Christchurch City Council

Agenda

 

 

Notice of Meeting:

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

 

Date:                                     Thursday 22 February 2018

Time:                                    2.30pm

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 February 2018

 

 

 

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

22 February 2018

 

 

 


Council

22 February 2018

 

TABLE OF CONTENTS

 

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

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

3.       Public Participation.................................................................................................................. 4

3.1       Public Forum....................................................................................................................... 4

3.2       Deputations by Appointment............................................................................................... 4

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

Council

5.       Council Minutes - 25 January 2018.......................................................................................... 5

6.       Council Minutes - 1 February 2018........................................................................................ 13

7.       Council Minutes - 8 February 2018........................................................................................ 19

Infrastructure, Transport and Environment Committee

8.       An Accessible City Current State (2)...................................................................................... 23

9.       Amendments to Delegations for new Bylaws....................................................................... 43

10.     Infrastructure, Transport and Environment Committee Minutes - 12 February 2018..... 75

11.     Resolution to Exclude the Public........................................................................................... 83  

 

 

 


Council

22 February 2018

 

 

1.   Apologies 

 

2.   Declarations of Interest

Members are reminded of the need to be vigilant and to stand aside from decision making when a conflict arises between their role as an elected representative and any private or other external interest they might have.

3.   Public Participation

3.1  Public Forum

A period of up to 30 minutes is available for people to speak for up to five minutes on any issue that is not the subject of a separate hearings process.

3.2  Deputations by Appointment

Deputations may be heard on a matter or matters covered by a report on this agenda and approved by the Chairperson.

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

4.   Presentation of Petitions

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

 


Council

22 February 2018

 

 

5.        Council Minutes - 25 January 2018

Reference:

18/91660

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 25 January 2018.

 

2.   Recommendation to Council

That the Council confirm the Minutes from the Council meeting held 25 January 2018.

 

 

Attachments

No.

Title

Page

A

Minutes Council - 25 January 2018

6

 

 

Signatories

Author

Jo Daly - Council Secretary

  


Council

22 February 2018

 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


Council

22 February 2018

 

 

6.        Council Minutes - 1 February 2018

Reference:

18/105129

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 1 February 2018.

 

2.   Recommendation to Council

That the Council confirm the Minutes from the Council meeting held 1 February 2018.

 

 

Attachments

No.

Title

Page

a

Minutes Council - 1 February 2018

14

 

 

Signatories

Author

Christopher Turner-Bullock - Committee Advisor

  


Council

22 February 2018

 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


Council

22 February 2018

 

 

7.        Council Minutes - 8 February 2018

Reference:

18/119353

Presenter(s):

Jo Daly – Council Secretary

 

 

1.   Purpose of Report

For the Council to confirm the minutes from the Council meeting held 8 February 2018.

 

2.   Recommendation to Council

That the Council confirm the Minutes from the Council meeting held 8 February 2018.

 

 

Attachments

No.

Title

Page

A

Minutes Council - 8 February 2018

20

 

 

Signatories

Author

Jo Daly - Council Secretary

  


Council

22 February 2018

 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


Council

22 February 2018

 

Report from Infrastructure, Transport and Environment Committee  – 12 February 2018

 

8.        An Accessible City Current State (2)

Reference:

18/134361

Presenter(s):

Lynette Ellis – Manager Planning and Delivery Transport

 

 

1.  Infrastructure, Transport and Environment Committee Consideration

 

The Committee resolved the staff recommendations with an amendment to Resolution 2C. The Committee also requested for staff to investigate options for connecting the Rapanui/Shag Rock cycleway to the 30kph central city zone.

 

2.   Staff Recommendations

 

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

1.         Approves the continuation of the An Accessible City programme of work with the modifications identified in paragraph 6.1 of this report.

2.         Notes that before the Long Term Plan is approved staff will engage on the following:

a.         The proposed works on Kilmore Street between Colombo and Durham for the purposes of completing this section in line with the programme for the completion of the Town Hall restoration.

b.         The 30km speed limit on St Asaph Street.

c.         The proposed changes to High Street, including the tram track extension.

3.         Notes that a separate report will be presented to the Infrastructure, Transport and Environment Committee on Victoria Street as soon as practicable.

 

3.  Infrastructure, Transport and Environment Committee Recommendation to Council

 

That the Council:

1.         Approves the continuation of the An Accessible City programme of work with the modifications identified in paragraph 6.1 of this report.

2.         Notes that before the Long Term Plan is approved staff will engage on the following:

a.         The proposed works on Kilmore Street between Colombo and Durham for the purposes of completing this section in line with the programme for the completion of the Town Hall restoration.

b.         The 30km speed limit on St Asaph Street.

c.         The proposed changes to High Street, including the tram track extension with the objective of aligning the streetscape, construction methodology and physical works with the needs of the key stakeholders.

3.         Notes that a separate report will be presented to the Council on Victoria Street as soon as practicable.

4.         Requests that staff investigate options for connecting the Rapanui/Shag Rock cycleway to the 30kph central city zone.

 

 

Attachments

No.

Report Title

Page

1

An Accessible City Current State (2)

25

 

 

 


Council

22 February 2018

 

 

An Accessible City Current State (2)

Reference:

17/918344

Contact:

Lynette Ellis

Lynette.ellis@ccc.govt.nz

941 6285

 

 

1.   Purpose and Origin of Report

Purpose of Report

1.1       The purpose of this report is for the Infrastructure, Transport and Environment Committee to receive the report and recommend to the Council an adjusted programme for the delivery of An Accessible City and other related transport projects.  This report also notes that staff are intending to progress with engagement on the projects noted in the resolutions.  The final decision on the amended programme will be made as part of the 2018-2028 Long Term Plan.

Origin of Report

1.2       This report is being provided to fulfil Council resolution (CAPL/2017/00022), referenced below, to report back on options for works on these streets prior to any work proceeding.

2.   Significance

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

2.1.1   The level of significance was determined by the number of people affected and the level of community interest in the An Accessible City programme.

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 recommends that the Council:

1.         Approves the continuation of the An Accessible City programme of work with the modifications identified in paragraph 6.1 of this report.

2.         Notes that before the Long Term Plan is approved staff will engage on the following:

a.         The proposed works on Kilmore Street between Colombo and Durham for the purposes of completing this section in line with the programme for the completion of the Town Hall restoration.

b.         The 30km speed limit on St Asaph Street.

c.         The proposed changes to High Street, including the tram track extension.

3.         Notes that a separate report will be presented to the Infrastructure, Transport and Environment Committee on Victoria Street as soon as practicable.

 

4.   Key Points

4.1       The Council’s resolution in June 2017 put on hold the An Accessible City work programme. This was for staff to consider options that better take into account competing community priorities.

4.2       Staff have engaged with key AAC partner agencies and considered other public information to understand the issues and refine the programme as detailed in this report.

4.3       This report does not address individual project design. Community views and preferences on design details will be managed through the usual project engagement process.

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

4.4.1   Activity: Roads and Footpaths

·     Level of Service: 16.0.3 Maintain resident satisfaction with roadway condition

4.5       The following feasible options have been considered:

·     Option 1 – Modified programme for An Accessible City – consistent with the draft Long Term Plan (preferred option)

·     Option 2 – Maintain the An Accessible City programme provided for in the 15-25 Long Term Plan as amended by the 17-18 Annual Plan.

·     Option 3 – Modified programme as per Option 1 with the addition of AAC Salisbury and Kilmore Streets.

·     Option 4 - Abandon the An Accessible City programme.

4.6       Option 1 - Summary - Advantages and Disadvantages (Preferred Option)

4.6.1   The advantages of this option include:

·     Will further progress completion of the transport network within the core of the central city.

·     Continuing to deliver the themes and components developed through Share an Idea

·     Enables completion of the proposed transport projects within timeframes that are sympathetic to private sector development work. This will minimise disruption to the private sector and established activities.

·     Links to the completion of Otakaro Ltd led projects. This includes some AAC projects, public transport improvements and pedestrian safety.

·     Completes connections to significant Major Cycle Routes projects and provides for east-west and north-south cycling connections. This provides road safety and connectivity benefits and realisation of the investment in the Major Cycle Routes programme.

·     Allows for the construction of the tram infrastructure and network extension to occur at the same time as the An Accessible City portion of construction on High Street.

·     Upgrading the Bealey Avenue/Papanui Road intersection relieves traffic congestion on Victoria Street and provides lane priority for buses at this intersection. Additionally the proposed work at the Bealey Avenue/Papanui Road intersection realises the benefits of the recent widening of Bealey Avenue and upgrading of the pedestrian crossings at Montreal Street and Durham Street.

·    Upgrades the poor condition storm water, road surface, footpath, kerb and channel assets on Victoria Street. This avoids the need to spend maintenance funds in Victoria Street and avoids the long term disruption to businesses as a result of ongoing maintenance activities.

4.6.2   The disadvantages of this option include:

·     Concerns may be raised by some central business stakeholders that this option may adversely affect their business due to the disruption of the proposed road works. Therefore, it is critical that communications are timely, detailed and all affected parties are engaged.

·     Disruption to the inner city transport network.  This will be managed through the integration of project work, the careful management of contractors, the construction methodologies and with the support of CTOC.

·     Delaying the delivery of the two way conversion on Salisbury and Kilmore Streets causes a delay in realising some public transport benefits.

 

5.   Context/Background

An Accessible City Background

5.1       The Christchurch Central Recovery Plan was notified in the New Zealand Gazette on 31 July 2012 and had effect from that date.

5.2       An Accessible City is the transport chapter of the Christchurch Central Recovery Plan. An Accessible City also includes amendments to the transport provisions of Christchurch City Council’s District Plan.

5.3       An Accessible City aims to revitalise the central city transport system to provide a range of travel options that are flexible and resilient.  An Accessible City is designed to manage projected population growth as well as supporting growth in travel by public transport, walking and cycling. 

5.4       An Accessible City is a ten year transport plan which delivers central city transport projects in line with budget approvals, development, transport demand and long term plan approval processes.  

5.5       The 2015 to 2025 Long Term Plan outlined the initial programme for An Accessible City.

5.6       Stage one of the An Accessible City is well underway.  Stage one projects delivered by Council have largely been completed.

 

Refer to map 1 below, which outlines central city horizontal projects which are completed, under construction and proposed as per option 1 of this report.

 

 

Map 1 – Central city projects completed, under construction and proposed as per option 1 of this report

KEY: TP30 = Transport Project 30km speed reduction to central core and visual gateway installations at 30km entry points. 

KEY: Wayfinding = Installation of directional signage supporting the four modes of transport.

 

Interdependencies with other programmes

5.7       Major Cycle Routes (MCR).  The following MCR connect to the four avenues and continue connections into the central city:

·   Papanui Parallel along Colombo Street.

·   Rapanui-Shag Rock along Worcester Street.

·   Heathcote Expressway along Ferry Road and St Asaph Street.

·   Quarryman’s Trail along Antigua Street.

·   Uni-Cycle across Hagley Park to Armagh Street.

5.8       All MCR projects currently terminate at the avenues on the edge of the central city with the intention that the AAC programme will complete routes within the central city, including linkages to MCR’s. 

5.9       The critical routes for completion are:

5.9.1   Papanui Parallel – Colombo Street from Bealey Avenue to Cathedral Square.  This is the main cycleway connection to the central city from the north. When the Northern Corridor cycleway is complete this route will provide the connection north to the Hurunui Heartland Ride and further north to Kaikoura.

5.9.2   Heathcote Expressway – Ferry Road from Fitzgerald Avenue to St Asaph Street. This will complete the section into the central city and links past Ara Institute and Cathedral College and Marion College. Scheme design is underway and initial engagement has been undertaken with significant stakeholders.

5.9.3   Quarryman’s Trail – Antigua Street from Moorhouse Avenue to Hospital Corner.  This links Hoon Hay to the central city and provides access to destinations in the south west corner of the central city.

City Tram Network and High Street

5.10    The proposed tram network and installation was consulted on in 2009 and the budget for installation programmed in the Long Term Plan at the time.  The proposed construction programme had section 1 completed before the Rugby World Cup of 2011 and section 2 completed approximately two years later. 

5.11    Changes to the network have been required as a result of the earthquakes and the resulting programme of works in the central city. Community engagement will be undertaken as part of the standard project development process moving forward.

5.12    The current proposal for the next stage of the tram (Stage 1B) is to extend the track and overhead network from Polar Lane to High Street, at the intersection of St Asaph Street and Madras Street. The An Accessible City project that aligns with this installation is the High Street upgrade. Refer to figure 1 below which details section (1B).

5.13    The logic to undertake the tram extension at the same time as the High Street upgrade is to avoid digging up the road on two separate occasions.

5.14    It is noted that funding for the tram extension is not part of the An Accessible City budget and funding for the tram has been allowed for in the proposed 2018-2028 Long Term Plan and will be subject to the LTP engagement and decision making process.

 

Figure 1 – Proposed Tram extension Stage 1B showing cross over in High Street

5.15    Refurbishment of the heritage buildings along this section of High Street is underway and integration of the tram works with An Accessible City street works will positively support development and activity in this area.

Central City Development

5.16    Development activities have progressed in 2017 with the completion and opening of a number of new buildings and businesses. Staff note the current redevelopments along High Street and Hereford Street are specific examples where the continuation of future An Accessible City projects is particularly important.

5.17    Timing of development and infrastructure renewals is critical to the functioning and success of the central city. The importance of transport project timing and coordination with private sector development has been considered in the options put forward.

Competing Demands

5.18    There are three broadly competing project demands for AAC funding listed in the table below. These competing demands carry different benefits and risks which are considered in the options put forward.

Demand

Benefit

Risks

Keeping in time with development

Allows for road opening in time with vertical development

Commencing road construction once tenants have established trading, carries business disruption, financial and reputational risk

Completing links between MCR projects and AAC projects

Provides completed cycle links from MCR to AAC projects

MCR projects complete at the four avenues. Incomplete links (Colombo St, Antigua St, Ferry Rd) carry a level of road safety risk to cyclists

Public transport

(AAC Salisbury & Kilmore)

Increased passenger service and bus priority

Completion of the AAC Salisbury and Kilmore St projects would increase the level of service to public transport passengers

Table 1 – Competing demands for AAC funding

 

Engagement with Partner Agencies and others

5.19    Meetings with partner agencies were undertaken as a part of the programme development. Staff undertook discussions with Environment Canterbury (ECan), the New Zealand Transport Agency (NZTA), Regenerate Christchurch, Department of the Prime Minister & Cabinet (DPMC) and Otakaro Limited.  On 13 December 2017 staff held a workshop to discuss the competing needs and funding issues with the Infrastructure Transport and Environment Committee. All feedback has been considered in the programme being proposed as part of the draft 2018-2028 Long Term Plan process.

5.20    Staff have also considered information from discussions with stakeholders in the community and information presented through public deputations and in media articles to inform this report. 

5.21    Engagement with the community and affected stakeholders on the programme of delivery for An Accessible City will occur as part of the Long Term Plan engagement and decision making process. Engagement on the details of individual projects, their function and the potential construction impacts will be undertaken as part of the project delivery process with all affected stakeholders.

5.22    It should be noted there has already been engagement undertaken on Victoria Street, which currently has an approved plan.  Staff will continue to engage with Victoria Street stakeholders to ensure the timing and phasing of any works is clearly understood and the construction impacts are minimised. This will be reported back to the committee.


 

6.   Option 1 – Modified programme for An Accessible City – consistent with the draft Long Term Plan (preferred)

Option Description

6.1       Deliver the AAC programme in accordance with table 2 below:

Table 2 – Option 1 – Projects description

 

Figure 2 – Option 1 Funding - Modified Programme for An Accessible City – consistent with the draft 2018-28 LTP

Significance

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

6.3       Engagement requirements for the proposed programme will be undertaken as part of the overall Long Term Plan engagement and decision making process. 

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       Public consultation on An Accessible City took place from November 2012 to February 2013. Consultation occurred as part of the 2015-25 Long Term Plan and the amendments that occurred as part of the 2017/18 Annual Plan.

6.6       Community views and preferences will be sought through the 2018-28 LTP engagement and decision making process. Individual projects will undergo specific engagement through the project delivery lifecycle.

Alignment with Council Plans and Policies

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

Financial Implications

6.8       Cost of Implementation – This report does not seek approval for additional costs, but seeks to identify potential alterations to delivery timeframes.

6.9       Maintenance / Ongoing Costs – This has been accounted for in the forward planning of existing maintenance budgets.

6.10    Funding source – AAC programme within the Long Term Plan.

Legal Implications

6.11    The AAC programme timing does not currently align with the future changes to one-way streets detailed in Council’s Traffic and Parking Bylaw 2008. However, the new Christchurch City Council Traffic and Parking Bylaw 2017 comes into force on 1 March 2018.  Staff are currently working on a report setting out the changes required by resolution to bring the list of one-way streets up to date.

Risks and Mitigations   

6.12    There is a risk that key stakeholders prefer the programme in the 2015-25 LTP because of the public transport benefits associated with converting Kilmore/Salisbury to two ways streets.  Staff have held meetings with the partners as referred to in section 5.19 of this report to reduce risks around competing demands and will have further engagement with the community during the Long Term Plan process. Continued clear consistent and regular communications with all stakeholders will continue.

6.13    There is a risk that some members of the community will not support the continued progression of the development of the projects in the programme as it stands.  This could result in increased stakeholder management and community engagement costs.

Implementation

6.14    Implementation dependencies ­- The implementation of the An Accessible City programme, the Major Cycle Routes Programme and the extension of the tram network all interact and need to be programmed appropriately.

6.15    Implementation timeframe – In line with budget timeframes and option description.

Option Summary - Advantages and Disadvantages

6.16    The advantages of this option include:

·   Will further progress completion of the transport network within the core of the central city.

·   Enables completion of the proposed transport projects within timeframes that are sympathetic to private sector development work. This will help to minimise disruption to the private sector and established activities.

·   Links to the completion of Otakaro Ltd led projects. This includes some AAC projects, public transport improvements and pedestrian safety.

·   Completes connections to significant Major Cycle Routes projects and provides for east-west and north-south cycling connections. This provides road safety and connectivity benefits and realisation of the investment in the Major Cycle Routes programme.

·   Allows for the construction of the tram infrastructure and network extension to occur at the same time as the An Accessible City portion of construction on High Street.

·   Upgrading the Bealey Avenue/Papanui Road intersection relieves traffic congestion on Victoria Street and provides lane priority for buses at this intersection. Additionally the proposed work at the Bealey Avenue/Papanui Road intersection realises the benefits of the recent widening of Bealey Avenue and upgrading of the pedestrian crossings at Montreal Street and Durham Street.

·   Upgrades the poor condition storm water, road surface, footpath, kerb and channel assets on Victoria Street. This avoids the need to spend maintenance funds in Victoria Street and avoids the long term disruption to businesses as a result of ongoing maintenance activities.

6.17    The disadvantages of this option include:

·   Concerns may be raised by some central business stakeholders that this option may adversely affect their business due to the disruption of the proposed road works. Therefore, it is critical that communications are timely, detailed and all affected parties are engaged.

·   Disruption to the inner city transport network.  This will be managed through the integration of project work, the careful management of contractors, the construction methodologies and with the support of CTOC.

·   Delaying the delivery of the two way conversion on Salisbury and Kilmore Streets causes a delay in realising some public transport benefits.


 

7.   Option 2 – Maintain AAC program provided for in the 15-25 Long Term Plan as amended by the 17-18 Annual Plan

Option Description

7.1       Deliver the AAC programme to the 2015-2025 Long Term Plan as amended by the 2017-2018 Annual Plan.

Significance

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

7.3       Engagement requirements for this level of significance have been undertaken through the engagement on the 2015-25 Long Term Plan.

Impact on Mana Whenua

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

Community Views and Preferences

7.5       Public consultation on An Accessible City took place from November 2012 to February 2013. The 2015-25 long term plan was consulted on from September 2014 and approved in March 2015.

7.6       The community views on this programme have already been sought through the consultation for the 2015-25 Long Term Plan. Individual projects will undergo specific engagement through the project delivery lifecycle.

Alignment with Council Plans and Policies

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

Financial Implications

7.8       Cost of Implementation – No change to the current budgets in the agreed Annual Plan. Changes will be required to the draft Long Term Plan.

7.9       Maintenance/Ongoing Costs – This has been accounted for in the forward planning of existing maintenance budgets.

7.10    Funding source – AAC programme within Long Term Plan and Annual Plan.

Legal Implications

7.11    The AAC programme timing does not currently align with the future changes to one-way streets detailed in Council’s Traffic and Parking Bylaw 2008. However, the new Christchurch City Council Traffic and Parking Bylaw 2017 comes into force on 1 March 2018.  Staff are currently working on a report setting out the changes required by resolution to bring the list of one-way streets up to date.

Risks and Mitigations    

7.12    There is a risk that the community will not support the continued progression of the An Accessible City programme as it stands.  This would result in increased stakeholder management and community engagement costs.

7.13    Not completing street upgrades in the central core could see key developments completed ahead of major infrastructure construction.  This will potentially require major construction to be undertaken while businesses are trading increasing the construction impacts to stakeholders.

7.14    Not completing the links with the MCR projects increases the level of road safety risk to cyclists who will be coming off protected cycleways onto open streets within the four avenues.

7.15    Not completing the Kilmore Street/Town Hall section of street upgrade earlier could result in two rounds of construction in this street.

Implementation

7.16    Implementation timeframe – as identified the LTP and Annual plan.

Option Summary - Advantages and Disadvantages

7.17    The advantages of this option include:

·   Will complete the projects as identified and consulted on through the 2015-25 Long Term Plan and 2017/18 Annual Plan

7.18    The disadvantages of this option include:

·   Does not rationalise the programme to ensure efforts are focussed on linking and completing the central city and supporting development within the central city.

·   Does not connect significant programmes such as the tram extension and Major Cycle Routes to ensure efficiency of implementation, minimise impacts on businesses and maximise the benefits.

·   Does not complete Town Hall section of road works in line with the completion of this building and street front refurbishment.


 

8.   Option 3 – Modified programme as per Option 1 with the addition of AAC Salisbury and Kilmore Streets

Option Description

8.1       Deliver the AAC programme in accordance with table 2 (paragraph 6.1) with the addition of Salisbury and Kilmore Streets as per their project timeframes in the 2015-25 Long Term Plan.

Significance

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

8.3       Engagement requirements for the proposed programme will be undertaken as part of the overall Long Term Plan engagement and decision making process.

Impact on Mana Whenua

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

Community Views and Preferences

8.5       Public consultation on An Accessible City took place from November 2012 to February 2013. Consultation occurred as part of the 2015-25 Long Term Plan and the amendments that occurred as part of the 2017/18 Annual Plan.

8.6       Community views and preferences will be sought through the 2018-28 Long Term Plan engagement and decision making process. Individual projects will undergo specific engagement through the project delivery lifecycle.

Alignment with Council Plans and Policies

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

Financial Implications

8.8       Cost of Implementation – Option 3 proposes to increase the Long Term Plan budget to allow for the inclusion of the projects Salisbury and Kilmore Street projects.

8.9       Maintenance / Ongoing Costs – This has been accounted for in the forward planning of existing maintenance budgets.

8.10    Funding source – AAC programme within Long Term Plan.

Legal Implications

8.11    The AAC programme timing does not currently align with the future changes to one-way streets detailed in Council’s Traffic and Parking Bylaw 2008. However, the new Christchurch City Council Traffic and Parking Bylaw 2017 comes into force on 1 March 2018.  Staff are currently working on a report setting out the changes required by resolution to bring the list of one-way streets up to date.

Risks and Mitigations    

8.12    Same as for option one, with the exception of the risks relating to public transport.

8.13    Increased budget required for this option will affect the ability to deliver other projects within the wider transport programme, or other Long Term Plan projects.

Implementation

8.14    Implementation dependencies - The implementation of the An Accessible City programme, the Major Cycle Routes Programme and the extension of the Tram all interact and need to be programmed appropriately.

8.15    Implementation timeframe – as identified in figure 2, with the addition of Salisbury and Kilmore Streets.

Option Summary - Advantages and Disadvantages

8.16    The advantages of this option include the advantages identified for option 1 plus:

·   Links to the completion of the partner agency delivered projects including AAC projects, public transport improvements and pedestrian safety.

·   Includes design and delivery of Salisbury and Kilmore streets realising the public transport benefits provided by the east west route which Kilmore Street will provide.

8.17    The disadvantages of this option include:

·   As additional funding is required this may impact on other Long Term Plan projects.

·   Given the complexities of changing Kilmore and Salisbury Streets from one-way to two-way this project may not be able to be delivered within the next three years. 


 

9.   Option 4 – Abandon the An Accessible City programme.

Option Description

9.1       This option would stop all work on the An Accessible City programme and the tram extension.

Significance

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

9.3       Engagement requirements for this level of significance will need to be undertaken as part of the 2018-28 Long Term Plan engagement.

9.4       Additional consultation maybe required given the significance of stopping work all together.

Impact on Mana Whenua

9.5       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

9.6       The wider community are specifically affected by this option due to the comprehensive nature of the decision.  Their views will need to be sought. This may be possible through the engagement on the 2018-28 Long Term Plan.

Alignment with Council Plans and Policies

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

9.7.1   Inconsistency – Inconsistent with the current Long Term Plan, Christchurch Transport Strategic Plan, the Greater Christchurch Transport Statement and the Christchurch Central Recovery Plan.

9.7.2   Reason for inconsistency – Delivery is expected as part of the ongoing programme of work.

9.7.3   Amendment necessary – Consultation on the change would be necessary and could occur through the Long Term Plan engagement process.

Financial Implications

9.8       Cost of Implementation – no further costs against these projects.

9.9       Maintenance/Ongoing Costs – maintenance and operations costs are likely to increase as the damaged assets in the central city will require more attention. 

9.10    Funding source – not applicable.

Legal Implications

9.11    Additional legal advice will be required on whether amendments to the District Plan or other statutory documents are necessary to support this option.

9.12    The AAC programme timing does not currently align with the future changes to one-way streets detailed in Council’s Traffic and Parking Bylaw 2008. However, the new Christchurch City Council Traffic and Parking Bylaw 2017 comes into force on 1 March 2018.  Staff are currently working on a report setting out the changes required by resolution to bring the list of one-way streets up to date.

Risks and Mitigations   

9.13    There is a potential risk of challenge from central government that Council has not upheld the agreed programme and development timelines to meet the requirements for the Central City Recovery Plan.

Implementation

9.14    Implementation dependencies - No implementation.

9.15    Implementation timeframe – Not applicable.

Option Summary - Advantages and Disadvantages

9.16    The advantages of this option include:

·   Budget will be made available within the wider Capital Programme for other projects.

·   There will be less disruption to adjacent businesses

9.17    The disadvantages of this option include:

·   The Council portion of the AAC programme will not be delivered and appropriate connections to partner agency projects will not be achieved.

·   Significant asset renewals will not be achieved within the central city, which may lead to continued asset degradation.

·   Consistency, cohesion and connectivity will not be easily achieved in the central city and this will not support the changes to the population base and the changing development within this area of the city.

·   Inconsistent with key strategic documents, such as Council’s Transport Plan, the Greater Christchurch Transport Statement and the Christchurch Central Recovery Plan.

 

Attachments

There are no attachments for this report.

 

Confirmation of Statutory Compliance

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

(a) This report contains:

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

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

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

 

Signatories

Authors

Lynette Ellis - Manager Planning and Delivery Transport

Aaron Haymes - Manager Operations (Transport)

Stefan Jermy - Project Manager

Approved By

Richard Osborne - Head of Transport

David Adamson - General Manager City Services

 


Council

22 February 2018

 

Report from Infrastructure, Transport and Environment Committee  – 12 February 2018

 

9.        Amendments to Delegations for new Bylaws

Reference:

18/134626

Presenter(s):

Vivienne Wilson – Associate General Counsel

 

 

 

1.   Staff Recommendations

 

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

1.         Relying on clause 32 of Schedule 7 of the Local Government Act 2002 and for the purposes of the efficiency and effectiveness in the conduct of the Council’s business, and relying on any other applicable statutory authority,

a.         Revoke the “Roads” delegations to community boards set out in part 2.0 of Subpart 1 of Part D of the Delegations Register (pages 175 to 179), and

b.         Revoke the delegations to the Parking Restrictions Subcommittee set out in Subpart 3 of Part D of the Delegations Register (pages 194 and 195), and

c.         Revoke the delegations  to the Chief Executive in respect of the Christchurch City Council Marine and River Facilities Bylaw 2008, the Christchurch City Council Stock Control Bylaw 2008 and the Christchurch City Council Traffic and Parking Bylaw 2008 set out in Subpart 5 of Part A of the Delegations Register (set out on pages 43 and 44), and

d.         Delegate to community boards, the Parking Restrictions Subcommittee, and the Chief Executive the responsibilities, duties, and powers as set out in Attachment B.

2.         Approve that these changes to delegations come into force on 1 March 2018.

 

2.  Infrastructure, Transport and Environment Committee Recommendation to Council

 

That the Council:

1.         Relying on clause 32 of Schedule 7 of the Local Government Act 2002 and for the purposes of the efficiency and effectiveness in the conduct of the Council’s business, and relying on any other applicable statutory authority,

a.         Revoke the “Roads” delegations to community boards set out in part 2.0 of Subpart 1 of Part D of the Delegations Register (pages 175 to 179), and

b.         Revoke the delegations to the Parking Restrictions Subcommittee set out in Subpart 3 of Part D of the Delegations Register (pages 194 and 195), and

c.         Revoke the delegations  to the Chief Executive in respect of the Christchurch City Council Marine and River Facilities Bylaw 2008, the Christchurch City Council Stock Control Bylaw 2008 and the Christchurch City Council Traffic and Parking Bylaw 2008 set out in Subpart 5 of Part A of the Delegations Register (set out on pages 43 and 44), and

d.         Delegate to community boards, the Parking Restrictions Subcommittee, and the Chief Executive the responsibilities, duties, and powers as set out in Attachment B.

2.         Approve that these changes to delegations come into force on 1 March 2018.  

 

 

Attachments

No.

Report Title

Page

1

Amendments to Delegations for new Bylaws

45

 

No.

Title

Page

a

Current Community Board Delegations - Roads

53

b

Changes to Delegations Following Bylaw Changes

59

c

Plan A - Central City Area

73

 

 


Council

22 February 2018

 

 

Amendments to Delegations for new Bylaws

Reference:

18/19796

Contact:

Vivienne Wilson

Vivienne.wilson@ccc.govt.nz

941 8999

 

 

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 the Council that it make changes to delegations to community boards, the Parking Restrictions Subcommittee, and the Chief Executive as outlined in this report.

Origin of Report

1.2       This report is staff generated.

2.   Significance

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

 

 

3.   Staff Recommendations 

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

1.         Relying on clause 32 of Schedule 7 of the Local Government Act 2002 and for the purposes of the efficiency and effectiveness in the conduct of the Council’s business, and relying on any other applicable statutory authority,

a.         Revoke the “Roads” delegations to community boards set out in part 2.0 of Subpart 1 of Part D of the Delegations Register (pages 175 to 179), and

b.         Revoke the delegations to the Parking Restrictions Subcommittee set out in Subpart 3 of Part D of the Delegations Register (pages 194 and 195), and

c.         Revoke the delegations  to the Chief Executive in respect of the Christchurch City Council Marine and River Facilities Bylaw 2008, the Christchurch City Council Stock Control Bylaw 2008 and the Christchurch City Council Traffic and Parking Bylaw 2008 set out in Subpart 5 of Part A of the Delegations Register (set out on pages 43 and 44), and

d.         Delegate to community boards, the Parking Restrictions Subcommittee, and the Chief Executive the responsibilities, duties, and powers as set out in Attachment B.

2.         Approve that these changes to delegations come into force on 1 March 2018.

 

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 – Amend the delegations to community boards, Parking Restrictions Subcommittee and the chief executive (preferred option)

·     Option 2 – Do not amend the delegations to community boards, Parking Restrictions Subcommittee and the chief executive

4.3       Option Summary - Advantages and Disadvantages (Preferred Option)

4.3.1   The advantages of this option include:

·     The community boards, Parking Restrictions Subcommittee and staff have the necessary delegations in place to act on any matter before the Council (except for those matters specifically reserved to the Council). 

4.3.2   The disadvantages of this option include:

·     There are no identified disadvantages.  Given that the Council has already determined to delegate many of these matters in the past, these changes will keep the Delegations Register current and fit for purpose.

 

 

5.   Context/Background

5.1       On 23 November 2017, the Council resolved that three replacement bylaws come into force on 1 March 2018.  These are Christchurch City Council Marine, River and Lake Facilities Bylaw 2017 (“Marine, River and Lake Facilities Bylaw”), the Christchurch City Council Traffic and Parking Bylaw 2017 (“Traffic and Parking Bylaw”), and the Christchurch City Council Stock on Roads Bylaw 2017 (“Stock on Roads Bylaw”). 

5.2       These replacement bylaws followed a review of the Christchurch City Council Marine and River Facilities Bylaw 2008, the Christchurch City Council Traffic and Parking Bylaw 2008, the Christchurch City Council Speed Limits Bylaw 2010, and the Christchurch City Council Stock Control Bylaw 2008 (“the former bylaws”). 

5.3       The Council had delegated a range of powers under the former bylaws to community boards, the Parking Restrictions Subcommittee and staff.  These delegations now need to be updated to reflect the new bylaw provisions.  It is also timely to clarify the wording of some existing delegations to ensure that Council delegations are fit for purpose. 

5.4       The Council’s Delegations Register is set out as follows:

·   Contents

·   How this delegation register works

·   Delegations policy

·   Part A – Statutory and Other Delegations to the Chief Executive

·   Part B – Statutory and Other Delegations to Staff

·   Part C – Statutory and Other Delegations from the Chief Executive to Staff

·   Part D – Council to Community Boards, Committees, Sub-Committees, and Other Subordinate Decision-making Bodies

5.5       Part A contains the principal delegation to the Chief Executive.  The Chief Executive has, for the purpose of performing her duties, all of the Council’s responsibilities, duties, and powers to act on any matter, subject to specific restrictions set out in the tables in Part A.  The Chief Executive may then sub-delegate a large number of matters to staff.  These sub-delegations are set out in Part C of the register, and are updated regularly. 

5.6       Part B of the Register provides for delegations directly to staff because the law does not allow for sub-delegations of these matters, or it has been determined to delegate these matters directly to staff.  For example, delegations under the Resource Management Act 1991 or the Local Government (Rating) Act 2002.

5.7       Part D of the Register contains the delegations to Community Boards, Council Committees, Officer Subcommittees, Hearings Panels and other subordinate decision-making bodies of the Council. 

5.8       Staff have identified a number of changes that need to be made to the Register in Parts A and D.  Once these changes have been made, the Chief Executive will be able to make a series of sub-delegations to staff. 

5.9       The Local Government Act 2002 (LGA) emphasises that delegations are made for the purposes of efficiency and effectiveness of the organisation.  The Council’s Delegations Policy states that the Council supports the principle of delegating decision-making to the lowest competent level. 

Nature of proposed changes – Community Boards and roads

5.10    In terms of the changes to the Community Board delegations for roads, staff are proposing a new part 2 of Part D of the Register.  This is to provide for the new bylaw provisions and to better align the substantive delegations with the authorising legislation – for example Part 37 of the Local Government Act 1974. 

5.11    It is also the view of the Legal Services Unit that the community board delegations in relation to roads could be more clearly expressed.  For this reason the delegations to community boards with respect to roads look different to the current layout of delegations.  A copy of the current delegations is provided in Attachment A.  A copy of the proposed new delegations is found in Attachment B. 

5.12    The bylaw delegations relating to roads have been updated to reflect the wording of the new Traffic and Parking Bylaw.  For the most part the delegations relating to the bylaw clauses reflect the current delegations already held by Community Boards.  This means that the community boards retain delegated authority to make the following decisions:

·   Vehicle crossing objections

·   Road stopping

·   Naming of roads

·   Parking, stopping, standing prohibitions and restrictions

·   Approving concept plans for road alterations, traffic restraints and treatments

·   Traffic movements (eg stop, give way, no right turn, not left turn, no heavy motor vehicles)

5.13    However, it is proposed that three new delegations be given to community boards under the Traffic and Parking Bylaw.  These relate to clauses 20, 21 and 22 of the Bylaw:

·   Shared zones – the boards will have the power to resolve shared zones and the restrictions on the use of the shared zone

·   Shared paths – the boards will have the power to resolve shared paths and the priority of users on the shared path

·   Restricting the use of motor vehicles on unformed legal roads.

5.14    It is proposed that three delegations be removed from the current community board delegations.  These are as follows:

·   Garages on roads – the current delegation is the power of the Council to approve the erection of garages, parking platforms and structures related to vehicular access wholly or partly on road.  However, this has been superseded by the delegations contained in the Council’s Structures on Roads Policy 2010.

·   Temporary controls on any road for traffic and parking – the current delegation is for temporary controls at roadworks and building sites including Construction Site Loading Zones.  However, this matter is already delegated to staff.

·   Road markings – the current delegation is to make any changes to road markings after consultation with stakeholders.  In practice, the boards determine regulatory road markings after consultation with stakeholders.  This delegation effectively sits under section 334 of the Local Government Act 1974 and there will be an express exclusion for non-regulatory road markings which is delegated to staff.  Examples of non-regulatory road markings include centre lines, edge lines, lane arrows, and parking limit lines in certain circumstances.

Nature of proposed changes – Community Boards and marine, river and lake facilities

5.15    It is proposed that the community boards will have a new delegation under the Marine River and Lake Facilities Bylaw to resolve permanent no fishing zones to protect Council facilities from damage, to protect health and safety, or to protect against nuisance.  Other powers under this bylaw are exercised by authorised officers.

Nature of proposed changes – Community Boards and stock on roads

5.16    It is proposed that community boards will have a new delegation under the Stock on Roads Bylaw to resolve that any road or category of road be a restricted road for the movement of stock.  Other powers under this bylaw are exercised by authorised officers.

Nature of proposed changes – Parking Restrictions Subcommittee

5.17    The Parking Restrictions Subcommittee has a number of delegations under the Traffic and Parking Bylaw, primarily in relation to the central city area.  A copy of the map of the central city area is set out in Attachment C.  The current delegations have been added to over the last few years and also reflect provisions in the Annual Plan Fees and Charges Schedule.

5.18    The new delegations reflect the Traffic and Parking Bylaw – leaving the references to the Annual Plan Fees and Charges Schedule intact. 

Delegations to CEO

5.19    In terms of the delegations to the Chief Executive, it is proposed to revoke the current delegations under the former bylaws and delegate all remaining powers, functions and duties to the Chief Executive with the exception of the matters that are delegated to the community boards and the Parking Restrictions Subcommittee.  The Chief Executive will then be able to sub-delegate the powers, functions and duties to council officers.


 

6.   Option 1 – Amend the delegations to community boards, Parking Restrictions Subcommittee and the Chief Executive (preferred)

Option Description

6.1       Amend the delegations to the community boards, Parking Restrictions Subcommittee and the chief executive as outlined in this report and shown in Attachment B.

Significance

6.2       The level of significance of this option is low 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 specifically impact Ngāi Tahu, their culture and traditions.

Community Views and Preferences

6.4       The community views are not specifically affected by this option because it relates to internal Council processes.  At the time of writing this report, staff are scheduled to speak at the Community Board Chairs Forum to brief community board chairs on the changes.  

Alignment with Council Plans and Policies

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

Financial Implications

6.6       Cost of Implementation – there is minimal staff costs to implement this change in delegations.

Legal Implications

6.7       Clause 32(1) of Schedule 7 of the LGA 02 provides a general power of delegation as follows: 

Unless expressly provided otherwise in this Act, or in any other Act, for the purposes of efficiency and effectiveness in the conduct of a local authority's business, a local authority may delegate to a committee or other subordinate decision-making body, community board, or member or officer of the local authority any of its responsibilities, duties, or powers except—

(a)       the power to make a rate; or

(b)       the power to make a bylaw; or

(c)       the power to borrow money, or purchase or dispose of assets, other than in accordance with the long-term plan; or

(d)       the power to adopt a long-term plan, annual plan, or annual report; or

(e)       the power to appoint a chief executive; or

(f)        the power to adopt policies required to be adopted and consulted on under this Act in association with the long-term plan or developed for the purpose of the local governance statement; or

(g)       [Repealed]

(h)       the power to adopt a remuneration and employment policy.

 

 

6.8       The proposed changes to the delegations do not infringe the restrictions in the LGA 02.

Risks and Mitigations

6.9       Risk – there are no identified risks caused by this option. 

Implementation

6.10    Implementation timeframe - the amended delegations will be recorded in the Council’s Delegations Register by the Legal Services Unit as soon as possible.  The amended delegations will be exercised as and when required by the community boards, Parking Restrictions Subcommittee and staff (once sub-delegated).

Option Summary - Advantages and Disadvantages

6.11    The advantages of this option include:

·   The community boards, Parking Restrictions Subcommittee and staff have the necessary delegations in place to act on any matter before the Council (except for those matters specifically reserved to the Council). 

6.12    The disadvantages of this option include:

·   There are no identified disadvantages.  Given that the Council has already determined to delegate many of these matters in the past, these changes will keep the Delegations Register current and fit for purpose.


 

7.   Option 2 – Do not amend the delegations to the community boards, Parking Restrictions Subcommittee and the chief executive

Option Description

7.1       Do not amend the delegations to the community boards, Parking Restrictions Subcommittee and the chief executive as outlined in this report.

Significance

7.2       The level of significance of this option is low 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       The community views are not specifically affected by this option because it relates to internal Council processes. 

Alignment with Council Plans and Policies

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

Financial Implications

7.6       Cost of Implementation - there are no implementation costs with this option

7.7       Maintenance / Ongoing Costs – as above.

7.8       Funding source – as above.

Legal Implications

7.9       If the Council does not amend the delegations as indicated in Attachment A, the Council will be required to make all decisions under the new bylaws.

Risks and Mitigations

7.10    The number of decisions to be made (particularly under the Traffic and parking Bylaw) is extensive.  From a practical perspective it would be unworkable to have all these decisions made at Council level.

Implementation

7.11    Implementation dependencies - as above.

Option Summary - Advantages and Disadvantages

7.12    The advantages of this option include:

·   There are no identified advantages of this option.

7.13    The disadvantages of this option include:

·   Council time will be taken up with a myriad of community level decisions.  

 

Attachments

No.

Title

Page

a 

Current Community Board Delegations - Roads

 

b 

Changes to Delegations Following Bylaw Changes

 

c 

Plan A - Central City Area

 

 

 

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

Vivienne Wilson - Associate General Counsel

Andrew Hensley - Traffic Engineer

Ryan Rolston - Team Leader Traffic Operations

Approved By

John Higgins - Acting Head of Legal Services

Aaron Haymes - Manager Operations (Transport)

Richard Osborne - Head of Transport

Lester Wolfreys - Head of Community Support, Governance and Partnerships

David Adamson - General Manager City Services

Mary Richardson - General Manager Citizen and Community

 


Council

22 February 2018

 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


Council

22 February 2018

 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

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

22 February 2018

 

PDF Creator


Council

22 February 2018

 

 

10.    Infrastructure, Transport and Environment Committee Minutes - 12 February 2018

Reference:

18/136277

Presenter(s):

Samantha Kelly – Committee and Hearings Advisor

 

 

1.   Purpose of Report

The Infrastructure, Transport and Environment Committee held a meeting on 12 February 2018 and is circulating the Minutes recorded to the Council for its information.

2.   Recommendation to Council

That the Council receives the Minutes from the Infrastructure, Transport and Environment Committee meeting held 12 February 2018.

 

 

Attachments

No.

Title

Page

A

Minutes Infrastructure, Transport and Environment Committee - 12 February 2018

76

 

 

Signatories

Author

Samantha Kelly - Committee and Hearings Advisor

  


Council

22 February 2018

 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator

 

 


Council

22 February 2018

 

 

11.  Resolution to Exclude the Public

Section 48, Local Government Official Information and Meetings Act 1987.

 

I move that the public be excluded from the following parts of the proceedings of this meeting, namely items listed overleaf.

 

Reason for passing this resolution: good reason to withhold exists under section 7.

Specific grounds under section 48(1) for the passing of this resolution: Section 48(1)(a)

 

Note

 

Section 48(4) of the Local Government Official Information and Meetings Act 1987 provides as follows:

 

“(4)     Every resolution to exclude the public shall be put at a time when the meeting is open to the public, and the text of that resolution (or copies thereof):

 

             (a)       Shall be available to any member of the public who is present; and

             (b)       Shall form part of the minutes of the local authority.”

 

This resolution is made in reliance on Section 48(1)(a) of the Local Government Official Information and Meetings Act 1987 and the particular interest or interests protected by Section 6 or Section 7 of that Act which would be prejudiced by the holding of the whole or relevant part of the proceedings of the meeting in public are as follows:


Council

22 February 2018

 

 

 

ITEM NO.

GENERAL SUBJECT OF EACH MATTER TO BE CONSIDERED

SECTION

SUBCLAUSE AND REASON UNDER THE ACT

PLAIN ENGLISH REASON

WHEN REPORTS CAN BE RELEASED

12

Public Excluded Council Minutes - 25 January 2018

 

 

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

 

13

New Zealand Track and Field Championships

s7(2)(h)

Commercial Activities

Points to be discussed are commercially sensitive

12 January 2021

14

Property purchase approval - Flood Intervention

s7(2)(a), s7(2)(i)

Protection of Privacy of Natural Persons, Conduct Negotiations

To protect the privacy of the property owner and to enable negotiations to occur

after property is purchased

15

RFP 18200840 Streetlight Supply, Installation and Maintenance

s7(2)(h)

Commercial Activities

The report contains commercially sensitive information.

Following contract award

16

Public Excluded Infrastructure, Transport and Environment Committee Minutes - 12 February 2018

 

 

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

 

17

Community Resilience Partnership Fund

s7(2)(b)(ii)

Prejudice Commercial Position

Council to decide the level of investment to be made in the partnerships with the groups involved

Once the negotiations with the groups are completed