capital Projects

93.2

118.7

25.5

641.7

638.0

-3.7

-2.9

-0.8

Unidentified Carry forwards

-

-19.2

-19.2

-91.7

-103.8

-12.1

-12.1

-

Capital Programme

93.2

99.5

6.3

550.0

534.2

-15.8

-15.0

-0.8

 

 

 

 

 

Development Contributions

-7.5

-5.6

1.9

-24.2

-22.4

1.8

-

1.8

Less DC Rebates

0.2

3.8

3.6

12.8

15.3

2.5

2.4

0.1

NZTA Capital Subsidy

-4.4

-13.5

-9.1

-61.6

-53.8

7.8

7.8

-

Vbase recovery - Town Hall

-6.4

-6.3

0.1

-30.8

-30.9

-0.1

-

-0.1

Capital release / Special dividends

-

-

-

-140.0

-140.0

-

-

-

Misc Capital Revenues

-2.0

-1.4

0.7

-5.9

-5.7

0.2

-

0.2

Asset Sales

-

-0.1

-0.1

-2.4

-2.5

-0.1

-

-0.1

Capital Revenues

-20.1

-23.1

-3.0

-252.1

-240.0

12.1

10.2

1.9

 

 

 

 

Rates for Renewals and Landfill

-29.2

-29.2

-

-117.0

-117.0

-

-

-

Special Funds

-11.7

-15.3

-3.6

-61.0

-64.0

-3.0

-1.6

-1.4

Other Available Funding

-40.9

-44.5

-3.6

-178.0

-181.0

-3.0

-1.6

-1.4

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Borrowing Required

32.2

31.9

-0.3

119.9

113.2

-6.7

-6.4

-0.3

 

3.16    Capital expenditure is $93.2 million for the first quarter (94 percent of year to date budget).  A further $456.8 million is currently forecast to be spent by year end which equates to 103% of budget.

3.17    The $0.8 million forecast underspend after net budget bring backs is mainly due to the following:

3.17.1    Non-SCIRT infrastructure – savings are being forecast for Shag Rock Reserve – Clifton Hill works ($2.3m), and the New Brighton Pier Repairs ($1.1m).

Three Waters – a saving on the Gardiners pump station is currently being forecast ($1.2m). Refer to Attachment B for other smaller savings being recorded on numerous projects.  These savings are partially offset by,

3.17.2    Roading and Transport - some major cycleway routes are reporting an overspend ($5.2m), the significant projects include the Quarryman’s Trail – section 1 due to higher than expected service relocations, and the Northern Line. A review of these projects and requested bring backs is being undertaken to ensure this work remains within budget. A full report on this issue, including options for how to deliver the project within budget, will be considered by the Infrastructure Transport and Environment Committee meeting on 8 November 2017.

 

3.18    Group of Activity level variance commentary for the capital programme is shown in Attachment A.

3.19    Financial results of significant (>$250,000) capital programme projects are shown in Attachment B.

3.20    Development contributions are higher than budget year to date because new development has been higher than anticipated, and is occurring outside the rebate areas. 

3.21    The large variances to budgets for NZTA subsidies is due to the timing of infrastructure expenditure.

3.22    Special funds net drawdowns are $3.6 million lower than budget year to date, mainly due to increased developer contributions set aside to fund future growth works.

3.23    Borrowing for the Capital Programme is expected to be more than budget at year end, although budget bring backs due to timing differences reduce this permanent extra borrowing to only $0.3 million.

Special Funds

3.24    The current and forecast movements and balance of the Housing Account, Capital Endowment Fund and Earthquake Mayoral Relief Fund are shown in Attachment C.

3.25    The balance of 2017/18 funds unallocated in the Capital Endowment Fund is forecast to be $446,264.

 

Attachments

No.

Title

Page

a 

Sep 2017 - Attach A - Financial Performance

 

b 

Sep 2017 -Attach B - Significant Capital Projects

 

c 

Sep 2017 - Attach C - Special Funds

 

 

 

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

Bruce Moher - Manager Planning & Reporting Team

Diane Brandish - Head of Financial Management

Ryan McLachlan - Reporting Accountant

John Pickles - Reporting Accountant

Approved By

Carol Bellette - General Manager Finance and Commercial (CFO)

Karleen Edwards - Chief Executive

 


Council

23 November 2017

 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


Council

23 November 2017

 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


Council

23 November 2017

 

PDF Creator


Council

23 November 2017

 

Report from Finance and Performance Committee  – 1 November 2017

 

11.    Quarterly Performance Reporting for September 2017

Reference:

17/1300986

Contact:

Peter Ryan

Peter.ryan@ccc.govt.nz

941 8137

 

 

 

 

1.  Staff and Finance and Performance Committee Recommendation to Council

 

That the Council:

1.         Receive the information in the attached appendices.

 

 

Attachments

No.

Report Title

Page

1

Quarterly Performance Reporting for September 2017

202

 

No.

Title

Page

a

Year-end Level of Service Forecast for 2017/18

203

b

Exceptions Report

204

 

 


Council

23 November 2017

 

 

Quarterly Performance Reporting for September 2017

Reference:

17/1276707

Contact:

Peter Ryan

Peter.Ryan@ccc.govt.nz

03 941 8137

 

 

1.   Purpose of Report

1.1       The purpose of this report is for the Finance and Performance Committee to note an update on LTP level of service performance.

 

2.   Staff Recommendations

That the Finance and Performance Committee:

1.         Receive the information in the attached appendices.

 

3.   Key Points

3.1       Staff forecasts as at 30 September 2017 indicate a high level of achievement (93%) which is in line with historical trends for the end of the first quarter.

3.2       Individual level of service exceptions are set out in the attached appendix. 

 

 

Attachments

No.

Title

Page

a 

Year-end Level of Service Forecast for 2017/18

 

b 

Exceptions Report

 

 

 

Signatories

Author

Sung Jun Park - Performance Analyst

Approved By

Peter Ryan - Head of Performance Management

Carol Bellette - General Manager Finance and Commercial (CFO)

 


Council

23 November 2017

 

PDF Creator


Council

23 November 2017

 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


Council

23 November 2017

 

 

12.    Finance and Performance Committee Minutes - 1 November 2017

Reference:

17/1301365

Contact:

Aidan Kimberley

Aidan.kimberley@ccc.govt.nz

941 6566

 

 

1.   Purpose of Report

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

 

2.   Recommendation to Council

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

 

 

Attachments

No.

Title

Page

A

Minutes Finance and Performance Committee - 1 November 2017

210

 

 

Signatories

Author

Aidan Kimberley - Committee and Hearings Advisor

  


Council

23 November 2017

 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


Council

23 November 2017

 

Report from Infrastructure, Transport and Environment Committee  – 8 November 2017

 

13.    Intervention Policy for Earthquake-related Flooding

Reference:

17/1334904

Contact:

Diane Shelander

diane.shelander@ccc.govt.nz

941 8304

 

 

 

 

1.   Staff Recommendations

 

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

1.         Adopt the amended Flood Intervention Policy.

 

2.  Infrastructure, Transport and Environment Committee Recommendation to Council

 

That the Council:

1.         Adopt the amended Flood Intervention Policy.

 

 

Attachments

No.

Report Title

Page

1

Intervention Policy for Earthquake-related Flooding

216

 

No.

Title

Page

a

December 2015 Flood Intervention Policy resolution

225

b

DRAFT revised flooding intervention policy - 2017-10-17

227

 

 


Council

23 November 2017

 

 

Intervention Policy for Earthquake-related Flooding

Reference:

17/1011831

Contact:

Diane Shelander

diane.shelander@ccc.govt.nz

941 8304

 

 

1.   Purpose and Origin of Report

Purpose of Report

1.1       The purpose of this report is for the Infrastructure, Transport and Environment Committee to recommend that the Council adopt an amended Flood Intervention Policy (Attachment A) for properties at increased risk of frequent habitable floor flooding due to the Canterbury earthquake sequence.

Origin of Report

1.2       A policy framework to address the residual risk of frequent flooding above habitable floor levels, due to the earthquakes, was adopted by the Council in resolutions made on 10 December 2015 (Attachment B).

1.3       At its 4 May 2017 meeting the Council resolved to delegate to the Manager Property Consultancy authority to manage the disposal of property acquired under the December 2015 Flood Intervention Policy.

1.4       This report recommends amendments to the Flood Intervention Policy based on experience gained from applying the policy in the Flockton catchment.

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 was determined by considering the likely number of properties involved, the precedent effect and the potential financial implications for the Council

2.3       There has been no community engagement and consultation on the proposed amendments to the Flood Intervention Policy.

 

3.   Staff Recommendations

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

1.         Adopt the amended Flood Intervention 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: 17.0.24 Provision of strategic advice on the natural hazards issues facing the city

4.2       The following feasible options have been considered:

·     Option 1 – Amended flood intervention policy (preferred option)

·     Option 2 – Retain current flood intervention policy

·     Option 3 – Rescind existing policy and rely solely on the standard engineering response.

4.3       Option Summary - Advantages and Disadvantages (Preferred Option)

4.3.1   The advantages of this option include:

·     Establishes a clearer policy framework for earthquake-related flood intervention across the city

·     Provides clarity on the background, purpose and applicability of the policy

·     Better addresses health and well-being concerns of residents exposed to a greater risk of frequent flooding due to the earthquakes

·     Allows individual property owners to better recover from the multiple impacts of the earthquakes

·     Provides greater flexibility for applying the policy with revised caps

·     Delivers, where applicable, outcomes sought by the Christchurch District Plan High Flood Hazard Management Area

·     Reduces risk of confusion over the application of the policy.

4.3.2   The disadvantages of this option include:

·     May impose a greater cost on ratepayers as a whole to address risk to worst affected properties than the current Flood Intervention Policy.

·     Will continue to reinforce the precedent for purchasing homes affected by flooding across the city which may have ongoing significant cost implications.

 

5.   Context/Background

Overview

5.1       Much of Christchurch is built on low lying land, with extensive urban settlement close to streams, rivers and the coast. Some properties were vulnerable to flooding prior to the Canterbury earthquake sequence. The earthquakes have affected the frequency and severity of flooding on many properties due to:

·   Extensive areas of land subsidence,

·   Reduced capacity in parts of rivers and streams,

·   Damage to stormwater infrastructure.

5.2       The Council has undertaken a programme of works, the Land Drainage Recovery Programme (LDRP), to respond to the impacts of the earthquakes and to reduce risk of flooding where it has been exacerbated by the earthquakes.

5.3       The LDRP is being delivered on a catchment by catchment basis, with a series of investigations into flood risk, the options for reducing the risk and subsequent engineering works. The investigations and engineering works under the LDRP are on-going. For some catchments there are no cost effective engineering works that would benefit all affected properties.

5.4       The Flood Intervention Policy was developed in parallel with the LDRP following several flood events that resulted in habitable floor flooding of residential properties with consequential adverse effects on the health and well-being of residents. The policy is to intervene where habitable floor levels are at risk of frequent flooding (in a 10 year ARI event) and there has been exacerbation of flooding due to the Canterbury earthquake sequence.

5.5       The policy is intended to be rolled out on a catchment by catchment basis to complement the investigation of engineering options to mitigate the flood risk as part of the LDRP. The policy only applies to those properties that do not benefit from timely and effective catchment engineering works.

5.6       Intervention options under the policy are offered on a voluntary basis and include local drainage works, house raising or an offer to purchase the property.

5.7       Engineering works for the Dudley Creek catchment have mitigated risk of frequent habitable floor flooding for many, but not all, properties. Seven properties that were eligible under the 2015 flood intervention policy in the Dudley Creek catchment have been purchased by the Council.

5.8       Engineering works are next planned for the Ōpāwaho / Heathcote River. Investigations are underway to determine the number of properties that would remain at risk of frequent habitable floor flooding. It is anticipated that there may be up to 35 affected properties (i.e. where engineering solutions can not sufficiently reduce the likelihood of earthquake-related habitable floor flooding).

Flood intervention policy

5.9       The flood intervention policy has been in place since December 2015. In that time experience with implementation of the policy has identified some gaps and difficulties with implementation of the policy. 

·   The policy does not provide sufficient clarity on purpose, applicability, intervention options and property eligibility

·   Options are required for the retention or disposal of property purchased under the policy

·   The cap of $600,000 for individual households and $400,000 for units does not provide sufficient flexibility for rolling out the policy across the city

·   The resolutions made on 10 December 2015 do not stand on their own and would be better understood if amended within the standard format of a Council policy document. 

5.10    An amended flood intervention policy for frequent earthquake-related habitable floor flooding (Attachment A) is recommended to address the gaps in the current policy. As described below under Option 1, the amended policy:

·   Is formatted to be clearly identifiable as a Council policy rather than simply a Council resolution

·   Adds the background and context for the policy and its purpose

·   Lifts the cap to $750,000 for individual households and $500,000 per unit per strata or cross lease titles

·   Provides greater clarity on applicability, eligibility and intervention options.


 

6.   Option 1 - Amended flood intervention policy (preferred)

Option Description

6.1       Amend the existing 2015 flood intervention policy to:

·   Articulate the background to and purpose of the policy

·   Provide greater clarity on the applicability of the policy and the intervention options for properties affected by frequent habitable floor flooding post-earthquakes

·   Lift the financial cap on the valuation of eligible properties

·   Align with guidance from the Council’s Centre of Excellence for Quality Advice and Policy and Strategy Development on the format and function for a Council policy.

Significance

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

Impact on Mana Whenua

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

Community Views and Preferences

6.4       Communities most affected by this option are those where the risk of frequent habitable floor flooding increased after the earthquakes. Their views have not been canvassed, outside of the Dudley Creek catchment, for which the existing intervention policy was implemented.

Alignment with Council Plans and Policies

6.5       This option is consistent with Council’s Plans and Policies to reduce the risks from natural hazards through land use planning and land drainage works. It provides an updated policy mechanism to deliver on this overall objective.

Financial Implications

6.6       Cost of Implementation – The costs will vary depending on the number of eligible properties in a catchment and the costs of the invention option(s) employed. Lifting the cap has a minor impact on the total cost of implementing the policy.

6.7       The cost associated with the application of the existing flood intervention policy in the Dudley Creek catchment is approximately $2 million, including property purchase, building demolition and ‘make good’ costs.

6.8       The estimated cost of this option in the Heathcote catchment (based on 2016 QV capital cost and an allowance for site clearance) is $16.5M with a cost certainty of +/- 30%.

6.9       Maintenance / Ongoing Costs – Cost of holding vacant properties purchase under the amended policy pending sale back to the market are covered by the Property Maintenance operating budgets.

6.10    Funding source – Land Drainage Recovery Programme capital budgets to be confirmed through the 2018/28 Long Term Plan.

Legal Implications

6.11    As a general principle there is no legal obligation on Council to resolve flooding issues affecting private property.  However the Council is obliged to maintain its existing stormwater infrastructure network.

6.12    Council has the ability to make voluntary purchase offer. No compulsory purchase is proposed.

Risks and Mitigations

6.13    The current policy carries a risk of a precedent effect across the city, which would also be the case for the amended policy. For the preferred option the risk is in-part mitigated by:

·   Continuing to link the policy to the Land Drainage Recovery Programme so that households at risk can be identified on a catchment by catchment basis

·   Communicating that the policy is only applicable to properties with frequent habitable floor flooding where this has been exacerbated by the earthquakes.

Implementation

6.14    Implementation dependencies – Implementation for catchments other than Dudley Creek catchment, which was recently completed, is dependent on catchment investigations to be undertaken through the Land Drainage Recovery Programme.

6.15    Implementation timeframe – Aligns with the Land Drainage Recovery Programme.

Option Summary - Advantages and Disadvantages

6.16    The advantages of this option include:

·   Establishes a clearer policy framework for earthquake-related flood intervention across the city

·   Provides clarity on the background, purpose and applicability of the policy

·   Better addresses health and well-being concerns of residents exposed to a greater risk of frequent flooding due to the earthquakes

·   Allows individual property owners to better recover from the multiple impacts of the earthquakes

·   Provides greater flexibility for applying the policy with revised caps

·   Delivers, where applicable, outcomes sought through the Christchurch District Plan High Flood Hazard Management Area

·   Reduces risk of confusion over the application of the policy.

6.17    The disadvantages of this option include:

·   May impose a higher cost on ratepayers as a whole to address flooding risk to worst affected properties than the current Flood Intervention Policy, and certainly a greater cost than a do nothing option.


 

7.   Option 2 - Retain current flood intervention policy

Option Description

7.1       Retain the current policy as adopted by resolution of the Council in December 2015.

Significance

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

Impact on Mana Whenua

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

Community Views and Preferences

7.4       Communities affected by this option are those where the risk of frequent habitable floor flooding increased after the earthquakes. Their views have not been canvassed, outside of the Dudley Creek catchment, for which the existing intervention policy was implemented.

7.5       As with the Dudley Creek catchment, views of communities in other affected catchments will be canvassed. This will occur in line with the delivery of the LDRP.

Alignment with Council Plans and Policies

7.6       This option is consistent with Council’s Plans and Policies to reduce the risks from natural hazards through land use planning and land drainage works. It introduced a policy mechanism to deliver on this overall objective.

Financial Implications

7.7       Cost of Implementation - The costs will vary depending on the number of eligible properties in a catchment and the costs of the invention option(s) employed.

7.8       The cost associated with the application of the existing flood intervention policy in the Dudley Creek catchment is approximately $2 million, including property purchase, building demolition and ‘make good’ costs.

7.9       The estimated cost of this option in the Heathcote catchment (based on 2016 QV capital cost and an allowance for site clearance) is $16.5M with a cost certainty of +/- 30%.

7.10    Maintenance / Ongoing Costs - Cost of holding vacant properties purchase under the amended policy pending sale back to the market are covered by the Property Maintenance operating budgets.

7.11    Funding source - Land Drainage Recovery Programme capital budgets to be confirmed through the 2018/28 Long Term Plan.

Legal Implications

7.12    As a general principle there is no legal obligation on Council to resolve flooding issues affecting private property.  However the Council is obliged to maintain its existing stormwater infrastructure network.

7.13    Council has the ability to make voluntary purchase offer. No compulsory purchase is proposed.

Risks and Mitigations

7.14    The current policy carries a risk of a precedent effect across the city, which would also be the case for the amended policy. This is addressed by linking the policy to the Land Drainage Recovery Programme so that households at risk can be identified on a catchment by catchment basis.

Implementation

7.15    Implementation dependencies - Implementation for catchments other than Dudley Creek catchment, which was recently completed, is dependent on development of a city-wide flood model and investigations to be undertaken through the Land Drainage Recovery Programme.

7.16    Implementation timeframe - Aligns with the Land Drainage Recovery Programme.

Option Summary - Advantages and Disadvantages

7.17    The advantages of this option include:

·   Retains the policy adopted by the Council in December 2015, which provides consistency

·   Continues to reduce negative health and well-being impacts on people living in houses subject to frequent flooding

·   Continues to mitigate property damage and resulting costs to individual homeowners and the insurance industry

·   Continues to allow individual property owners to better recover from the multiple impacts of the earthquakes

·   Continues to reduce pressure on emergency response to frequent flood events.

7.18    The disadvantages of this option include:

·   Does not provide sufficient clarity on the policy’s purpose, applicability, property eligibility or intervention options

·   Potential precedent effect for future inventions remains, e.g. for risk coastal erosion and coastal inundation due to sea level rise

·   Retains potential for the community to ask for further intervention at lesser levels of flood risk

·   Continues to impose a cost on ratepayers as a whole to address the worst affected properties

·   Is less flexible in application that Option 1.


 

8.   Option 3 - Rescind existing policy and rely solely on the standard engineering response 

Option Description

8.1       Under this option the existing flood intervention policy would be rescinded and there would be no Council intervention other than the traditional catchment engineering approaches to mitigate flood risk.

Significance

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

Impact on Mana Whenua

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

Community Views and Preferences

8.4       Communities affected by this option are those where the risk of frequent habitable floor flooding increased after the earthquakes. Their views have not been canvassed, outside of the Dudley Creek catchment, for which the existing intervention policy was implemented.

8.5       As with the Dudley Creek catchment, views of communities in other affected catchments would be canvassed. This would occur in line with the delivery of the LDRP.

Alignment with Council Plans and Policies

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

Financial Implications

8.7       Cost of Implementation – None.

8.8       Maintenance / Ongoing Costs – None.

Legal Implications

8.9       There may be an increased risk of claims against the Council by property owners who thought they would benefit from the 2015 Flood Intervention Policy.

Risks and Mitigations

8.10    Continued pressure on the Council to undertake further catchment engineering works to mitigate flood risk (with diminishing or nil realistic benefits), potentially at greater cost than with the application of the flood intervention policy.

Implementation

8.11    Implementation dependencies – None.

8.12    Implementation timeframe – None.

Option Summary - Advantages and Disadvantages

8.13    The advantages of this option include:

·   May avoid a precedent effect of intervening where properties at increased risk of flooding but given the two-year period in which the 2015 Flood Intervention Policy has been applicable this is not a strong advantage.

8.14    The disadvantages of this option include:

·   Homeowners at risk of frequent habitable floor flooding continue to be at risk with consequential health and well-being concerns

·   Pressure on Council to undertake further, and potentially more expensive, catchment wide engineering works

·   Inconsistent with the policy approach to increased rock-fall risk post-earthquake.

 

Attachments

No.

Title

Page

a 

December 2015 Flood Intervention Policy resolution

 

b 

DRAFT revised flooding intervention policy - 2017-10-17

 

 

 

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

Diane Shelander - Senior Policy Analyst

Peter Christensen - Senior Water Resources Engineer

Thomas Parsons - Surface Water Engineer

Approved By

Keith Davison - Manager Land Drainage

Peter Langbein - Finance Business Partner

Helen Beaumont - Head of Strategic Policy

John Mackie - Head of Three Waters and Waste

David Adamson - General Manager City Services

Brendan Anstiss - General Manager Strategy and Transformation

 


Council

23 November 2017

 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


Council

23 November 2017

 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


Council

23 November 2017

 

Report from Infrastructure, Transport and Environment Committee  – 8 November 2017

 

14.    Ōpāwaho / Heathcote River Floodplain Management Options

Reference:

17/1334957

Contact:

Keith Davison

keith.davison@ccc.govt.nz

941 8071

 

 

 

 

1.   Staff Recommendations

 

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

1.         Approve Option 1 of the Ōpāwaho / Heathcote River Floodplain Management proposal, which includes:

a.         The prioritisation of the Upper Heathcote Storage Scheme within the Land Drainage Recovery Programme, and progressing remaining works to detailed design and construction

b.         Progressing dredging in the Heathcote River through to detailed design and implementation

c.         Approve the application of the Flood Intervention Policy to properties that are eligible based on the criteria as described in the Policy within the flood extent of the main Heathcote River stem 

d.         Approve that staff continue to investigate the technical feasibility of low stopbanks to reduce frequent underfloor flooding, consult with affected communities should technical feasibility be confirmed and report back to the Committee

 

2.  Infrastructure, Transport and Environment Committee Recommendation to Council

 

That the Council:

1.         Approve Option 1 of the Ōpāwaho / Heathcote River Floodplain Management proposal, which includes:

a.         The prioritisation of the Upper Heathcote Storage Scheme within the Land Drainage Recovery Programme, and progressing remaining works to detailed design and construction.

b.         Progressing dredging in the Heathcote River through to detailed design and implementation.

c.         Approving the application of the Flood Intervention Policy to properties that are eligible based on the criteria as described in the Policy within the flood extent of the main Heathcote River stem.

d.         Approving that staff continue to investigate the technical feasibility of low stopbanks to reduce frequent underfloor flooding, consult with affected communities should technical feasibility be confirmed and report back to the Committee.

 

 

Attachments

No.

Report Title

Page

1

Ōpāwaho / Heathcote River Floodplain Management Options

233

 

 

 


Council

23 November 2017

 

 

Ōpāwaho / Heathcote River Floodplain Management Options

Reference:

17/1075095

Contact:

Keith Davison

keith.davison@ccc.govt.nz

941 8071

 

 

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 recommend to Council which of the Ōpāwaho / Heathcote River Floodplain Management Options to approve for funding and implementation.

Origin of Report

1.2       This report is staff generated.

2.   Significance

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

2.1.1   The level of significance was determined by considering the impacts on the community, cultural values, the environment, and the ability of Council to meet levels of service.

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 recommend that Council:

1.         Approve Option 1 of the Ōpāwaho / Heathcote River Floodplain Management proposal, which includes:

a.         The prioritisation of the Upper Heathcote Storage Scheme within the Land Drainage Recovery Programme, and progressing remaining works to detailed design and construction

b.         Progressing dredging in the Heathcote River through to detailed design and implementation

c.         Approve the application of the Flood Intervention Policy to properties that are eligible based on the criteria as described in the Policy within the flood extent of the main Heathcote River stem 

d.         Approve that staff continue to investigate the technical feasibility of low stopbanks to reduce frequent underfloor flooding, consult with affected communities should technical feasibility be confirmed and report back to the Committee

 

 

4.   Key Points

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

4.1.1   Activity: Flood Protection and Control Works

·     Level of Service: 14.1.5 Implement Land Drainage Recovery Programme works to reduce flooding

4.2       The following feasible options have been considered:

·     Option 1 – Adopt the proposed Ōpāwaho / Heathcote River floodplain management scheme (preferred option)

·     Option 2 – Implement the Upper Heathcote storage scheme only

4.3       Option Summary - Advantages and Disadvantages (Preferred Option)

4.3.1   The advantages of this option include:

·     Provides significant benefit to the Ōpāwaho / Heathcote River communities affected by both frequent and extreme flooding, including those flooded in July 2017

·     No residential dwellings modelled to be at risk of above floor level flooding in a 1 in 10 annual exceedance probability (AEP) event (in the current climate scenario)

·     In an extreme event (1 in 50 AEP), reduces the number of modelled residential dwellings at risk of above floor flooding to only 20% of the pre-earthquake number in the current climate, acknowledging that there are still 10 dwellings which were not at risk prior to the earthquakes but remain at risk post-earthquake

·     May reduce the levels of anxiety experienced by residents when rainfall is forecast as Council can provide greater reassurance that the level of risk is reduced

·     May result in insurance companies reinstating insurance cover as the risk of flooding will be reduced significantly

·     Provides a robust platform for future floodplain management by ensuring that the options selected still function or are adaptable in a changing climate and rising sea level

·     Has a clear implementation pathway, with the delivery timeframe primarily dependent on funding

4.3.2   The disadvantages of this option include:

·     Higher capital and ongoing operational cost than Option 2

·     Commits Council to an ongoing programme of dredging until sea level rise renders this ineffective

 

5.   Context/Background

Ōpāwaho / Heathcote River Flooding

5.1       Flooding has been a significant issue along the Ōpāwaho / Heathcote River since human settlement along the river corridor intensified, particularly when the lower river terraces were settled in the early 20th century.

5.2       The Christchurch Drainage Board dredged to manage flood risk, and also completed a study in 1985 with a series of recommendations for additional works, including construction of additional storage basins in the Upper Heathcote area. Only one of these, Wigram East, was completed.

5.3       A joint CCC/Environment Canterbury Heathcote River Floodplain Management Strategy (1998) largely echoed the recommendations of the 1985 study, including for additional storage. It is noteworthy that it included a recommendation for “localised stopbanking and bunding for isolated properties on floodplain” downstream of Colombo Street.

5.4       The District Plan contains a number of controls to restrict development in flood prone areas, identifying Flood Ponding Management Areas, Flood Management Areas, and High Flood Hazard Management Areas.

5.5       The Canterbury Earthquake Sequence (‘earthquakes’) resulted in significant changes to land drainage throughout the city. The key effects for the Ōpāwaho / Heathcote River were:

·   Loss of channel capacity due to bank slumping, lateral spread, and increased sedimentation due to liquefaction

·   Tectonic uplift at the mouth of the river resulting in a reduced capability to drain upstream

·   Land settlement in places resulting in a drop of land levels adjacent to the river

5.6       Between Colombo Street and Radley Street the number of houses at risk of frequent flooding (greater than a 1 in 10 AEP) event is now six times greater, and the number of at risk of flooding in an extreme (1 in 50 AEP) event has almost doubled. Some houses along the Ōpāwaho / Heathcote River have been reported to have flooded four times since the earthquakes, as a result of the earthquakes and a particularly wet period. Other impacts of the post-earthquake flooding are wastewater contamination on property and restriction of access for hundreds of properties.

5.7       The impacts of the earthquakes on houses at risk of flooding are quantified in Table 1.

Table 1: Number of buildings with over-floor flooding pre-earthquake and immediately post-earthquake, and identifying those which were not at risk pre-earthquake

Area

1 in 10 AEP (existing development)

1 in 50 AEP (existing development)

PreEQ

PostEQ

PostEQ but not PreEQ

PreEQ

PostEQ

PostEQ but not PreEQ

Radley Street to Hansen Park

0

16

16

27

69

43

Hansen Park to Colombo Street

4

7

4

58

83

34

Upstream of Colombo Street

3

1

1

90

70

24

Totals

7

24

21

175

222

101

 

5.8       In Table 1 the total number of houses at risk of flooding in an extreme event (50 year ARI) as a result of earthquake effects is 101, which is higher than the difference between pre-earthquake and post-earthquake (47) as the flood risk at a number of houses upstream of Colombo Street actually dropped as a result of the earthquakes.

5.9       It is noted that climate change and sea level rise will have a more significant impact on flooding, particularly downstream of Hansen Park, than the earthquakes. The options presented in this report to address current flood risk form a foundation on which to build future floodplain management as the climate and sea level continues to change.

Options Considered

5.10    To address flooding along the Ōpāwaho / Heathcote River the Land Drainage Recovery Programme (LDRP) has to date:

·   Fast-tracked the design and construction of four storage basins, including:

·     Purchase of additional land in Hendersons Basin, and entering into negotiations with other land owners

·     Completion of Stage 1 of Eastman Wetlands storage scheme

·     Beginning construction of Wigram East retention basin extension

·     Progress toward detailed design of Cashmere-Worsley, Eastman Wetlands and Curletts Wetland

·   Initiated detailed design of the bank stabilisation works

·   Undertaken a study to identify floodplain management options to develop an implementation programme from this to address flooding in each affected area

5.11    The Land Drainage Operations team is also implementing a project to dredge the Woolston Cut.

5.12    A consultant’s report on options to mitigate post-earthquake flooding was provided to the Land Drainage Recovery Programme in October 2017. This report summarises the findings of that study.

5.13    Table 2 presents the long list of options considered by the floodplain management study, and the short list for mitigating frequent flooding. Note that some of the options discarded for consideration to mitigate current flooding may be included in the long term strategy (e.g. river mouth pump station).

Table 2 Options considered in development of the medium term response

Type of mitigation

Options long list (may still be considered for long term response)

Short list of current flooding options

Source

(Reducing or attenuating the flood sources)

•    Do minimum (planned storage)

•    Further upstream storage (i.e. in Hendersons basin)

•    Catchment-wide micro-storage

•    Eastern hills attenuation

•    Tidal suppression (eg barrage)

•    Do minimum (planned storage)

•    Further upstream storage (i.e. in Hendersons basin)

•    Catchment-wide micro-storage

•    Eastern hills attenuation

•    Tidal suppression (e.g. barrage)

Pathway

(Improving the capacity of the river or keeping the river within the banks)

•    Mid-Heathcote storage

•    Stopbanks (full length and discrete locations)

•    Dredging (full reach and individual reaches)

•    Floodplain widening

•    Channel diversion (i.e. bypass culverts)

•    River mouth pump station

•    Mid-Heathcote storage

•    Stopbanks (full length and discrete locations)

•    Dredging (full reach and individual reaches)

•    Floodplain widening (through bank stabilisation)

•    Channel diversion (i.e. bypass culverts)

•    River mouth pump station

Receptor

(Changing the impact of flooding)

•    House raising / purchase  (Flood Intervention Policy)

•    Changing land use (“room for the river” in future)

•    Reduced level of service

•    House raising / purchase

•    Changing land use

•    Reduced level of service

 

5.14    The short list of options proposed for floodplain management in the Heathcote catchment are described below. In summary these are:

·   The Upper Heathcote Storage Scheme. This is considered to form the foundation of all other options, and the benefits reported for other options include the effects of this scheme. This is partly funded at present, and implementation timeframes are dependent on securing additional funding.

·   Dredging. The dredging recommended is between Hansen Park and the Woolston Cut. This is not funded.

·   Flood Intervention Policy. This report is recommending the application of this policy in the Heathcote catchment but is only partially funded.

·   Low stopbanks. This is not a recommendation for implementation at present, but rather is seeking Council support to continue to investigate the technical feasibility and consult with the community.

5.15    Bank stabilisation (which results in some channel widening) is not included in the options report, because although it is important for floodplain management, it is already fully funded and will commence early 2018.

Upper Heathcote Storage Scheme

5.16    The Upper Heathcote Storage Scheme consists of four new flood basins, with a total combined additional capacity over and above planned projects of 800,000m³. The total cost of the scheme is estimated at $41M with a cost certainty of +/- 30%.

5.17    These have been approved and are in varying stages of construction or design as described below. Two of these are already fully funded, however the implementation timeframe of the remaining two basins is dependent on funding. The four basins are all required to be implemented to provide the full benefits due to the hydrological characteristics of the upper Heathcote network. The location and status of each of the basins is shown in Figure 1 below.

Figure 1 Location of basins within the Upper Heathcote Storage Scheme

 

5.18    The extension of Wigram East Retention Basin in Canterbury Agricultural Park is fully funded and is in construction. This will be completed by mid-2018.

5.19    Curlett Stream Basin is a joint flood protection and stormwater quality improvement project. This is fully funded and in detailed design, with construction expected to begin early 2018.

5.20    The Eastmans Wetland project is also a joint flood protection and stormwater quality improvement project. It is also working in with the efforts to reduce sediment from the Hoon Hay Valley following the fires earlier this year. The first stage of two additional basins was completed in 2016. The project has funding to complete the next stage, but not to complete the full project. Detailed design is underway and construction of the funded portion will begin in early 2018.

5.21    The Cashmere-Worsley Valley project combines flood protection with work to reduce the sediment load from this catchment following the Port Hills fires. This is in detailed design and will require additional funding for construction, which is scheduled to commence early 2018.

5.22    The purpose of the storage basins is to store flood waters during the peak of a storm and to slowly release the stored water after the water levels downstream have dropped. The effect of this is to result in a lower peak water level than would have occurred if there was no storage upstream.

5.23    It is estimated (Table 3) that the upstream storage will protect over 100 buildings currently at risk of overfloor flooding in extreme floods (i.e. a 1 in 50 AEP event), including the majority of those upstream of Colombo Street and over two thirds of those between Colombo and Radley Streets. This will reduce the risk of flooding above floor in extreme events upstream of Radley Street to below pre-earthquake levels.

5.24    In frequent floods (i.e. 1 in 10 AEP event in Table 3), the upstream storage will protect half of the buildings at risk of overfloor flooding upstream of Radley Street. This reduces the risk of flooding in frequent events upstream of Hansen Park to below pre-earthquake levels, but does not eliminate all the increased risk which resulted from the earthquakes downstream of Hansen Park.

Table 3: Number of buildings with overfloor flooding pre-earthquake, immediately post-earthquake and with the planned upstream storage

Area

10 year ARI (existing development)

50 year ARI (existing development)

PreEQ

PostEQ

PostEQ with storage

PreEQ

PostEQ

PostEQ with storage

Radley Street to Hansen Park

0

16

8

27

69

61

Hansen Park to Colombo Street

4

7

4

58

83

51

Upstream of Colombo Street

3

1

0

90

70

2

Totals

7

24

12

175

222

114

 

5.25    Substantial benefits are provided through the storage scheme. However, these benefits decrease the further downstream from the storage, and additional measures are required to mitigate the risk in the mid and lower Ōpāwaho / Heathcote River.

Dredging

5.26    A consultant’s report on dredging was received in October 2017. This section is a summary of that report.

5.27    Hydraulic modelling has demonstrated that flooding upstream of Radley Street is caused in part by the inadequate capacity of the channel to convey flood flows to the Woolston Cut and out to the estuary. Dredging can increase channel conveyance, reduce water levels and frequent floods. Dredging can also reduce the length of time water occupies the floodplain, which has relevance where flooding displaces people from their homes or forces road closure and access restrictions.

5.28    Based on analysis of past channel profiles, the reach with the greatest raising of the bed (through sedimentation and earthquake impacts) and overall loss in cross-sectional area through sediment deposition and possibly earthquake effects, is between Hansen Park and the Woolston Cut. The effect of raising the bed and the loss of area is to reduce the ability of the channel to convey flood waters which increases in flood levels, making the impact of any flooding worse than if the full channel capacity was available.

5.29    Figure 2 shows a cross-section of a portion of the river along Richardson and Clarendon Terraces, opposite MacKenzie Ave. The yellow line is the 1990 channel profile, with the other colours all post-earthquake surveys.

Figure 2 Ōpāwaho / Heathcote River Bed elevations and cross section profile at Richardson and Clarendon Terraces (representative profile of other areas)

5.30    It is estimated that a volume of approximately 60,000 m3 of material needs to be removed to achieve the proposed design channel.

5.31    The proposed channel was represented by modified cross sections in the Heathcote hydraulic model, which represents the already planned upstream storage.

5.32    Some of the key outcomes from this modelling of the effects of dredging in frequent (1 in 10 AEP) flooding include:

·   Reduction in the maximum water level over and above that provided by upstream storage by approximately 300 mm, around Hansen Park

·   This water level reduction reduces to less than 100 mm around Ensors Road in an upstream direction and Radley Street in a downstream direction

·   Reduces the number of dwellings at risk of flooding above the floor level in both frequent and extreme events

·   Reduces the number of houses flooded beneath the floor, and reduces the length of roads affected by frequent flooding

5.33    The benefits of dredging will be compromised in the future by sea level rise, but it is predicted that benefits will extend until approximately 0.25 metres sea level rise occurs. This is currently estimated to occur in 25-30 years.

5.34    Care will need to be taken in managing the environmental impacts associated with dredging. Fish populations have been observed in the area which included species with a conservation status of “at risk/declining”. Dredging works and associated bank stabilisation could impact upon Inanga spawning areas. However, following discussions with aquatic ecologists specialising in this area, it is considered that these risks can be mitigated through both the timing of the dredging and through compensatory works, for instance, placing straw bales to increase spawning.

5.35    The cost of dredging is currently estimated to be $14.2M, with a cost certainty of +/- 30%. This includes costs for bank stabilisation which will need to occur in conjunction with the dredging. There remains a risk of cost escalation if significant amounts of contaminated sediments are present. Sediment sampling is underway to quantify this risk.

Application of the Flood Intervention Policy

5.36    Between 25 and 35 houses have been identified, through modelling and reported flooding, as being at risk of frequent flooding along the Ōpāwaho / Heathcote River following the earthquakes. Prior to the earthquakes it was estimated that only seven houses faced a similar level of risk.

5.37    Many of these houses have flooded above the floor multiple times since the earthquakes, with some of them known to have flooded above the floor four times during this period. Climate change and sea level rise will continue to worsen the flood risk faced by these residents, as they are the most vulnerable to any increase in flood levels.

5.38    In order to provide relief to the worst affected houses along the Heathcote River it is proposed to make an offer for voluntary sale of their property to Council. The mechanism for the purchase of houses at risk of flooding in a frequent event is proposed to be the Flood Intervention Policy (FIP).

5.39    The FIP was approved by Council in December 2015 (Resolution CNCL/2015/00098). The policy is designed to offer assistance to property owners who:

·   Have had frequent above-floor flooding

·   Are in a residential dwelling where flooding has been worsened by the earthquakes

·   The reduction to their flood risk from planned flood mitigation schemes will not be timely

5.40    With the Upper Heathcote Storage Scheme and dredging, the majority of those at risk of flooding with this level of frequency are removed, with approximately five remaining at risk. However, the FIP states that:

·   The purpose of this policy is to intervene when the Council’s engineering works will not be timely or effective in reducing risk of frequent flooding of habitable floor levels exacerbated the earthquakes.

5.41    In this case, while the proposed works will be effective for the majority of houses that may qualify for the FIP, it is not considered that the works will be timely. The full benefits will not be achieved for several years, even with maximum funding provided. This is because the combined storage and dredging works are required to provide the full benefit. As such staff are recommending that the FIP is applied now to provide timely relief.

5.42    The policy is based around offering assistance to owners on a property-specific basis, and may include localised drainage improvements, house-raising, or voluntary property purchase. The aim of the policy was to select the most cost-effective mitigation option.

5.43    For this area of the Heathcote River it is proposed to only offer voluntary property purchase to the property owners. The reason for this is that:

·   Even with defence of an individual property, or raising of a house, the residents will still be affected by frequent underfloor flooding and may still be at risk of not obtaining insurance; and

·   The majority of the affected properties are in the High Flood Hazard Management Areas which Council considers unsuitable for intensification of development. These areas are those with high risk to life in extreme flooding, and rebuilding or raising houses in these areas is unlikely to be compatible with Council’s long term approach to floodplain management.

5.44    A separate report from Strategy and Transformation to the Infrastructure, Transport and Environment Committee, and subsequently to Council, is requesting an update to the FIP in line with the recommendations above, and to incorporate changes identified as necessary following application within the Flockton area.

5.45    The current cost of this option based on 2016 QV capital cost and an allowance for site clearance is $16.5M with a cost certainty of +/- 30%.

Low stopbanks

5.46    High stopbanks or floodwalls could be used to protect buildings at risk of overfloor flooding in a more extreme 50 year event. However, the likely heights of stopbanks or walls required – and the large width if stopbanks were required – are unlikely to be technically viable or acceptable to the community without major changes occurring. In some places the stopbanks would be over 1.8m in height. In addition, the cost of stopbanks or walls to provide this level of protection has been previously estimated at several hundred million dollars, well in excess of the value of the property protected.

5.47    As an alternative to stopbanks to protect against extreme flooding, the concept of low stopbanks has been considered. This is because the storage and house purchase options outlined above are aimed at frequent above floor post-earthquake flooding. However, underfloor flooding also causes significant distress to the community. An example of this was the response to the July 2017 flood event, where some residents rescued were not flooded above floor, but requested evacuation for medical reasons or due to a fear of the waters increasing.

5.48    Upstream of Hansen Park, the number of houses at risk of frequent underfloor flooding has increased from 104 to 159 due to the earthquakes. This will reduce with the storage schemes, but not back to pre-earthquake levels.

5.49    The length of roads with an impassable depth (>0.3m) of flooding (in the 10yr ARI event) has increased by 1.2km as a result of the earthquakes, from 3.3km to 4.5km. This results in an increase of the number of dwellings with restricted access from 280 to 470.

5.50    The rationale for consideration of low stopbanks is based on the impacts of frequent flooding as a result of underfloor flooding:

·   Detrimental psycho-social effect on residents (this was a significant impact identified during the Mayoral Flood Taskforce, which concluded that underfloor flooding was as distressing as over-floor flooding for some)

·   No flood insurance or high excesses (at least two residents upstream of Hansen Park with only underfloor flooding have lost insurance cover for flooding)

·   EOC activation and the impacts on staff and resources

·   Wastewater overflows to river (road flooding results in the sewer system being overloaded)

·   Sewage under houses, on property, in playgrounds and on streets

·   Closure of roads, loss of access, and damage to roads

·   Danger to life if the flood waters are entered in many locations

·   Contents damaged in garages, under homes and cars written off

·   Reputational damage to Council

5.51    Of particular concern is the loss of flood insurance cover for some residents, even those which did not have above floor flooding in the July 2017 event. To date two residents have written to Council stating that their cover will only be reinstated if it can be shown that Council is undertaking works to mitigate the frequent flooding they have experienced. Whether these two cases are a trend or are isolated instances has yet to be confirmed.

5.52    Along the Avon River the temporary stopbanks provide protection up to a current 100yr ARI event (with no freeboard). The long term design standard for the Avon River is for protection in a 100yr ARI event, with 400mm freeboard, and allowance for 1m sea level rise. However, the Avon River floodplain is much wider, which both provides the space for this construction, and the economic justification for large structures (as more houses are at risk).

5.53    The Ōpāwaho / Heathcote River floodplain is much narrower, with typically only one row of houses on the low bank with a road in front, and the other rows of houses on the higher terraces behind. This means that there is typically little room for construction of large structures and means that there is less economic justification for large structures (due to fewer houses exposed).

5.54    It is also considered that large structures, such as stopbanks to provide protection in a 50yr or 100yr ARI event would compromise the natural values of the Ōpāwaho / Heathcote River corridor. For instance, 50 yr ARI stopbanks would be higher than 1.8m (6 feet) in some locations. This is not considered practical or desirable.

5.55    Furthermore, high stopbanks lock Council into one particular floodplain management pathway, that is, defence. This can encourage development behind stopbanks and require the stopbanks to be built higher and higher as climate change and sea level rise effects increase.

5.56    However, a ‘do minimum’ approach may not be acceptable to the community. While storage and house purchase will address the worst above floor flooding, underfloor flooding will still occur on a relatively frequent basis, with the associated community impacts and Council reputational damage.

5.57    Low stopbanks could provide protection against frequent flooding in the worst locations, focusing on those areas with:

·   Frequent underfloor flooding

·   Deep road flooding (>0.3m)

·   Limited alternative access options for large numbers of houses

5.58    Two stopbank scenarios have been developed which, in these early stages of development, are termed ‘Priority 1’ and ‘Priority 2’. The scenarios are shown in plan on Figure 3, with a representative cross section in Figure 4. In some places low walls may be required to navigate around specific features.

5.59    The maximum heights of the stopbanks range between 0.7 to 1.2m in the Priority 1 areas, and up to 1.3m in the Priority 2 areas. The locations proposed for low stopbanks overlap with the Mid-Heathcote River / Ōpāwaho Linear Park Masterplan, the Ōpāwaho River major cycle route and ongoing bank stabilisation work.

Figure 3 Conceptual alignments of the ‘Priority 1’ and ‘Priority 2’ low stopbanks

Figure 4 Artist’s impression of a low stopbank

5.60    Aside from the impact on the river margins, there are risks in constructing low stopbanks:

·   It may be considered as forming a precedent for a level of service to be applied citywide

·   Residents may consider flooding to be ‘fixed’, and therefore be less prepared for when a larger flood which overtops the stopbanks occur (and it will eventually). This may lead to a less resilient outcome such as community complacency

·   If flooding is considered by residents to be ‘fixed’, then they may be more encouraged to increase their investment in the area. This in turn could lead to Council being forced to provide more protection in the future

·   It could be seen as predetermining a long term approach of ‘defending’ against flooding, rather than changing land use and learning to live with it

·   When an overtopping flood occurs, residents may be caught unaware as the early signs of road flooding would not be present

·   Road narrowing or single laning may not be accepted by the community

·   The insurance industry may not provide cover if the level of protection is not seen as sufficient

·   Wastewater overflows may accumulate on the road-side of the stopbanks and be worse than if discharged into the river and diluted

·   Costs may escalate due to difficulties discovered through the design process

·   The community may expect Council to make the stopbanks higher over time rather than just accepting a lower level of service

5.61    It is considered that, while important, these risks can be overcome, for example:

·   Underfloor and road flooding is more severe than most parts of the city and is clearly earthquake related, so the ‘precedent’ risk can be managed

·   The District Plan will still manage development along the river corridor, with the High Flood Hazard Management Area rules still applying (the low stopbanks will not change this risk)

·   Community engagement can keep the community informed of the flood risk, e.g. through signs along the river pathways showing the future extreme flood level and talking about flood preparedness

·   A long term strategy is still required and this will address the long term land use pattern in the area. However, the low stopbanks will allow time for this to be developed, and begin the process of road narrowing and allowing more space for the river

·   Low stopbanks will give more time for residents to evacuate in the dry, and for Council and Civil Defence staff to access the community

5.62    It is recognised that low stopbanks will need extensive community consultation and further investigation if they are to be accepted and successful. Initial response from the community at recent public meetings have provided a mixed response, with some supporting them due to the impacts of the flooding, and others considering that the character of the river banks will be compromised.

5.63    For this option staff are asking for a decision from the ITE Committee as to whether to continue considering this option further. If Council support continuing to consider this option, then further work to confirm the technical feasibility will be undertaken, followed by consultation with the community.

5.64    This option is currently costed at $20M with a cost certainty of +/- 40%.

6.   Option 1 - Adopt the proposed Ōpāwaho / Heathcote River floodplain management scheme (preferred)

Option Description

6.1       This option consists of the following components as described in the background section:

·   The Upper Heathcote Storage Scheme

·   Dredging downstream of Hansen Park

·   Bank stabilisation works

·   Applying the Flood Intervention Policy

·   Further investigation into technical feasibility and acceptability of low stopbanks

6.2       This option involves prioritisation of these works within the Land Drainage Recovery Programme to deliver the works within the FY18-21 period (with the exception of low stopbanks).

6.3       The combined benefits of these options are significant, with benefits provided in both frequent and extreme events. Figures 5 and 6 demonstrate this benefit, showing how the numbers of dwellings modelled to be at risk of flooding above the floor level has changed as a result of the earthquakes, and then the improvement through the storage scheme and then with the additional options. This results in a substantial improvement over the pre-earthquake situation, although in an extreme event 10 dwellings which were modelled to not be at risk pre-earthquake remain at risk post-earthquake.

6.4       In addition to mitigating above floor level flooding, there are substantial other benefits to reducing the severity of both frequent and extreme flooding. These have been described earlier in the report, but it is important to remember that the impacts of flooding extend far beyond the damage to houses, and includes psycho-social impacts for many along the river.

6.5       The recommendation to proceed with Option 1 is based the significant benefits achieved, and the confidence that the options can be implemented within a relatively short time period if funding is approved through the Long Term Plan.

Figure 5 Frequent flood risk along the Ōpāwaho / Heathcote River (1 in 10 AEP)

Figure 6 Extreme flood risk along the Ōpāwaho / Heathcote River (1 in 50 AEP)

Significance

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

6.7       Engagement requirements for this level of significance vary according to the activity. A series of public meetings have been held in developing and presenting these options, and some aspects of the options will require either engagement or consultation.

Impact on Mana Whenua

6.8       This option does involve a significant decision in relation to ancestral land or a body of water or other elements of intrinsic value, therefore this decision does specifically impact Ngāi Tahu, their culture and traditions.

6.9       Consultation through Mahaanui Kurataiao Ltd (MKT) has been undertaken for the Upper Heathcote Storage Scheme and strong support has been expressed.

6.10    Consultation on dredging has not begun, although informal talks have taken place. Careful management of sediment and other environmental and cultural effects will be required.

Community Views and Preferences

6.11    Residents along the Ōpāwaho / Heathcote River are specifically affected by this option due to the flooding experienced particularly following the earthquakes. 

6.12    Their views have been expressed through a variety of forums, and most recently at two public meetings held on 17 and 18 October. This generated significant media interest, highlighting the strength of feeling within the community.

6.13    The views expressed have been that flood mitigation works are required and that the current level of flood risk is unacceptable. Residents have reported high levels of anxiety in anticipation of further flooding.

6.14    There are also two known instances where insurance cover for flooding has been removed due to frequent underfloor flooding unless it could be demonstrated the Council was undertaking works to reduce the risk. It is expected that the measures outlined in this option would demonstrate that flood risk is returning to pre-earthquake levels or better for the majority of the properties.

Alignment with Council Plans and Policies

6.15    This option, excluding low stopbanks, is consistent with Council’s Plans and Policies. It is noted that amendments to the Flood Intervention Policy are being made concurrently with this report. The key amendment for applying the policy to the Ōpāwaho / Heathcote River is the prevention of structures being rebuilt on the purchased properties. This report assumes that the policy is amended consistent with this.

6.16    Low stopbanks are inconsistent with Council’s Plans and Policies

6.16.1 Inconsistency – There is currently no policy which addresses frequent underfloor flooding

6.16.2 Reason for inconsistency – No policy

6.16.3 Amendment necessary – If this option were to be agreed then it would need to be considered to be specific to the mid and lower reaches of the Ōpāwaho / Heathcote River due to the unique nature of the flooding environment there

Financial Implications

6.17    Cost of Implementation – The Heathcote Floodplain Management Options outlined in this Option 1 (inclusive of the LDRP component from FY18 onwards of all four upper Heathcote storage basins, implementation of the Flood Implementation Policy and dredging) is estimated at $72M +/- 30%. The low stopbanks have not been included in the cost at this stage.

6.18    Of this total $28M has approved budget through the annual plan process. To implement the remainder will therefore require a request of approximately $44M of funding from the Land Drainage Recovery Programme.

6.19    Maintenance / Ongoing Costs – There would be ongoing costs with the implementation of these projects.

·   For the basin projects these costs are to be defined on a project level.

·   Maintaining sections cleared under the FIP is an additional operational expense not currently budgeted for, and the mechanism for maintenance would need to be determined. It may be that these spaces could be used for community gardens or the like.

·   Maintenance dredging would be required, with an estimate based on current levels of sedimentation being in the order of $1.5M every 10 years.

·   The maintenance requirements of the low stopbanks would be similar to that required for the banks already.

6.20    Funding source – With some re-prioritisation of existing projects, the budgets indicated by the 2015 LTP and subsequent annual plans would have sufficient funding for the Heathcote Floodplain Management Options. A continuation of this funding in the proposed FY19-28 Long Term Plan would allow these projects to continue or commence. Augmented funding would allow earlier completion, and reduce the level of re-prioritisation required. 

6.21    The specific funding requirements are outlined in the following table.

CPMS ID

Project Candidate Name

Required budget

Project budget status

Estimated funding deficit

40237

LDRP 520 Wigram East Retention Basin

$8M

Fully funded

-

33977

LDRP 526 Curletts Flood Storage

$3M

Fully funded

-

26599

LDRP 500 Cashmere-Worsley Flood Storage

$16M

Partially funded

$4M

34341

LDRP 528 Eastman Wetlands

$14M

Partially funded

$12M

41640

LDRP 517 Flood Intervention Policy

$17M

Partially funded

$14M

46181

LDRP 527 Heathcote Dredging

$14M

Not funded

$14M

 

6.22    Assuming 2015 LTP budgets, the Heathcote projects (excluding low stopbanks) could be delivered FY18-21 without the delay of any other LDRP projects currently in detailed design or construction. It would require the re-prioritisation of other projects that are listed in the annual plan but are not yet in design. When these projects could commence would be dependent on Long Term Plan funding. These projects are:

·   LDRP 506 Dudley Creek Tributaries

·   LDRP 505 Sumner Stream and Richmond Hill Waterway

·   LDRP 511 Upper Avon

·   LDRP 510 Wairarapa, Wai-iti and Tributaries

·   LDRP 521 Avon Floodplain Management Implementation

6.23    Heathcote low stopbanks, which are currently only an option pending approval for technical feasibility studies, could be funded in FY20-FY22 under the same budget mechanism.

Legal Implications

6.24    Resource consents will be required to enact the storage schemes, dredging and low stopbanks. In some instances existing global consents can be applied.

6.25    The dam in the Cashmere Valley will be large dam structure. This requires a Building Consent to be obtained from Environment Canterbury.

Risks and Mitigations   

6.26    There are a number of risks associated with enacting these works from both engineering and social standpoints.

6.27    Upper Heathcote Storage Scheme – For the dam in the Cashmere Valley there is a risk of failure of a large dam structure.

6.27.1 Treatment: By moving the location of the dam from the lower valley to the upper valley an attenuation area is provided. This alternative reduces the risk from a High Potential Impact Classification (PIC) to a Low PIC. A large dam also requires inspections and a robust operational management regime.

6.27.2 Residual risk rating: the rating of the risk is Low, although detailed design work will confirm the risk rating. Management of the risk of large dams is considered through the Building Act and the Resource Management Act.

6.28    Upper Heathcote Storage Scheme –Risk of flooding caused by system failure, overtopping during events that are larger than the design capacity, storm event erosion or operational deficiency remains.  This could result in flooding of streets, properties and potentially some homes.

6.28.1 Treatment: Ongoing operational management of the network is fundamental to ongoing flood management.  Response plans will be required.

6.28.2 Residual risk rating: the rating of the risk is low given the nature of the proposed system.

6.29    Dredging: Consent is not obtained meaning that the works cannot proceed, or costs escalate due to the discovery of contaminated material.

6.29.1 Treatment: Initial discussions held with Environment Canterbury are positive, and engagement with other groups has begun. Sediment sampling is underway to identify potentially contaminated areas and to manage this process.

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

6.30    Low stopbanks: Risk of flooding caused by system failure, overtopping during events that are larger than the design capacity, storm event erosion or operational deficiency (e.g. temporary pumps behind the stopbanks fail) remains.  This will result in flooding of streets, properties and potentially some homes.

6.30.1 Treatment: Ongoing operational management of the network is fundamental to ongoing flood management.  Response plans will be needed.

6.30.2 Residual risk rating: the rating of the risk is low given the nature of the proposed system, although it is noted that the low stopbanks would be designed to overtop in extreme floods.

6.31    Flood Intervention Policy – Purchase of properties cannot be completed due to an agreed settlement not being reached. This will result in houses remaining at high risk of flooding.

6.31.1 Treatment: Making offers based on a fair value as guided by the Policy.

6.31.2 Residual risk rating: the rating of the risk is low as the Policy has a process in place to manage this.

Implementation

6.32    Implementation dependencies - Implementation is dependent primarily on funding being approved, although some elements require Resource and/or Building Consent.

6.33    Implementation timeframe – Assuming 2015 LTP budgets, the Heathcote projects (excluding low stopbanks) could be delivered in the period FY18-21

Option Summary - Advantages and Disadvantages

6.34    The advantages of this option include:

·   Provides significant benefit to the Ōpāwaho / Heathcote River communities affected by both frequent and extreme flooding, including those flooded in July 2017

·   No residential dwellings at risk of above floor level flooding in a 1 in 10 annual exceedance probability (AEP) event (in the current climate scenario)

·   In an extreme event (1 in 50 AEP), reduces the number of residential dwellings at risk of above floor flooding to only 20% of the pre-earthquake number in the current climate, acknowledging that there are still 10 dwellings which were not at risk prior to the earthquakes but remain at risk post-earthquake

·   May reduce the levels of anxiety experienced by residents when rainfall is forecast as Council can provide greater reassurance that the level of risk is reduced

·   May result in insurance companies reinstating insurance cover as the risk of flooding will be reduced significantly

·   Provides a robust platform for future floodplain management by ensuring that the options selected still function or are adaptable in a changing climate and rising sea level

·   Has a clear implementation pathway, with the delivery timeframe primarily dependent on funding

6.35    The disadvantages of this option include:

·   Higher capital and ongoing operational cost than Option 2

·   Commits Council to an ongoing programme of dredging until sea level rise renders this ineffective

7.   Option 2 – Upper Heathcote Storage Scheme Only

Option Description

7.1       Continue with the Upper Heathcote Storage Scheme only.

7.2       This option is not recommended as the increase in flood risk due to the earthquakes would be mitigated upstream of Colombo Street, but not between Colombo Street and Radley Streets:

·   In the 1 in 10 AEP event, at least 15 houses would remain at risk of frequent flooding above the floor level

·   In a 1 in 50 AEP event, 50 dwellings which were not at risk of flooding above the floor level prior to the earthquakes would now be at risk

·   112 dwellings would be at risk of flooding in a 1 in 50 AEP event, regardless of whether they were at risk prior to the earthquakes or not

Significance

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

7.4       Engagement requirements for this level of significance are similar to that for Option 1.

Impact on Mana Whenua

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

Community Views and Preferences

7.6       At a number of forums, and most recently at the public meetings held on 17 and 18 October, the community has requested that flood mitigation is provided, particularly along the mid and lower Ōpāwaho / Heathcote River.

7.7       The Upper Heathcote Storage Scheme only provides limited benefit to this area without both dredging and the Flood Intervention Policy. A number of residents have described the mental strain which the flooding has put them under, with rainfall causing anxiety due to the frequent flooding post-earthquake. Implementing the storage scheme alone would not allow staff to provide reassurance that the mitigation is sufficient to alleviate this concern.

7.8       In addition there has been expressed a strong desire for dredging to recommence.

7.9       For these reasons it is considered that this option would not be preferred by the community.

Alignment with Council Plans and Policies

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

7.10.1 Inconsistency – not implementing the Land Drainage Recovery Programme

7.10.2 Reason for inconsistency – the Land Drainage Recovery Programme aims to at least restore pre-earthquake levels of flood risk, and the risk to properties along the mid and lower reaches of the Ōpāwaho / Heathcote River would remain high, particularly in frequent events

7.10.3 Amendment necessary - none

Financial Implications

7.11    Cost of Implementation – The Upper Heathcote Storage Scheme is estimated at $41M +/- 30%.

7.12    Of this total $25M has approved budget through the annual plan process. To implement the remainder will therefore require a request of approximately $16M of funding from the Land Drainage Recovery Programme.

7.13    Maintenance / Ongoing Costs – There would be ongoing costs with the implementation of these projects. These costs are to be defined on a project level.

7.14    Funding source – With some re-prioritisation of existing projects, the budgets indicated by the 2015 LTP and subsequent annual plans would have sufficient funding for the Heathcote Storage Options. A continuation of this funding in the proposed FY19-28 Long Term Plan would allow these projects to continue. Augmented funding would allow earlier completion, and reduce the level of re-prioritisation required. 

7.15    The specific funding requirements are outlined in the following table.

CPMS ID

Project Candidate Name

Required budget

Project budget status

Estimated funding deficit

40237

LDRP 520 Wigram East Retention Basin

$8M

Fully funded

-

33977

LDRP 526 Curletts Flood Storage

$3M

Fully funded

-

26599

LDRP 500 Cashmere-Worsley Flood Storage

$16M

Partially funded

$4M

34341

LDRP 528 Eastman Wetlands

$14M

Partially funded

$12M

 

7.16    Assuming 2015 LTP budgets, the Upper Heathcote Storage Scheme could be delivered FY18-21 without the delay of any other LDRP projects currently in detailed design or construction. It would require the re-prioritisation of other projects that are listed in the annual plan but are not yet in design, although this re- prioritisation would be less substantial than that required for Option 1. When these projects could commence would be dependent on Long Term Plan funding. These projects are:

·   LDRP 506 Dudley Creek Tributaries

·   LDRP 505 Sumner Stream and Richmond Hill Waterway

·   LDRP 511 Upper Avon

·   LDRP 510 Wairarapa, Wai-iti and Tributaries

·   LDRP 521 Avon Floodplain Management Implementation

Legal Implications

7.17    Resource consents will be required to enact the storage scheme. In some instances existing global consents can be applied.

7.18    The dam in the Cashmere Valley will be large dam structure. This requires a Building Consent to be obtained from Environment Canterbury.

Risks and Mitigations   

7.19    There are a number of risks associated with enacting these works from both engineering and social standpoints.

7.20    Upper Heathcote Storage Scheme – For the dam in the Cashmere Valley there is a risk of failure of a large dam structure.

7.20.1 Treatment: By moving the location of the dam from the lower valley to the upper valley an attenuation area is provided. This alternative reduces the risk from a High Potential Impact Classification (PIC) to a Low PIC. A large dam also requires inspections and a robust operational management regime.

7.20.2 Residual risk rating: the rating of the risk is Low, although detailed design work will confirm the risk rating. Management of the risk of large dams is considered through the Building Act and the Resource Management Act.

7.21    Upper Heathcote Storage Scheme –Risk of flooding caused by system failure, overtopping during events that are larger than the design capacity, storm event erosion or operational deficiency remains.  This could result in flooding of streets, properties and potentially some homes.

7.21.1 Treatment: Treatment: Ongoing operational management of the network is fundamental to ongoing flood management.  Response plans will be required.

7.21.2 Residual risk rating: the rating of the risk is low given the nature of the proposed system.

Implementation

7.22    Implementation dependencies  - Implementation is dependent primarily on funding being approved, although some elements require Resource and/or Building Consent

7.23    Implementation timeframe – Assuming 2015 LTP budgets, the Heathcote projects (excluding low stopbanks) could be delivered in the period FY18-21

Option Summary - Advantages and Disadvantages

7.24    The advantages of this option include:

·   Lower capital and maintenance cost

·   Less environmental disturbance through dredging

7.25    The disadvantages of this option include:

·   Post-earthquake increased flood risk mitigated upstream of Colombo Street only

·   Ongoing increased level of flood risk, including in frequent events such as that in July 2017, downstream of Colombo Street

·   Anxiety over flooding will remain for many residents

·   More residents are likely to lose insurance cover for flooding

·   Ongoing higher costs for responses to frequent flooding

 

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

Peter Christensen - Senior Water Resources Engineer

Sylvia MacLaren - Project Manager

Approved By

Keith Davison - Manager Land Drainage

Peter Langbein - Finance Business Partner

John Mackie - Head of Three Waters and Waste

David Adamson - General Manager City Services

 


Council

23 November 2017

 

Report from Infrastructure, Transport and Environment Committee  – 8 November 2017

 

15.    Revised Christchurch Biodiversity Fund and Progress Report

Reference:

17/1335015

Contact:

Clive Appleton

clive.appleton@ccc.govt.nz

941 8352

 

 

 

 

1.   Staff Recommendations

 

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

1.         Receive the information in the report.

2.         Approve the revised Christchurch  Biodiversity Fund, key changes being:

a.         Applications can be submitted throughout the year, instead of only being accepted in July each year;

b.         The maximum total grant has been raised from $20,000 to $40,000 per property over a one year period.

3.         Receive the report on funding allocated for the 2016/17 financial year.

 

2.  Infrastructure, Transport and Environment Committee Recommendation to Council

 

That the Council:

1.         Receive the information in the report.

2.         Approve the revised Christchurch  Biodiversity Fund, key changes being:

a.         Applications can be submitted throughout the year, instead of only being accepted in July each year;

b.         The maximum total grant has been raised from $20,000 to $40,000 per property over a one year period.

3.         Receive the report on funding allocated for the 2016/17 financial year.

 

 

Attachments

No.

Report Title

Page

1

Revised Christchurch Biodiversity Fund and Progress Report

256

 

No.

Title

Page

a

Revised Christchurch Biodiversity Fund

258

b

Progress Report on Funding Allocated for 16/17 FY

263

 

 


Council

23 November 2017

 

 

Revised Christchurch Biodiversity Fund and Progress Report

Reference:

17/1073373

Contact:

Clive Appleton

Clive.appleton@ccc.govt.nz

941 8352

 

 

1.   Purpose of Report

1.1       The purpose of this report is for the Infrastructure, Transport and Environment Committee to recommend that the Council:

·    Approve the revised terms of reference for the Christchurch Biodiversity Fund;

·    Receive the report on funding allocated for the 2016/17 financial year.

 

2.   Staff Recommendations

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

1.         Receive the information in the report.

2.         Approve the revised Christchurch  Biodiversity Fund, key changes being:

a.         Applications can be submitted throughout the year, instead of only being accepted in July each year;

b.         The maximum total grant has been raised from $20,000 to $40,000 per property over a one year period.

3.         Receive the report on funding allocated for the 2016/17 financial year.

 

 

3.   Key Points

3.1       At the 7th June 2017 meeting the Infrastructure, Transport and Environment Committee recommended that the Council endorse the establishment of a Christchurch Biodiversity Fund with a budget of $200,000 allocated on an annual basis (conditional upon the Council approving the $200,000 in the 2017/2018 draft Annual Plan).

3.2       Experience with the allocation of 2016/17 funding round has resulted in the proposed changes to the terms of reference for this fund (see Attachment 1). The key changes include opening the fund for applications throughout the year, restricting eligibility to significant ecological sites (previously sites with covenants were automatically eligible) and increasing the maximum grant.

3.3       Increasing the maximum total grant available from $20,000 to $40,000 per property per year provides greater benefits for biodiversity and makes the fund more attractive to landowners with large projects, especially those involving fencing.

3.4       At the 7th June 2017 meeting of the Infrastructure, Transport and Environment Committee approved the allocation of $80,000 to support landowners in the Sites of Ecological Significance (SES) programme for 2016/17 financial year. The list of sites that received grants is provided in Attachment 2.

 

 

Attachments

No.

Title

Page

a 

Revised Christchurch Biodiversity Fund

 

b 

Progress Report on Funding Allocated for 16/17 FY

 

 

 

Signatories

Author

Clive Appleton - Team Leader Natural Environment

Approved By

Helen Beaumont - Head of Strategic Policy

Brendan Anstiss - General Manager Strategy and Transformation

 


Council

23 November 2017

 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


Council

23 November 2017

 

PDF Creator


Council

23 November 2017

 

Report from Infrastructure, Transport and Environment Committee  – 8 November 2017

 

16.    An Accessible City St Asaph Street - Proposed Road Layout Options

Reference:

17/1335287

Contact:

Stefan Jermy

stefan.jermy@ccc.govt.nz

941 6356

 

 

 

 

1.  Infrastructure, Transport and Environment Committee Consideration

 

1.         The Committee recommended that the Council approve option one of this report and also requested:

a.         A public consultation on reducing the speed limit along St Asaph Street to 30kph.

b.         For staff to investigate and ensure all other reasonably practicable options have been explored and implemented to address any safety concerns.

c.         For staff to investigate the installation of mobility parking to appropriately service St Asaph Street.

d.         A review of the functionality and safety of the corridor, including the cycleway, in 24 months.

 

2.   Staff Recommendations

 

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

1.         Approve Option 1 and the following traffic resolutions:

a.         Approve that the existing cycle lane separator between the kerb and the live traffic lane be on the south side of St Asaph Street outside number 204 be altered to permit the installation of a goods vehicle loading zone.

b.         Approve the existing parking of vehicles which are restricted to a maximum period of 60 minutes, 9am to 5pm Monday to Friday (and further restricted to pay by plate or other form of approved payment) commencing at a distance of 165.5 meters east of its intersections with Manchester Street and extending in an easterly direction for a distance of 12.5 meters, be revoked.

c.         Approve that a loading zone restricted to the use of goods vehicles only be installed on the south side of St Asaph Street commencing at a point 89 meters east of its intersection with Colombo Street and extending in an easterly direction for a distance of 12.5 meters.

d.         Approve that a loading zone restricted to the use of goods vehicles only be installed on the north side of St Asaph Street commencing at a point 165.5 meters east of its intersection with Manchester Street and extending in an easterly direction for a distance of 12.5 meters.

 


 

 

3.  Infrastructure, Transport and Environment Committee Recommendation to Council

 

That the Council:

1.         Approve Option 1 and the following traffic resolutions:

a.         Amend resolution 103 of Item 63 of the 10 December 2015 Council meeting to the extent necessary to approve that the existing cycle lane separator between the kerb and the live traffic lane be on the south side of St Asaph Street outside number 204 be altered to permit the installation of a goods vehicle loading zone.

b.         Amend resolution 103 of Item 63 of the 10 December 2015 Council meeting to the extent necessary to approve that a loading zone restricted to the use of goods vehicles only be installed on the south side of St Asaph Street commencing at a point 89 meters east of its intersection with Colombo Street and extending in an easterly direction for a distance of 12.5 meters.

c.         Amend resolution 84 of Item 63 of the 10 December 2015 Council meeting to the extent necessary to approve the existing parking of vehicles which are restricted to a maximum period of 60 minutes, 9am to 5pm Monday to Friday (and further restricted to pay by plate or other form of approved payment) commencing at a distance of 165.5 meters east of its intersections with Manchester Street and extending in an easterly direction for a distance of 12.5 meters, be revoked.

d.         Amend resolution 84 of Item 63 of the 10 December 2015 Council meeting to the extent necessary to approve that a loading zone restricted to the use of goods vehicles only be installed on the north side of St Asaph Street commencing at a point 165.5 meters east of its intersection with Manchester Street and extending in an easterly direction for a distance of 12.5 meters.

2.         Request staff to undertake public consultation on reducing the speed limit along St Asaph Street to 30kph.

3.         Request staff to investigate and ensure all other reasonably practicable options have been explored and implemented to address any safety concerns. Noting that the Committee will be advised of any safety measures before implementation.

4.         Request staff to investigate the installation of mobility parking to appropriately service St Asaph Street and advise the Committee of the outcome.

5.         Request staff to undertake a review of the functionality and safety of the corridor, including the cycleway, in 24 months.

 

 

Attachments

No.

Report Title

Page

1

An Accessible City St Asaph Street - Proposed Road Layout Options

268

 

No.

Title

Page

a

AAC St Asaph Street - Proposed Road Layout Options Report - 13 September 2017

277

b

AAC St Asaph Street - Proposed Road Layout Options Feedback Table

356

 

 


Council

23 November 2017

 

 

An Accessible City St Asaph Street - Proposed Road Layout Options

Reference:

17/1304885

Contact:

Stefan Jermy

stefan.jermy@ccc.govt.nz

941 6356

 

 

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 review and consider the St Asaph Street proposed road layout options, and make a recommendation to the Council.

Origin of Report

1.2       This report is staff generated based on engagement with the public and the Central City Business Group. The report follows further public engagement at the request if the ITE committee at their meeting on 13 September 2017. The ITE Committee resolved to seek public feedback on two options involving road layout changes on St Asaph Street.

1.3       Comments on the options were invited from 14 September to 6 October 2017 after;

·     A letter was hand delivered to 700 businesses and addresses in and around St Asaph Street. 

·     400 letters were mailed to absentee owners.

·     350 stakeholders, key organisations and residents groups were contacted with information.

·     A Newsline article and social media provided details of the engagement.

·     Letters were delivered to City Council libraries and service centres.

 

1.3.2   A total of 329 responses were received. The community was not specifically requested to choose between the two options. Some respondents supported other options. As a result the feedback has been broadly split into three groups.

·     support for Option 1 (Minor Enhancements) or the existing road layout (265 responses)

·     support for Option 2 or opposition to the current road layout (38 responses)

·     those who did not indicate a preference for either Option 1 or 2 (26 responses)

1.3.3   A public hearing was held on 30 October 2017. Thirty six deputations were heard throughout the day from a wide range of stakeholders.

2.   Significance

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

2.1.1   The level of significance was determined by the significance matrix including the number of people affected, the level of community interest and overall risk involved in the An Accessible City programme. 

2.1.2   Any option involving substantive changes will require some level of consultation. Further the recently formed Central City Transport Liaison Group will be briefed on the options and feedback considered.

 

3.   Staff Recommendations 

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

1.         Approve Option 1 and the following traffic resolutions:

a.         Approve that the existing cycle lane separator between the kerb and the live traffic lane be on the south side of St Asaph Street outside number 204 be altered to permit the installation of a goods vehicle loading zone.

b.         Approve the existing parking of vehicles which are restricted to a maximum period of 60 minutes, 9am to 5pm Monday to Friday (and further restricted to pay by plate or other form of approved payment) commencing at a distance of 165.5 meters east of its intersections with Manchester Street and extending in an easterly direction for a distance of 12.5 meters, be revoked.

c.         Approve that a loading zone restricted to the use of goods vehicles only be installed on the south side of St Asaph Street commencing at a point 89 meters east of its intersection with Colombo Street and extending in an easterly direction for a distance of 12.5 meters.

d.         Approve that a loading zone restricted to the use of goods vehicles only be installed on the north side of St Asaph Street commencing at a point 165.5 meters east of its intersection with Manchester Street and extending in an easterly direction for a distance of 12.5 meters.

 

4.   Key Points

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

4.1.1   Activity: Road Operations

·     Level of Service: 10.0.36 Promote modal shift: Increase the percentage share of cycling trips

 

4.2       The following feasible options have been considered:

·   Option 1 - Minor Enhancements

·   Option 2 - Central City Business Group option (3a)

·   Option 3 – New option submitted at 30 October hearing by Central City Business Group

 

4.3       Option Summary - Advantages and Disadvantages (Preferred Option)

4.3.1   Option 1

·   The advantages of this option include:

·     Installation of two loading zones that allow courier and delivery vehicles dedicated loading and unloading facilities where business owners have expressed a need where off-street options are limited.

·     Modifies the entry/exit of parking bays making it easier for drivers to access and exit parking bays.

·     Installs additional cycle parking on identified sites.

·     Modifies the tree pit kerb design to a mountable kerb, to mitigate potential wheel damage.

·     Maintains the existing urban design and public realm components of the scheme as well as traffic calming effects.

·   The disadvantages of this option include:

·     This option does not provide additional on-street parking.

·     Additional project cost which is not available within the current budget.

 

 

5.   Context/Background

Project Objectives

5.1       The project objectives for St Asaph Street were to:

·   Deliver a separated cycle facility between Ferry Road and Antigua Street.

·   Provide connection with the future Major Cycle Route at Ferry Road, and with key cycle routes in the central city, and complete the east-west one way function with the recently completed Tuam Street.

·   St Asaph Street is to be a priority within the central city as a car and bus route.

·   Provide for improved streetscape, with additional landscaped area and street trees.

·   Support South Frame development objectives.

 

Original Options Considered

5.2       Previous to Council’s approval (in December 2015) of the plan that has been implemented, three options were considered.

·   The first option considered was based on the streets and spaces design guide which shows no parking on the south side adjacent to the cycleway separator. Cost was estimated at $6 million.

·   The second option investigated maintaining the parking on the south side of the street and provided for a widened footpath. The cost was estimated at $5 million.

·   The third option investigated was seen as the balanced option which was approved in December 2015 and constructed. Cost was estimated at $3.5 million.  This option retained parking on the south side of the corridor adjacent to the cycle facility to mitigate concerns over on-street parking loss. The rationale for deviating from the Streets and Spaces Design Guide (SSDG) was firstly the estimated cost to deliver the built design was $6 million and the contention in the city around parking losses was taken into consideration.

5.3       Practical completion for this project was achieved on 16 December 2016.

5.4       An independent post-construction safety audit was commissioned and the completed report was received in March 2017 (Attachment A). There were a number of actions recommended by the auditors to enhance the visual elements of the street.

5.5       A number of these actions, including renewing and providing additional line markings, increasing the reflective markings and improving lane definition, will be undertaken to mitigate safety concerns.

Process Followed from 13 September ITE Meeting to 30 October 2017.

5.6       Following the 13 September ITE meeting comments on the options were invited from 14 September to 6 October 2017 after, the process and outcomes were;

·     A letter was hand delivered to 700 businesses and addresses in and around St Asaph Street. 

·     400 letters were mailed to absentee owners.

·     350 stakeholders, key organisations and residents groups were contacted with information.

·     A Newsline article and social media provided details of the engagement.

·     Letters were delivered to City Council libraries and service centres.

 

5.6.2   A total of 329 responses were received. The community was not specifically requested to choose between the two options. Some respondents supported other options. As a result the feedback has been broadly split into three groups.

·     support for Option 1 (Minor Enhancements) or the existing road layout (265 responses)

·     support for Option 2 or opposition to the current road layout (38 responses)

·     those who did not indicate a preference for either Option 1 or 2 (26 responses)

5.6.3   A public hearing was held on 30 October 2017. 36 deputations were heard throughout the day from a wide range of stakeholders. The deputations heard by the Committee were closely aligned with the submissions which were received during the feedback process. One of the key themes raised during the day was that all car parking should be removed on the south side of the street. Please refer to the following link for the documents which were tabled at the meeting: https://www.ccc.govt.nz/the-council/consultations-and-submissions/haveyoursay/show/81  

5.7       The Council is currently implementing the recommended post construction road safety audit recommendations. This does not include at this stage the 30km/h speed limit and tree planting recommendations.


.

6.   Option 1 – Minor Enhancements (preferred)

Option Description

6.1       Doing minor enhancements provides some quick wins for St Asaph Street without implementing extreme change. The changes in this option can be viewed as cost effective for addressing concerns. These changes include:

·   Install two goods vehicle loading zones.

·   Modify the entry/exit of parking bays to make access easier.

·   Install additional cycle parking on identified islands.

·   Modify the tree pit kerb design to mitigate damage to car wheels.

Significance

6.2       The level of significance of this option is low and is inconsistent with section 2 of this report due to the nature of the works being minor.

6.3       No community consultation for this option would be required as the layout is not substantially altered. A start work notice would be issued to advise affected stakeholders of any works to be undertaken. External communications will be provided by Council staff.

Impact on Mana Whenua

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

Community Views and Preferences

6.5       Community and stakeholders would not be specifically affected by this option due to the minor nature of the works proposed. No formal consultation has been undertaken on any proposed layout changes.

Alignment with Council Plans and Policies

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

Financial Implications

6.7       Cost of Implementation – $210,000.

6.8       Maintenance / Ongoing Costs – Accounted for within current central city maintenance agreements

6.9       Funding source – The current AAC program has no additional funds available, therefore approval of additional funds will be required.

Legal Implications

6.10    There are no legal implications identified.

Risks and Mitigations   

6.11    The risks of the minor enhancements option are low.

6.12    Key risks, consequences and mitigations are:

 

 

 

Risk

Consequence

Mitigation

Does not meet favour with the Central City Business Group or some other members of the public

Negative media

Potential challenge of any decision

Clear and consistent communications from Council to wider public

 

Implementation

6.13    Implementation dependencies – Dependent on implementing of post-construction safety audit recommendations and Council approval to proceed

6.14    Implementation timeframe – 12 weeks.

Option Summary - Advantages and Disadvantages

6.15    The advantages of this option include:

·   Installation of two loading zones that allow courier and delivery vehicles dedicated loading and unloading facilities where business owners have expressed a need where off-street options are limited.

·   Modifies the entry/exit of parking bays making it easier for drivers to access and exit parking bays.

·   Installs additional cycle parking on identified sites.

·   Modifies the tree pit kerb design to a mountable kerb, to mitigate potential wheel damage.

·   Maintains the existing urban design and public realm components of the scheme as well as traffic calming effects.

6.16    The disadvantages of this option include:

·   This option does not provide additional on-street parking.

·   Additional project cost which is not available within the current budget.


 

7.   Option 2 – Central City Business Group Option (3a)

Option Description

7.1       This option (Central City Business Group option 3a) changes the current design layout significantly (Attachment E). Features of this option include;

·   Reinstates approximately 53 car parks.

·   Revises the tree pit design on the north side of the corridor and reduces the number of tree pits provided.

7.2       Stantec (formerly MWH) and BECA consulting engineers were commissioned to carry out an independent road safety audit on this option (Appendix B). Key points from the auditor are summarised in section 5.16.

7.3       It should be noted at this point, the advice from the independent road safety auditors is that the removal of islands cannot equate to car parking spaces. Design guidelines state minimum setbacks from driveways which must be adhered to ensure the safety of all users.

Significance

7.4       The level of significance of this option is medium – high and is consistent with section 2 of this report.

7.5       Legal advice has been that community engagement/consultation would be required for this option.

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       Community and stakeholders would be specifically affected by this option due to the substantial changes in the design and construction activities which will be carried out. No formal consultation has been undertaken on any proposed layout changes.

Alignment with Council Plans and Policies

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

7.8.1   Inconsistency – Does not meet design guidelines and safety audit recommendations.

·     Could compromise New Zealand Transport Agency funding.

7.8.2   Reason for inconsistency – If Council does not satisfactorily resolve Safety Audit issues, we could be exposed to liability and forfeit the protection of a nationally recognised process that a responsible road controlling authority would typically follow anywhere in New Zealand.

7.8.3   Amendment necessary – Plan is not approved

Financial Implications

7.9       Cost of Implementation – Approx. $1,200,000.

7.10    Maintenance / Ongoing Costs – Fits within current central city maintenance agreements.

7.11    Funding source – The current AAC Program has no additional funds available, therefore approval of additional funds will be required. 

Legal Implications

7.12    Legal advice was sought.  If the proposed change is substantially different to that originally approved following consultation the additional consultation on the proposed changed will be required.

Risks and Mitigations    

7.13    The key risks identified are as below;

Risk

Consequence

Mitigation

Design does not meet road safety standards

High risk of safety incident

Don’t implement possible option

Members of public disagree with changing the layout

Council to decide on proposal

Community engagement and clear and consistent project communication

Disruption to business as a result of construction activities

Business disruption

Clear and consistent project communication

Construction methodologies, including night works

Additional funding is not provided

Will have to be funded from other AAC projects

De-scope other projects

 

 

Implementation

7.14    Implementation dependencies – Community engagement and Council approval.

7.15    Implementation timeframe – approximately 7 months.

Option Summary - Advantages and Disadvantages

7.16    The advantages of this option include:

·   Reinstatement of approximately 53 car parks.

·   Number of tree pits are reduced, mitigating potential conflict with vehicle wheels.

7.17    The disadvantages of this option include:

·   Independent road safety audit has raised safety concerns.

·   Removes the urban design elements by changes to configuration and reduces the number of trees along the street.

·   Any substantial alterations to the current layout would require additional community consultation.

·   Reduced amenity for pedestrians on the north side of St Asaph Street due to narrowed footpath width.

·   Additional cost which is not available within the project budget.

8.   Option 3 – New Option Submitted at 30 October Hearing by Central City Business Group

Option Description

8.1       Wynn Williams Lawyers and Traffic Design Group (TDG) presented a new design option for the layout of St Asaph Street. This option has had a desk top safety audit review carried out in Victoria Australia.

8.2       In the context of option two, option 3 requires significant change to the street layout and would also require consultation.

8.3       No review has been carried out by the Christchurch City Council or New Zealand road safety auditors. Staff would request that if the ITE committee seek to pursue a significant change option, staff should be instructed to commission a review.

 

 

 

Attachments

No.

Title

Page

a 

AAC St Asaph Street - Proposed Road Layout Options Report - 13 September 2017

 

b 

AAC St Asaph Street - Proposed Road Layout Options Feedback Table

 

 

 

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

Stefan Jermy - Project Manager

Aaron Haymes - Manager Operations (Transport)

Lynette Ellis - Head of Transport

Approved By

Lynette Ellis - Head of Transport

Peter Langbein - Finance Business Partner

David Adamson - General Manager City Services

 


Council

23 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


Council

23 November 2017

 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


Council

23 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


Council

23 November 2017

 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


Council

23 November 2017

 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


Council

23 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


Council

23 November 2017

 

PDF Creator


Council

23 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


Council

23 November 2017

 

Report from Infrastructure, Transport and Environment Committee  – 8 November 2017

 

17.    An Accessible City: Hospital Corner, Oxford Terrace(Gap), Riccarton Avenue to Antigua Street (Final layout)

Reference:

17/1335366

Contact:

Steve Dejong

steve.dejong@ccc.govt.nz

941 6428

 

 

 

 

1.  Infrastructure, Transport and Environment Committee Consideration

 

1.         The Committee received the following deputations regarding this report:

a.         Drik De Lu on behalf of Spokes Ltd.

b.         George Schwass and Rob Ojala on behalf of the Canterbury District Health Board (CDHB).

c.         Don Babe on behalf of the Little River Railtrail Trust.

2.         The Committee recommended that the Council approve the design and to include a pedestrian ‘zebra’ crossing.

3.         The Committee also made the following additional requests:

a.         For staff to reassess the width of the pedestrian crossing.

b.         For the Council to consult on a 10kph speed limit.

c.         For staff to enhance the design to encourage slow cycling.

d.         For the Council, Otakaro and CDHB to undertake safety education programme with use of the space, in conjunction with other relevant stakeholders.

e.         To explore a non-smoking zone.

 

2.   Staff Recommendations

 

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

1.         Approve the following, subject to the Parking Restrictions Subcommittee approving the parking and stopping restrictions related to the An Accessible City project the ‘Oxford Gap’ – the section of Oxford Terrace that runs from the Riccarton Avenue, Hagley Avenue, Tuam Street corner, east to Antigua Street, in accordance with Attachment A.

a.         Approve that all traffic controls currently located on Oxford Terrace commencing at its intersection with Riccarton Avenue and extending in a north easterly direction to its intersection with Antigua Street be revoked.

b.         Approve the scheme design; including the kerbs, carriageway, shared path, pedestrian path alignment within the road reserve in accordance with Attachment A, subject to an easement agreement between Otakaro Ltd the Canterbury District Health Board and the Christchurch City Council over Christchurch District Health Board and Reserve land.

c.         Approve that a bi directional shared path be installed on the northwest side of Oxford Terrace for the use of north east and south west bound cyclists and pedestrians commencing at its intersection with Riccarton Avenue and extending in a north easterly direction to its intersection with Antigua Street.

d.         Approve that a Give Way Control be placed against Oxford Terrace at its north east approach to its intersection with Antigua Street.

2.         Note that the Parking Restrictions Subcommittee will consider the parking and stopping restrictions relating to the An Accessible City project the ‘Oxford Gap’ as per paragraph 5.5 of the report.

 

3.  Infrastructure, Transport and Environment Committee Recommendation to Council

 

That the Council:

1.         Approve the following, subject to the Parking Restrictions Subcommittee approving the parking and stopping restrictions related to the An Accessible City project the ‘Oxford Gap’ – the section of Oxford Terrace that runs from the Riccarton Avenue, Hagley Avenue, Tuam Street corner, east to Antigua Street, in accordance with Attachment A.

a.         Approve that all traffic controls currently located on Oxford Terrace commencing at its intersection with Riccarton Avenue and extending in a north easterly direction to its intersection with Antigua Street be revoked.

b.         Approve the scheme design; including the kerbs, carriageway, shared path, pedestrian path alignment within the road reserve in accordance with Attachment A, subject to an easement agreement between Otakaro Ltd the Canterbury District Health Board and the Christchurch City Council over Christchurch District Health Board and Reserve land.

c.         Approve that a bi directional shared path be installed on the northwest side of Oxford Terrace for the use of north east and south west bound cyclists and pedestrians commencing at its intersection with Riccarton Avenue and extending in a north easterly direction to its intersection with Antigua Street.

d.         Approve that a Give Way Control be placed against Oxford Terrace at its north east approach to its intersection with Antigua Street.

e.         To include a pedestrian ‘zebra’ crossing in the pedestrian area from the Christchurch hospital ramp to the outpatients entrance.

f.          Request for staff to reassess the width of the pedestrian crossing.

g.         Request for staff to consult on a 10kph speed limit.

h.         Request for staff to enhance the design to encourage slow cycling.

i.          Request that Council staff, CDHB, and Otakaro a undertake safety education programme with use of the space, in conjunction with other relevant stakeholders.

j.          To explore a non-smoking zone.

2.         Note that the Parking Restrictions Subcommittee will consider the parking and stopping restrictions relating to the An Accessible City project the ‘Oxford Gap’ as per paragraph 5.5 of the report.

 

Secretarial Note:  The Parking Restrictions Subcommittee met on 10 November 2017 and resolved to adopt the parking and stopping restrictions that align with the Infrastructure, Transport and Environment Committee’s recommendations to the Council. 

 

 

Attachments

No.

Report Title

Page

1

An Accessible City: Hospital Corner, Oxford Terrace(Gap), Riccarton Avenue to Antigua Street (Final layout)

496

 

No.

Title

Page

a

Oxford Gap Signage and Line Marking Plan

505

b

AAC3 Final plans for Council approval from Cera 14 August 2015

506

c

Oxford Gap Submission Responses

517

 

 


Council

23 November 2017

 

 

An Accessible City: Hospital Corner, Oxford Terrace(Gap), Riccarton Avenue to Antigua Street (Final layout)

Reference:

17/1275932

Contact:

Steve Dejong

steve.dejong@ccc.govt.nz

941 6428

 

 

1.   Purpose and Origin of Report

Purpose of Report

1.1       The purpose of this report is to seek a recommendation from the Infrastructure, Transport and Environment Committee that the Council approve the proposed design and traffic controls, subject to the Parking Restrictions Subcommittee approving the parking and stopping restrictions relating to the An Accessible City project the ‘Oxford Gap’ – the section of Oxford Terrace that runs from the Riccarton Avenue, Hagley Avenue, Tuam Street corner, east to Antigua Street, in accordance with Attachment A

Origin of Report

1.2       This report arises following a request from Otakaro Ltd for Council to approve traffic controls for the An Accessible City Oxford Gap project. 

1.3       The term Oxford Gap refers to the short section of Oxford Terrace being inside the general area of the Stage 1 An Accessible City Hospital Corner project (refer Attachment B), but excluded from the scope of that project.   It is understood that the reason for the exclusion relates to uncertainty of Christchurch District Health Board development plans for this section of Oxford Terrace at the time when the Hospital Corner project was designed and approved.  Both projects are led and delivered by Otakaro Ltd.

2.   Significance

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

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

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 recommend that the Council:

1.         Approve the following, subject to the Parking Restrictions Subcommittee approving the parking and stopping restrictions related to the An Accessible City project the ‘Oxford Gap’ – the section of Oxford Terrace that runs from the Riccarton Avenue, Hagley Avenue, Tuam Street corner, east to Antigua Street, in accordance with Attachment A.

a.         Approve that all traffic controls currently located on Oxford Terrace commencing at its intersection with Riccarton Avenue and extending in a north easterly direction to its intersection with Antigua Street be revoked.

b.         Approve the scheme design; including the kerbs, carriageway, shared path, pedestrian path alignment within the road reserve in accordance with Attachment A, subject to an easement agreement between Otakaro Ltd the Canterbury District Health Board and the Christchurch City Council over Christchurch District Health Board and Reserve land.

c.         Approve that a bi directional shared path be installed on the northwest side of Oxford Terrace for the use of north east and south west bound cyclists and pedestrians commencing at its intersection with Riccarton Avenue and extending in a north easterly direction to its intersection with Antigua Street.

d.         Approve that a Give Way Control be placed against Oxford Terrace at its north east approach to its intersection with Antigua Street.

2.         Note that the Parking Restrictions Subcommittee will consider the parking and stopping restrictions relating to the An Accessible City project the ‘Oxford Gap’ as per paragraph 5.5 of the report.

 

4.   Key Points

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

4.1.1   Activity: Parking

·     Level of Service: 10.3.8 Optimise operational performance

4.2       The following feasible options have been considered:

·     Option 1 – Approve Oxford Gap design and traffic controls (preferred option)

·     Option 2 – Do Nothing

4.3       Option Summary - Advantages and Disadvantages (Preferred Option)

4.3.1   The advantages of this option include:

·     Gives legal effect to traffic controls on the Oxford Gap project delivered by Otakaro Ltd.

·     The Oxford Gap design is consistent with the ‘An Accessible City’ chapter of the Christchurch Recovery plan.

·     It will facilitate the operation of the new Christchurch Hospital outpatients facility, providing a drop-off and pick-up facility.

4.3.2   The disadvantages of this option include:

·     There are no identified disadvantages with this option.

 

5.   Context/Background

Oxford Terrace ‘Gap’ Design and Parking Changes

5.1       Presently the streetscape of the Oxford Gap is in a transitional format, held under temporary traffic management.  The underlying street design is that of the original arterial one-way configuration that led into Lichfield Street.  The temporary traffic management provides the configuration necessary to integrate with the wider Hospital Corner project (for which the major traffic changes and functionality were completed by SCIRT) and the Avon River Project.  The key elements are:

·   Removal of arterial traffic and replaced with a pick-up and drop-off zone (presently used by taxis)

·   Shared pedestrian and cycle path linking at one end to the Antigua Street footbridge and the signalised pedestrian and cycle connection across Riccarton Avenue into South Hagley Park

5.2       The Oxford Gap is critical to the future operation of the hospital. It sits between the existing hospital emergency department (soon to be relocated) and the new outpatients building (under construction). Vehicular traffic is restricted to one-way north east bound with the main function being an airport style short term drop-off and pick-up facility.

5.3       The Oxford Gap is identified in the Earthquake Recovery Ministers Gazette, (Changes to the Christchurch City Council’s Traffic and parking Bylaw) of 11 December 2014, First Schedule, One-Way, Streets, “Oxford Terrace in a north-easterly direction from the intersection of Hagley Avenue and Riccarton Avenue to Antigua Street, this restriction does not apply to Cyclists”.

5.4       The Oxford Gap supports the city's Anchor projects; Health Precinct and Te Papa Otakaro/Avon River Precinct.

5.5       The parking restrictions subcommittee has the delegation to approve the following parking and stopping restrictions in relation Oxford Gap project:

·   Approve that all existing parking and stopping restrictions currently located on the southeast side of Oxford Terrace commencing at its intersection with Riccarton Avenue and extending in a north easterly direction to its intersection with Antigua Street be revoked.

·   Approve that all existing parking and stopping restrictions currently located on the northwest side of Oxford Terrace commencing at its intersection with Riccarton Avenue and extending in a north easterly direction to its intersection with Antigua Street be revoked.

·   Approve that the stopping of vehicles be prohibited at all times on the northwest side of Oxford Terrace commencing at its intersection with Riccarton Ave and extending in a north easterly direction for a distance of 18 metres.

·   Approve that the parking of vehicles be restricted to a maximum period of 5 minutes, at any time on the northwest side of Oxford Terrace commencing at a point 18 metres northeast of its intersection with Riccarton Avenue and extending in a north easterly direction for a distance of 43 metres.

·   Approve that the stopping of vehicles be prohibited at all times on the northwest side of Oxford Terrace commencing at a point 61 metres north east of its intersection with Riccarton Ave and extending in a north easterly direction for a distance of 18 metres.

·   Approve that a shuttle Stop, restricted for the use of ‘Hospital Shuttles Only’ be installed on the northwest side of Oxford Terrace commencing at a point 80 metres northeast of its intersection with Riccarton Avenue and extending in a north easterly direction for a distance of 20 metres.

·   Approve that the stopping of vehicles be prohibited at all times on the northwest side of Oxford Terrace commencing at a point 100 metres north east of its intersection with Riccarton Ave and extending in a north easterly direction for a distance of 10 metres.

·   Approve that the stopping of vehicles be prohibited at all times on the southeast  side of Oxford Terrace commencing at its intersection with Riccarton Ave and extending in a north easterly direction for a distance of 15 metres.

·   Approve that the parking of vehicles be restricted to a maximum period of 5 minutes, at any time on the southeast side of Oxford Terrace commencing at a point 15 metres northeast of its intersection with Riccarton Avenue and extending in a north easterly direction for a distance of 34 metres.

·   Approve that the parking of vehicles be restricted to mobility card holders only for a maximum period of 30 minutes at any time on the southeast side of Oxford Terrace commencing at a point 50 metres northeast of its intersection with Riccarton Avenue and extending in an north easterly direction for a distance of 9 metres.

·   Approve that the stopping of vehicles be prohibited at all times on the southeast side of Oxford Terrace commencing at a point 59 metres north east of its intersection with Riccarton Ave and extending in a north easterly direction for a distance of 18 metres.

·   Approve that the parking of vehicles be restricted to mobility card holders only for a maximum period of 30 minutes at any time on the southeast side of Oxford Terrace commencing at a point 77 metres northeast of its intersection with Riccarton Avenue and extending in an north easterly direction for a distance of 19 metres.

·   Approve that the stopping of vehicles be prohibited at all times on the southeast side of Oxford Terrace commencing at a point 96 metres north east of its intersection with Riccarton Ave and extending in a north easterly direction for a distance of 7 metres.


 

6.   Option 1 - Oxford Terrace ‘Gap’ Design and Parking Changes (preferred)

Option Description

6.1       The Oxford Gap design (Attachment A) supports the Anchor project, Health Precinct and facilitates the interaction of the new outpatients facility with the existing Christchurch District Health Board facilities to the immediate south west. The outpatients facility (refer Attachment B) is currently under construction, the two upper floors will be operational in mid-May 2018, and the rest of the building is programed to be fully operational in mid- August 2018.

6.2       Although approximately only 117 metres long the Oxford Gap must fulfil the multiple competing functions of linking two major cycle routes from Hagley Park to the CBD via the Antigua Bridge. The Oxford Gap needs to facilitate the Health Precinct by providing an Airport type drop-off pick-up facility for visitors to the new outpatients department and hospital park and ride shuttle. The Oxford Gap is also a major pedestrian link south west /north east and is the south western entry to the Avon River Precinct Shared Zones.

6.3       The Oxford Gap design separates active and motorised modes removing any drop off pick-up conflict between motor vehicles and cyclists. The design provides a shared path and a pedestrian path separated from cyclists by landscaping and seating. The shared path will meet the current cycle and pedestrian demand and the predicted increase in cycle and pedestrian volumes for this area.

6.4       Motorised traffic is restricted to a one-way north east movement only, while cyclists and pedestrians can travel both ways on Oxford Terrace through the Oxford Gap which is consistent with the rest of the Avon River precinct shared zones. This is important to for full the morning and evening tidal demands of the ‘South Express and ‘Little River Link’ Major cycle Routes that converge in south Hagley Park and will traverse the Oxford Gap.

6.5       Motorised traffic is further restricted to a central one-way lane through the Oxford Terrace Gap, the current posted speed limit is 30 km/hr.  The design will dictate even lower operating speeds.

6.6       The design proposes 11 five minute, at any time drop-off and pick-up parking spaces.  Three P30 Mobility parking spaces are proposed being located nearest the entrance to the out patients department. The Hospital park and ride joint patient and staff shuttle Bus Stop is proposed at the northern end of the site, separated from the rest of the parking by a crossing that runs from the out patients facility across to the ramp leading to the existing emergency department. 

Significance

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

6.8       Engagement requirements for this level of significance are consultation with wider community and key stake holders.

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    Otakaro Ltd’s project staff and the [City*Sense] design team held consultation meetings with key stakeholders including joint meetings with the Canterbury District Health Board (CDHB) and the Taxi Federation, Christchurch City Council, and Spokes and The Blind Foundation

6.11    Road Safety and Barrier Free Audits were completed on the 50% Detail Design in early September 2017.

6.12    Consultation on concept plans for the project took place from Monday 17 July to Monday 14 August 2017.

6.13    Project flyers were emailed to all land and business owners in the immediate vicinity of the Oxford Gap, to Spokes, Generation Zero, Otago Medical School, Christchurch Medical Laboratories, The Health Precinct Advisory Group, Earthquake Disability Leadership Group and Age Concern.

6.14    The Ministry of Health stated that the interface with the outpatients Building would be adequately covered by the Christchurch District Health Board representatives.

6.15    The submission from Christchurch District Health Board, the major stakeholder, raised a number of concerns, Otakaro Ltd staff and the design team met with Christchurch District Health Board representatives to discuss their concerns. Meetings were held on 07 July, 27 July, 25 August and 14 September including a meeting with the Christchurch District Health Board Facilities Team, the OPD architect, Master Planner for the main hospital site and the Facilities Governance Group

6.16    Otakaro Ltd facilitated joint stakeholder workshops with representatives from Christchurch District Health Board, Christchurch City Council and Spokes on 25 August and 14 September to ensure all aspects of the plan were discussed with these groups together.

6.17    Christchurch City Council provided specific feedback on seven issues: three raised concerns with intervisibility between pedestrians and cyclists, where pedestrians move onto shared pathways.  One related to visibility issues around the choice and placement of vegetation and trees, especially around the outpatients building.  One related to the lack of visibility between users of the proposed new two-way hospital access road and shared path users. One challenged the width of the shared path and future demand. Another requested that the crossing across the southern end of Oxford Tce should not be a zebra crossing, and a requirement that the Road Safety Audit recommendations be considered and actioned as appropriate.

6.18    Eleven submissions were made on the concept plans. The details of the submission point and responses are provided on Attachment C.

6.19    Seven of the 11 concerns questioned how pedestrians and cyclists would negotiate the shared space safely and two recommended the signalisation of the Oxford Tce, Antigua Street intersection in place of the existing roundabout.

6.20    No feedback was received from St John’s, Police or Fire Services.

6.21    Christchurch Hospital emergency planner acknowledged receipt of the consultation document

6.22    The cycling advocacy group Spokes, stated that faults (mainly the shared walking and cycling path and the non-signalised intersection at Antigua Street) would discourage many from cycling.

Alignment with Council Plans and Policies

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

Financial Implications

6.24    Cost of Implementation – All costs associated with this proposal will be met by Otakaro Ltd.

6.25    Maintenance / Ongoing Costs – Will be covered by Councils Maintenance Team operational budgets

Legal Implications

6.26    Part 1 clause 5 of the Christchurch City Council Traffic and parking Bylaw 2008 provides the Council with the authority to install parking restrictions by resolution.

6.27    Part 1 clause 5(3) of the Christchurch City Council Traffic and parking Bylaw 2008 states;        ”The Council may by resolution impose standing and stopping restrictions on any road or any part of any road or any other area controlled by the Council whether by way of a time restriction, a restriction to a specified class or classes or description of vehicle (for example, Bus Parking), a total prohibition or a combination of these.

6.28    The installation of signs and markings associated with traffic control devices must comply with the Land Transport Rule: traffic Control Devices 2004

6.29    The Oxford Gap design is dependent on easement agreements being entered into between Otakaro limited, the Christchurch District Health Board and the Christchurch City Council with regard to encroachments onto Christchurch District Health Board land and Christchurch City Council Reserve land along the Avon River.

Risks and Mitigations  

6.30    This proposal relies on easements over Christchurch District Health Board and Reserve land being entered into. Council approval is subject to establishment of the easements. 

Implementation

6.31    Implementation dependencies - Approval of the Parking Restrictions Subcommittee and the Council.

6.32    Implementation timeframe – Otakaro Ltd have programed for construction to start during autumn 2018.

Option Summary - Advantages and Disadvantages

6.33    The advantages of this option include:

·   Gives legal effect to traffic controls for the Oxford gap project delivered by Otakaro Ltd.

·   The Oxford Gap design is consistent with the ‘An Accessible City’ chapter of the Christchurch Recovery plan.

·   It will facilitate the operation of the new Christchurch Hospital outpatients facility, providing a drop-off and pick-up facility.

6.34    The disadvantages of this option include:

·   There are no identified disadvantages with this option.


 

7.   Option 2 – Do Nothing

Option Description

7.1       Do not approve design and traffic controls for Oxford Terrace between Riccarton Avenue and Antigua Street.

Significance

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

Impact on Mana Whenua

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

Community Views and Preferences

7.4       See section 6.10 to 6.22 of this report.

Alignment with Council Plans and Policies

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

7.5.1   Inconsistency – This option is inconsistent with An Accessible City.

7.5.2   Reason for inconsistency – Current streetscape is held in a transitional phase under temporary traffic management. Improvement and transition required to give effect to AAC and Christchurch District Health Board development under construction.

Financial Implications

7.6       Cost of Implementation – If this option is adopted, it is unclear who would be responsible for funding the streetscape works required to remediate the present transitional state of the Oxford Gap. It is envisaged this would fall to Council.

7.7       Maintenance / Ongoing Costs – Council to fund ongoing maintenance of transitional streetscape, including temporary traffic management.

7.8       Funding source – Not applicable

Legal Implications

7.9       See Section 6.26 to 6.29 of this report.

Risks and Mitigations

7.10    Not applicable

Implementation

7.11    Implementation dependencies  - Not applicable

7.12    Implementation timeframe – Not applicable

Option Summary - Advantages and Disadvantages

7.13    The advantages of this option include:

·   There are no advantages to this option

7.14    The disadvantages of this option include:

·   Traffic controls delivered by Otakaro Ltd for the Oxford Gap Project do not have legal effect.

·   Should Otakaro Ltd not complete the project in accordance with this option, then Christchurch City Council may have to programme and fund the necessary improvements.

 

Attachments

No.

Title

Page

a 

Oxford Gap Signage and Line Marking Plan

 

b 

AAC3 Final plans for Council approval from Cera 14 August 2015

 

c 

Oxford Gap Submission Responses

 

 

 

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

Steve Dejong - Traffic Engineer

Ryan Rolston - Team Leader Traffic Operations

Stephen Wright - Senior Traffic Engineer

Approved By

Aaron Haymes - Manager Operations (Transport)

Lynette Ellis - Head of Transport

David Adamson - General Manager City Services

 


Council

23 November 2017

 

PDF Creator


Council

23 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

23 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


Council

23 November 2017

 

Report from Infrastructure, Transport and Environment Committee  – 8 November 2017

 

18.    Labelling and composting of biodegradable plastics (bio-plastics) and poly lactic acid (PLA) containers (including takeaway cups, food serviceware and bags).

Reference:

17/1335691

Contact:

Justine Mowe

justine.mowe@ccc.govt.nz

941 6299

 

 

 

 

1.  Infrastructure, Transport and Environment Committee Consideration

 

1.         The Committee resolved to receive the information provided in this report. In addition, the Committee recommended that the Council write to the appropriate Minister to encourage regulation around labelling of compostable and recyclable containers and packaging.

 

2.   Staff Recommendations

 

That the Infrastructure, Transport and Environment Committee:                                 

1.         Receive the information in this Waste Management labelling and composting of food packaging report and attached position paper.

2.         Note to inform the Innovation and Sustainable Development Committee on the information received in this cover report and the detailed position paper attached, and any subsequent decisions or comments, in regards to the presentation to Council from Chris Thomson (Ashbec/Envirokea).  

 

3.  Infrastructure, Transport and Environment Committee Decisions Under Delegation

 

Part C

That the Infrastructure, Transport and Environment Committee:                        

1.         Receive the information in this Waste Management labelling and composting of food packaging report and attached position paper.

2.         Note to inform the Innovation and Sustainable Development Committee on the information received in this cover report and the detailed position paper attached, and any subsequent decisions or comments, in regards to the presentation to Council from Chris Thomson (Ashbec/Envirokea).  

 

4.  Infrastructure, Transport and Environment Committee Recommendation to Council

 

That the Council:                                                                                                                        

1.         Write to the appropriate Minister to strongly encourage regulation around labelling of compostable and recyclable containers and packaging.

 

 

Attachments

No.

Report Title

Page

1

Labelling and composting of biodegradable plastics (bio-plastics) and poly lactic acid (PLA) containers (including takeaway cups, food serviceware and bags).

541

 

No.

Title

Page

a

Christchurch City Council Solid Waste Team - Position Paper on labelling and composting of biodegradable or biobased plastics

543

 

 


Council

23 November 2017

 

 

Labelling and composting of biodegradable plastics (bio-plastics) and poly lactic acid (PLA) containers (including takeaway cups, food serviceware and bags).

Reference:

17/1036323

Contact:

Justine Mowe

Justine.Mowe@ccc.govt.nz

03 941 6299

 

 

1.   Purpose of Report

1.1       The purpose of this report is for the Infrastructure, Transport and Environment Committee to be informed and endorse the staffs’ position regarding waste management of organics, as outlined in the Waste Management Bylaw 2009 & Kerbside Collection Terms & Conditions.  This report is in response to a presentation to this Committee by Cultivate Waste on 10th May 2017, and a presentation to Council by Ashbec Trading/Envirokea on 3rd August 2017.  Both presentations focussed predominantly on takeaway cups and service ware.

1.2       In concern of increasing operational issues and confusion amongst our customers and local businesses, the scope of this report has been extended to include bio-plastic bags.  This report is to confirm for all members of the Committee, the Christchurch City Council (CCC) Solid Waste Team’s position on the management of these products. This report was produced in collaboration with, and is consistent with the efforts demonstrated to date by Shanti Campbell and Kathryn Ralph-Triebels in the CCC Events Production Team, who are working on the Composting Food Packaging at Events Trial 2.0.

 

 

2.   Staff Recommendations

That the Infrastructure, Transport and Environment Committee:                        

1.         Receive the information in this Waste Management labelling and composting of food packaging report and attached position paper.

2.         Note to inform the Innovation and Sustainable Development Committee on the information received in this cover report and the detailed position paper attached, and any subsequent decisions or comments, in regards to the presentation to Council from Chris Thomson (Ashbec/Envirokea).  

 

 

3.   Key Points

3.1       There is a lot of confusion around the interpretation of compliance with international standards (American, Australian and European) which are referenced in the absence of NZ standards on bio-plastics (of which PLA is one type) suitable for composting. There is also huge variability in bio-plastic products, with the term used to cover all products with as little as 0.1% plant material content.

3.2       There is currently no standardised labelling for packaging products in New Zealand, there is no ‘Certified Commercially Compostable Packaging’ (CCCP) as previously referenced, because there is no regulatory framework to check the accuracy or validity of claims around ‘compostability’.  The only option open to challenge such claims is to pursue a breach of the Fair Trading Act 1986.

3.3       There are currently no coffee/takeaway cups, lids to cups, PLA lined service ware or bio-plastic bags that are acceptable for disposal via the green organics (food and green waste) kerbside wheelie bin in Christchurch, regardless of what marketing material is claimed or printed on the outside of the cup or bag.

3.4       The compost produced at the CCC’s Organics Processing Plant must meet NZ Standard 4454 for compost products and ‘Assure Quality’ organic certification – demonstrated through detailed audits of processing and a rigorous quality assurance (QA) process.  The introduction of bio-plastics into the composting process at CCC’s plant will result in the loss of quality and accreditation for the compost produced, and potentially the loss to the region of organics diversion; currently 50-60,000 tons per annum.

 

Attachments

No.