Christchurch City Council

Agenda

 

 

Notice of Meeting:

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

 

Date:                                     Thursday 22 March 2018

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 March 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 March 2018

 

 

 


Council

22 March 2018

 

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 Long Term Plan 2018 - 2028 Minutes - 21 February 2018........................................ 7

6.       Council Minutes - 22 February 2018...................................................................................... 13

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

Halswell-Hornby-Riccarton Community Board

8.       Riccarton Road Upgrade - Harakeke Street to Matipo Street............................................ 27

Regulatory Performance Committee

9.       Local Alcohol Policy - Options for Consideration................................................................ 57

10.     Review of the Brothels (Location and Commercial Sexual Services Signage) Bylaw 2013 75

11.     Review of the Public Places Bylaw 2008............................................................................... 95

12.     Review of the Cemeteries Bylaw 2013................................................................................ 111

13.     Regulatory Performance Committee Minutes - 7 March 2018......................................... 121

Social, Community Development and Housing Committee

14.     Housing First Proposal.......................................................................................................... 129

15.     Christchurch Housing Initiative........................................................................................... 141

16.     Heritage Incentive Grants Six Monthly Report February 2018 and Proposed Operational Guidelines following the Heritage Grant Review Workshop held in November 2017.... 149

17.     Social, Community Development and Housing Committee Minutes - 28 February 2018 165

Finance and Performance Committee

18.     Regenerate Christchurch - Half year performance to 31 December 2017....................... 173

19.     Development Christchurch Ltd - Status Report December 2017 - February 2018.......... 187

20.     Finance and Performance Committee Minutes - 28 February 2018................................. 193

Infrastructure, Transport and Environment Committee

21.     Infrastructure, Transport and Environment Committee Minutes - 7 March 2018.......... 199

Strategic Capability Committee

22.     Policy Register Review Results............................................................................................. 241

STAFF REPORTS

23.     Linwood-Woolston Pool: Community Board Delegations................................................ 267

24.     Draft submission on Environment Canterbury's Long Term Plan 2018-2028.................. 275

25.     Draft submission on Environment Canterbury's Regional Land Transport Plan............. 283

26.     Update on Central City One-Hour Free Parking................................................................. 287

27.     Hearings Panel Report on the Proposed Summit Road (Rapaki Road - Gebbies Pass Road) and Worsleys Road (Summit Road - start of the Track) Prohibited Times on Road Restrictions............................................................................................................................ 297

28.     Christchurch City Holdings Ltd - Unaudited Interim Report for the half-year ending 31 December 2017...................................................................................................................... 315

29.     Resolution to Exclude the Public......................................................................................... 349  

 

 

 


Council

22 March 2018

 

 

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.

3.2.1

Dr Alistair Humphrey

Dr Alistair Humphrey, Canterbury Medical Officer of Health will speak regarding item 9:  Local Alcohol Policy – Options for Consideration.

 

3.2.2

Canterbury Branch, Hospitality NZ

Representatives of the Canterbury Branch of Hospitality New Zealand will speak on item 9:  Local Alcohol Policy – Options for Consideration.

 

4.   Presentation of Petitions

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

 


Council

22 March 2018

 

 

5.        Council Long Term Plan 2018 - 2028 Minutes - 21 February 2018

Reference:

18/171979

Presenter(s):

 

 

 

1.   Purpose of Report

For the Council Long Term Plan 2018 - 2028 to confirm the minutes from the Council meeting held 21 February 2018.

2.   Recommendation to Council

That the Council confirm the Minutes from the Council Long Term Plan 2018 - 2028 meeting held 21 February 2018.

 

 

Attachments

No.

Title

Page

A

Minutes Council Long Term Plan 2018 - 2028 - 21 February 2018

8

 

 

Signatories

Author

Elizabeth Hovell - Hearings Adviser

  


Council

22 March 2018

 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


Council

22 March 2018

 

 

6.        Council Minutes - 22 February 2018

Reference:

18/196950

Presenter(s):

Jo Daly – Council Secretary

 

 

1.   Purpose of Report

For the Council to confirm the minutes from the Council meeting held 22 February 2018.

2.   Recommendation to Council

That the Council confirm the Minutes from the Council meeting held 22 February 2018.

 

 

Attachments

No.

Title

Page

A

Minutes Council - 22 February 2018

14

 

 

Signatories

Author

Jo Daly - Council Secretary

  


Council

22 March 2018

 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


Council

22 March 2018

 

 

7.        Council Minutes - 8 March 2018

Reference:

18/253346

Presenter(s):

Jo Daly – Council Secretary

 

 

1.   Purpose of Report

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

2.   Recommendation to Council

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

 

 

Attachments

No.

Title

Page

A

Minutes Council - 8 March 2018

20

 

 

Signatories

Author

Jo Daly - Council Secretary

  


Council

22 March 2018

 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


Council

22 March 2018

 

Report from Halswell-Hornby-Riccarton Community Board  – 27 February 2018

 

8.        Riccarton Road Upgrade - Harakeke Street to Matipo Street

Reference:

18/202650

Presenter(s):

Lindsay White, Project Manager
Ross Julian, Junior Project Manager

 

 

 

1.  Halswell-Hornby-Riccarton Community Board Consideration

 

Staff in attendance spoke to the accompanying report and answered questions from members.

 

In its deliberations, the Board also took account of the deputations from Joscelyne Silcock and Steve Wilson, and the items of emailed correspondence separately received on the matter.

 

2.   Staff Recommendations

 

That the Halswell-Hornby-Riccarton Community Board:

1.         Recommend to the Council that the combined project approach for the Bus Priority scheme and the Underground Pipe Upgrade on Riccarton Road continues from Harakeke Street to Matipo Street to the end of construction prescribing either Option 5 or 6, as covered in the staff report.

 

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

 

That the Council resolve:

1.         The combined project approach for the Bus Priority Scheme and the Underground Pipe Upgrade on Riccarton Road continues from Harakeke Street to Matipo Street to the end of construction prescribing either Option 5 or 6, with variations where appropriate, as outlined in clause 4.7 of the staff report.

2.         To note that post the infrastructure repairs, the Riccarton Road Corridor Plan as fully consulted on in 2015, will be implemented.

3.         To request that the infrastructure repairs be carried out as quickly as possible and for ongoing communications to occur between affected residents and businesses; it being noted that the local community is requesting that the works be carried out as much as possible during evening/night time hours.

4.         To request that the Project Team engage with the Riccarton Bush/Kilmarnock Residents’ Association and Central Riccarton Residents’ Association before the works commence and take all practical steps to minimise traffic diverting onto adjoining residential streets.

5.         To request that the Project Team communicate regularly on project progress with the Halswell-Hornby-Riccarton Community Board.

 

 

Attachments

No.

Report Title

Page

1

Riccarton Road Upgrade - Harakeke Street to Matipo Street

29

 

No.

Title

Page

a

Appendix A - Riccarton Road Multi Critieria Analysis Summary

40

b

Appendix B - Riccarton Road Criteria

41

c

Appendix C- Riccarton Road Communications and Engagement Framework

53

 

 


Council

22 March 2018

 

 

Riccarton Road Upgrade - Harakeke Street to Matipo Street

Reference:

17/1323906

Contact:

Lindsay White
Ross Julian

lindsay.white@ccc.govt.nz
ross.julian@ccc.govt.nz

941 8286
941 5246

 

 

1.   Purpose and Origin of Report

Purpose of Report

1.1       The purpose of this report is to request the Halswell-Hornby-Riccarton Community Board to recommend to the Council that Stages 3 and 4 of the Riccarton Road Bus Priority project (Harakeke Street to Matipo Street) and the Three Waters Upgrade project to replace the underground infrastructure continue as combined projects through to the end of construction. This integrated approach will limit the disruption to businesses and users of Riccarton Road as there will be only one combined construction contract creating construction and programme efficiencies.

Origin of Report

1.2       This report is being provided to the Halswell-Hornby-Riccarton Community Board (the Board) following a presentation given jointly to the Board and the Infrastructure, Transport and Environment Committee (ITE) on 3 November 2017 on the delivery management of this section of works.

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 level of community interest, benefits for the bus passengers given the number per day, and environmental benefits of mode shift from single occupant vehicles to public transport. There is also a high amount of reputational risk to the Council as this is one of the busiest roads and transport corridors in the city.

2.1.2   The community engagement and consultation for the approved bus priority measures was very significant and extensive and although not part of this report does indicate that there will need to be extensive communication with the affected businesses and users of Riccarton Road, before and during the construction works. This reflects the significance assessment as shown in 2.1.1.

 

3.   Staff Recommendations 

That the Halswell-Hornby-Riccarton Community Board:

1.         Recommend to the Council that the combined project approach for the Bus Priority scheme and the Underground Pipe Upgrade on Riccarton Road continues from Harakeke Street to Matipo Street to the end of construction prescribing either Option 5 or 6, as covered in the staff report.

 

4.   Key Points

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

4.1.1   Activity: Public Transport Infrastructure

·     Level of Service: 10.4.3 Provide journey reliability on high frequency core services

4.1.2   Activity: Wastewater Collection

·    Level of Service: 11.0.1 Provide Wastewater Collection in a safe, convenient and efficient manner.

4.1.3   Activity: Water Supply

·    Level of Service: 12.0.1 Supply continuous potable water to all customers.

4.2       The bus priority measures between Deans Avenue and Matipo Street were approved on 6 August 2015 by the ITE Committee. The combination of the Bus Priority and Three Waters projects to Harakeke Street was approved in December 2015 by the ITE Committee. Stage 1 (Deans Avenue intersection) has been completed with Stage 2 (Deans Avenue-Harakeke Street) currently under construction and due for completion in 2018.

4.3       Between Harakeke Street and Matipo Street, in addition to the bus priority measures, there is other horizontal infrastructure that requires renewal. It is practical to continue to upgrade both the underground infrastructure and the road at the same time. It is intended to carry out these works commencing in mid-2018.

4.4       The combined Transport and Three Waters Project Team attended a seminar with the Community Board in May 2017, where this was presented. The feedback received was that the indicative programme based on current construction timeframes was too long at the estimated 26 months. Following that seminar, the team revisited the construction delivery option and explored whether there were further options to accelerate the programme and complete the works in a shorter timeframe.

4.5       This report considers the following nine construction delivery options which have been assessed through a Multi Criteria Analysis and each option scored based on the New Zealand Transport Agency (NZTA) Multi Criteria Analysis model and guidelines. The full Multi Criteria Analysis is appended to this report (refer Attachment A) along with the criteria breakdown (refer Attachment B).  The Multi Criteria Analysis assesses each delivery option under the following sub-headings:  

·    Investment

§ Funding for the scheme,

§ Meeting project and therefore NZTA funding objectives (where applicable).

·    Implement-ability

§ Feasibility in terms of design, constructability, safety and consents.

§ Affordability - financial, operationally and maintenance.

§ Public and stakeholders - Disruption to local businesses, Riccarton Road users, wider community and business area, construction period/duration of works, public services (water and wastewater supply).

·    Assessment of Effects

§ Safety - for construction workers, safety of all road users.

§ Community - residential amenity, business amenity, visual amenity, access to community facilities

§ System integration - traffic management and functionality of wider network

§ Natural environment - stormwater management

 

 

 

4.6       The below table summarises the results from the Multi Criteria Analysis and their overall ranking. A sensitivity test was carried out on the analysis and confirmed the results.

 

Option #

Name

Description

Multi Criteria Analysis Ranking

1

Do Minimum

Abandon project and leave Riccarton Road as it is currently.

6

2

Defer all works

Defer all works to a future financial year

7

3

Defer partial works

Defer bus priority works but complete underground works

9

4

Split project into two stages of construction

Complete project from Harakeke Street to Clarence Street and then defer both projects Clarence Street to Matipo Street to a future year

8

5

Staged construction along Riccarton Road with longer worksite/multiple crews (preferred option)

Staged construction as being done now but longer worksites so higher productivity.

 

1

6

Staged construction along Riccarton Road with shorter worksite (preferred option)

Staged construction as being done now but shorter worksites and completing full sections including reseal as the contractor moves up Riccarton Road.

2

7

Close Riccarton Road for duration of works

Full road closure with all traffic diverted.

5

8

Keep Riccarton Road open during the day and close at night

Daytime works keep Riccarton Road open and then full road closure at night (11pm – 6am) and full traffic diversion.

3

9

Make Riccarton Road public transport and pedestrians only

Divert all general traffic to other routes all the time.

4

 

4.7       There are two potential variations identified that can be added to any of the above options to increase productivity. They have also been assessed under the Multi Criteria Analysis as options as they have advantages and disadvantages of their own.

·     Variation 1 - Work 24 hours i.e. day and night works for various activities.

·     Variation 2 - Work longer hours- extended working hours to make longer working days.

4.8       From the results of the Multi Criteria Analysis, there were two viable options that scored positively (Options 5 and 6) and the option summary for both options are below.

4.9       Option Summary - Advantages and Disadvantages of Option 5 - Staged construction along Riccarton Road with longer worksite and/ or multiple crews 

4.9.1   The advantages of this option include:

·     More space for multiple crews, equipment and deliveries;

·     Higher productivity due to multiple crews, hence reduced construction timeframes;

4.9.2   The disadvantages of this option include:

·     Visual amenity impact is greater for local community;

·     Longer sections of Riccarton Road impacted by construction works at any one time;

·     Potential increased cost due to multiple crews.

4.10    Option Summary - Advantages and Disadvantages of Option 6 - Staged construction along Riccarton Road with shorter worksites that are completed including the final road surface as the project progresses along Riccarton Road. 

4.10.1   The advantages of this option include:

·     Sections of the works will be fully completed as construction progresses (i.e. Three Waters and Bus Priority components), community and users can see the final product as construction completes;

·     Smaller sections of Riccarton Road affected at any one time;

·     Sense of less disruption to road users and businesses.

4.10.2    The disadvantages of this option include:

·     More complexities to constructing within a smaller site

·     Although some programme gains due to longer working hours, the construction timeframes will not be reduced as much as having a longer worksite.

 

5.   Context/Background

Background

5.1       Bus Priority scheme

Riccarton Road is Christchurch’s second busiest bus corridor after the Central City with over 800 bus journeys per day and nearly 3,000 passengers boarding there on an average weekday (data supplied by Environment Canterbury (ECan)). It forms a key part of the ECan hubs and spokes model and the Riccarton bus lounges provide critical transfer points for passengers transferring from core to local services.  Key features of the bus priority scheme include:

·    Bus lanes and priority measures along Riccarton Road from Harakeke Street to Matipo Street to improve bus reliability and journey times.

·    Street enhancements and a tree lined median along the centre of the road through Central Riccarton which provides safety benefits in reducing traffic speed, as well as providing a crossing point for pedestrians so they can cross in two halves.

·    Full road reconstruction from Harakeke Street to Matipo Street to repair the failing pavement with some kerb and channel replacement where needed. Street lighting upgrade included as part of the scheme.

·    Cycle improvements made throughout the whole scheme with the provision of cycle lanes or when space is restricted, cyclists are able to use the bus lanes.

5.2       Water Supply

The water supply assets along this section of Riccarton Road are predominately constructed of asbestos cement (AC) and are past the end of their asset life expectancy. The condition of the AC pipes is rated as poor/very poor. Failures are occurring and future failures are expected. The new water supply design uses modern materials and increases the pipe size over the existing to allow for future growth and demand in the Riccarton area. All water supply assets are programmed for renewal.

5.3       Wastewater

The Wastewater assets along this section of Riccarton Road were originally installed in 1925. They are now very close to the end of their 100 year design life. The wastewater also fared badly during the Canterbury earthquakes, with the SCIRT rebuild programme deferring hundreds of defects on this section of the wastewater alone. The new wastewater design uses modern pipe materials and significantly increases the pipe size over the existing, to deal with current capacity issues within the network, and to allow for future growth. All wastewater assets are programmed for renewal, including laterals to the boundaries of private properties.

5.4       Programming 

5.4.1   The Public Transport component of this combined project did initially determine early on that the Three Waters infrastructure under the road would need replacement, however no budget was available at the time so the bus priority project continued. More recently, budget has been prioritised to enable the Wastewater and Water supply replacement to occur. Since this was identified, co-ordination with the Three Waters projects was re-addressed and given the estimated remaining life of the Three Waters infrastructure, it was considered desirable to do the projects together to minimise disruption to the community and businesses.

5.4.2   When the Project Team presented to the Board in May 2017, regarding combining projects for Stages 3 and 4, a timeline was proposed based on current construction timeframes. The feedback at that meeting was that it was too long for the community and the impact would be considerable. The action of the Project Team was to look at ways to reduce the timeframe and limit disruption to the Riccarton businesses which has formed the basis of this report. The Project Team appreciate that this next section of work is different to the earlier stages of the project both technically and with reference to the concentration of surrounding stakeholders and businesses.

5.4.3   Following the seminar, the Project Team was widened to include Christchurch Transport Operations Centre (CTOC), Unit and Team Managers from Transport and Three Waters, Construction and Supervision team members, ECan and Christchurch City Council Operations to assess a number of delivery options to find the preferred option that was best for the Council and will cause the least disruption to the local area, businesses and Riccarton Road users.

5.4.4   The upgrade of the public car park to the north of Riccarton Road off Rimu Street to time-restricted spaces has been included as part of the bus priority scheme and is intended to be completed first to provide shopper parking whilst works on Riccarton Road are carried out.

5.5       Indicative costs

·     Underground pipe renewal - $10m

·     Bus Priority scheme - $3.9m

·     Total Scheme Cost - $13.9m

 

5.6       Traffic Management

Many options have been looked at through the Multi Criteria Analysis in regards to the potential traffic management required to complete the works. This has included:

·     Full closure of sections of Riccarton Road.

·     One way traffic through sections of Riccarton Road, with tidal arrangements.

·     Public transport and pedestrian access only to Riccarton Road.

·     Maintain two lanes of traffic (one in either direction).

·     Potential night time closure options.

CTOC has advised that there are no viable detour routes that can cope with the amount of traffic that travels down Riccarton Road. Detours would also have a significant impact on the 800 buses that travel down Riccarton Road per day and the use of the recently opened bus lounges.

CTOC has therefore determined that throughout the construction period, two lanes of traffic must be maintained (one in either direction) with the potential to do road closures at night, where required.

 

                            

 

Figure 1: CTOC image showing delays with Riccarton Road open with two lanes of traffic.

 

 

 

 

Figure 2: CTOC image showing delays with Riccarton Road closed to traffic.

6.   Summary of other options not proposed as viable

6.1       As shown in the Multi Criteria Analysis, eleven delivery options were considered in total with Options 5 and 6 scoring the most positively as the two feasible options that could achieve project objectives whilst limiting disruption and reducing timeframes.

6.2       Options 1 to 4 which looked at abandoning the project, deferring all or sections of it, scored negatively due to the amount of risk associated with that option. The main risk identified was that the underground pipes are at the end of their life and the risk of a pipe burst is significantly increased if the project is abandoned or deferred. These options also hold significant reputational risk for the Council due to consulting on the bus priority scheme in May 2015 and then not completing the approved scheme. The stages already constructed to Harakeke Street would not see the full bus journey benefits at peak times due to limited completion of the bus lanes.

6.3       Options 7 to 9 which focused on various road closure options, scored negatively due to the amount of risk associated with those options. The main issue with all these options was the severe impact on the wider transport network as a result of the diversion. Other routes simply could not cope with the amount of diverted traffic. It also removed drive-by traffic from the local businesses on Riccarton Road which could impact customers choosing those businesses to visit. There were some opportunities seen in road closures overnight which will be explored with contractors.

6.4       Variation 1 (Work 24 hours) and Variation 2 (Work longer hours) were also assessed as part of the Multi Criteria Analysis. There are significant health and safety implications of working 24 hours to both workers and residents as well as a reduction in productivity and resourcing issues for a prolonged programme duration. It was concluded that longer working hours was the preferable approach to balance time benefits and productivity but overnight working could be employed where necessary or if there was a task that would benefit from this extended working time. Any night work would still be subject to consenting requirements.

6.5       During the Multi Criteria Analysis process, the project team invited drainage and roading contractors into the Council to have a high level conversation about the project and possible ways of reducing timeframes whilst limiting disruption to local businesses and the wider network. This also provided a sensitivity test to the results of the Multi Criteria Analysis.

6.6       Following eight meetings with different contractors, they all confirmed that the more worksite space they had to work within, the quicker the work could be completed and timeframes reduced. That said, working within the confines of the traffic management as set by CTOC, they saw that either Option 5 or 6 were the most viable to enable one lane of traffic in either direction which confirmed the findings from the Multi Criteria Analysis.

7.   Option 5 – Staged construction - longer worksite

Option Description

7.1       Staged construction along Riccarton Road with a longer worksite and/or multiple crews along Riccarton Road utilising longer hours and some 24 hour working, where needed.

7.2       As part of the tender process contractors will be requested to focus on minimising disruption and a reduction in total construction periods. The use of the Variations in section 4.7 will be options to consider. The tender evaluation will be weighted to ensure there are key assessment criteria.

Significance

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

7.4       Communications and engagement will be carried out appropriately in line with the Communications and Engagement framework (refer Attachment C).

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       This is not applicable as the delivery management of the scheme is not to be consulted on.

7.7       The Communications and Engagement framework (refer Attachment C) sets out how the community will be informed of the work required as part of the construction. This will be led by the Council and day-to-day communications managed by the contractor.

Alignment with Council Plans and Policies

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

Financial Implications

7.9       Cost of Implementation – The Three Waters and Transport elements are expected to be able to be delivered within the $13.9 million budget as will be proposed in the draft Long Term Plan 2018-2028 (LTP). This option is not expected to have a significant effect on the cost of the project, however if combined with night works, a reasonable increase in costs is expected.

7.10    Maintenance/Ongoing Costs – These are expected to be reduced, given the Transport, Wastewater and Water Supply assets are being replaced with new.

7.11    Funding source – Funding is available in the following CPMS projects:

·    CPMS 41283 – WW Riccarton Road – Harakeke to Matipo

·    CPMS 41284 – WS Riccarton Road – Harakeke to Matipo

·    CPMS 15315 – Riccarton Interchange and Bus Priority

Legal Implications

7.12    Under Section 10 of the Christchurch City Council Water Supply, Wastewater and Stormwater Bylaw 2014 pursuant to Sections 145 and 146 of the Local Government Act 2002 and Section 64 of the Health Act 1956, the Council is required to maintain Continuity of Supply of water in accordance with the level of service contained in the Long Term Plan. 

Risks and Mitigations

7.13    There is a reputational risk to the Council caused by the visual amenity impact of the longer worksite.  This may result in negative feedback from the public as larger sections of Riccarton Road are included as part of the worksite.

7.14    Residual risk rating: The residual rating of the risk after the below treatment(s) is implemented, will be Medium.

7.15    Planned treatment measures would be mitigation via the Communications and Engagement Framework as set out in Attachment C.  

Implementation

7.16    Implementation dependencies - Resource consent applications

7.17    Implementation timeframe – Construction start planned mid-2018

Option Summary - Advantages and Disadvantages

7.18    The advantages of this option include:

·     More space for multiple crews, equipment and deliveries;

·     Higher productivity due to multiple crews, hence reduced construction timeframes;

7.19    The disadvantages of this option include:

·     Visual amenity impact is greater for local community;

·     Longer or multiple sections of Riccarton Road impacted by construction works at any one time so disruption could be spread out;

·     Increased cost due to multiple crews and longer hours.

8.   Option 6 – Staged construction - Shorter worksites

Option Description

8.1       Staged construction along Riccarton Road with shorter worksites that are completed including the final road surface as the project progresses along Riccarton Road.

8.2       As part of the tender process contractors will be requested to focus on minimising disruption and a reduction in total construction periods. The use of the Variations in section 4.7 will be options to consider. The tender evaluation will be weighted to ensure there are key assessment criteria.

Significance

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

8.4       Communications and engagement will be carried out appropriately in line with the Communications and Engagement framework (refer Attachment C).

Impact on Mana Whenua

8.5       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

8.6       This is not applicable as the delivery management of the scheme is not to be consulted on.

8.7       The Communications and Engagement framework (Attachment C) sets out how the community will be informed of the work required as part of the construction. This will be led by the Council and day-to-day communications, managed by the contractor.

Alignment with Council Plans and Policies

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

Financial Implications

8.9       Cost of Implementation - The Three Waters and Transport elements are expected to be able to be delivered within the $13.9 million budget as will be proposed in the draft LTP. This option is not expected to have a significant affect on the cost of the project, however if combined with night works, a reasonable increase in costs is expected.

8.10    Maintenance/Ongoing Costs - These are expected to be reduced, given the Transport, Wastewater and Water Supply assets are being replaced with new.

8.11    Funding source - Funding is available in the following CPMS projects:

·    CPMS 41283 – WW Riccarton Road – Harakeke to Matipo

·    CPMS 41284 – WS Riccarton Road – Harakeke to Matipo

·    CPMS 15315 – Riccarton Interchange and Bus Priority

Legal Implications

8.12    Under Section 10 of the Christchurch City Council Water Supply, Wastewater and Stormwater Bylaw 2014 pursuant to Sections 145 and 146 of the Local Government Act 2002 and Section 64 of the Health Act 1956, the Council is required to maintain Continuity of Supply of water in accordance with the level of service contained in the Long Term Plan.

Risks and Mitigations

8.13    There is a risk to the project caused by constructing the final road surface immediately after all the trenching work has been completed.  This may result in the final road surface cracking/failing /ending up being less than desirable, due to unplanned settlement of the trench materials.

8.14    Residual risk rating: The residual rating of the risk after the below treatment(s) is implemented, will be Medium.

8.15    Planned treatment(s) include compacting backfill to required levels, as work progresses.

8.16    There is a risk to the project generally around completing the work in short sections due to added complexities around constructing the new infrastructure whilst keeping the old infrastructure running in order to maintain levels of service and supply. With a smaller work site, there is a higher chance that customers could be disconnected for a longer period of time and therefore they receive a lower level of service.

8.17    Residual risk rating: The residual rating of the risk after the below treatment(s) is implemented will be Low.

8.18    Planned treatment(s) include planning each section appropriately and working with customers to better identify appropriate changeover times.

Implementation

8.19    Implementation dependencies - Resource consent applications 

8.20    Implementation timeframe – Construction start planned in mid-2018

Option Summary - Advantages and Disadvantages

8.21    The advantages of this option include:

·     Sections of the works will be fully completed as construction progresses, community and users can see the final product as construction completes;

·     Smaller sections of Riccarton Road affected by the works at any one time, so disruption limited to a smaller area.

8.22    The disadvantages of this option include:

·     More complexities to constructing within a smaller site;

·     Although some programme gains due to longer working hours, the construction timeframes will not be reduced as much as having a longer worksite with Option 5.

 

 

Attachments

No.

Title

Page

a 

Appendix A - Riccarton Road Multi Critieria Analysis Summary

 

b 

Appendix B - Riccarton Road Criteria

 

c 

Appendix C- Riccarton Road Communications and Engagement Framework

 

 

 

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

Lindsay White - Project Manager

Ross Julian - Junior Project Manager

Approved By

Lynette Ellis - Manager Planning and Delivery Transport

Richard Osborne - Head of Transport

John Moore - Manager Planning and Delivery

Patricia Christie - Head of Business Partnership

David Adamson - General Manager City Services

 


Council

22 March 2018

 

PDF Creator


Council

22 March 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


Council

22 March 2018

 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


Council

22 March 2018

 

Report from Regulatory Performance Committee  – 7 March 2018

 

9.        Local Alcohol Policy - Options for Consideration

Reference:

18/225591

Presenter(s):

Gavin Thomas, Team Leader Policy

 

 

 

1.  Regulatory Performance Committee Consideration

 

The Committee considered the staff report on the Local Alcohol Policy – Options for Consideration.

Councillor Gough declared an interest in this item and took no part in the discussion and voting on the matter.

The Committee agreed that the initial membership of the working group is a matter for the Council to decide, so did not nominate any members under clause 3. of the recommendations.

Councillor East, Regulatory Performance Committee Chairman, and Councillor Chen voted against the Committee’s recommendation.

 

 

2.  Staff and Regulatory Performance Committee Recommendation to Council

 

That the Council:

1.         Requests staff to begin work to prepare a draft Local Alcohol Policy as soon as possible, noting that:

a.         The process to prepare a policy should enable a provisional Local Alcohol Policy to be notified by 30 August 2019 (should the Council proceed to that point), if started immediately.

b.         The process to prepare a draft Local Alcohol Policy will follow that proposed in this report (refer section 9).

2.         Appoints a working group of elected members to work with staff to;

a.         Identify information relevant to the draft policy and what provisions that policy should include

b.         Make recommendations to the Council on matters relevant to policy analysis and preparation

c.         Work with staff to identify policy options

d.         Establish and maintain effective working relationships with statutory consultees and key stakeholders

3.         Appoints [insert name here] as the Chairperson and [insert names here] as the members of the working group.

4.         Requests the working group to draft its Terms of Reference and authorises the Regulatory Performance Committee to:

a.         Approve the final terms of reference and, if necessary, subsequent amendments

b.         Approve any subsequent changes to the membership of the working group.   

 

 

Attachments

No.

Report Title

Page

1

Local Alcohol Policy - Options for Consideration

59

 

 

 


Council

22 March 2018

 

 

Local Alcohol Policy - Options for Consideration

Reference:

18/48743

Contact:

Gavin Thomas

Gavin.thomas@ccc.govt.nz

8834

 

 

1.   Purpose and Origin of Report

Purpose of Report

1.1       The purpose of this report is to consider the options for the development of a Local Alcohol Policy.

Origin of Report

1.2       In November 2017 the Council considered whether it should review its provisional Local Alcohol Policy to address the issues raised by the High Court decision on a judicial review or to discontinue its Local Alcohol Policy process.

1.3       The Council decided to discontinue the Local Alcohol Policy process and requested staff report back on options for preparing a draft Local Alcohol Policy. Council resolution CNCL/2017/00001 to instruct staff to prepare options as soon as practical for preparing a new draft alcohol policy along with a proposed timeline.

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 having regard to the nature of the decision. Significance and community engagement matters would be considered at a future date should the Council decide to prepare a draft Local Alcohol Policy. 

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

2.1.3   There has been significant community engagement on the content matters potentially covered by a draft Local Alcohol Policy (although not in recent years, explicit community engagement on whether to have a Local Alcohol Policy).

 

That the Regulatory Performance Committee recommends that the Council:

1.         Requests staff to begin work to prepare a draft Local Alcohol Policy as soon as possible, noting that:

a.         The process to prepare a policy should enable a provisional Local Alcohol Policy to be notified by 30 August 2019 (should the Council proceed to that point), if started immediately.

b.         The process to prepare a draft Local Alcohol Policy will follow that proposed in this report (refer section 9).

2.         Appoints a working group of elected members to work with staff to;

a.         Identify information relevant to the draft policy and what provisions that policy should include

b.         Make recommendations to the Regulatory Performance Committee on matters relevant to policy analysis and preparation

c.         Work with staff to identify policy options

d.         Establish and maintain effective working relationships with statutory consultees and key stakeholders

3.         Appoints [insert name here] as the Chairperson and [insert names here] as the members of the working group.

4.         Requests the working group to draft its Terms of Reference and authorises the Regulatory Performance Committee to:

a.         Approve the final terms of reference and, if necessary, subsequent amendments

b.         Approve any subsequent changes to the membership of the working group.  

 

3.   Key Points

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

3.1.1   Activity: Strategic Planning and  Policy

·     Level of Service: 17.0.1 Advice is provided to Council on high priority policy and planning issues that affect the City

3.2       The following feasible options have been considered:

·    Option 1 – Start the process to prepare a draft Local Alcohol Policy as soon as possible (preferred option).

·    Option 2 – Defer any decision on whether to prepare a draft Local Alcohol Policy until after the triennial elections in 2019.

·    Option 3 – Do not have a Local Alcohol Policy.

3.3       Option Summary - Advantages and Disadvantages (Preferred Option)

3.3.1   The advantages of this option include:

·    Information and data needed to inform a policy is still largely current and relevant.

·    Enables the Council to re-engage with the community on matters associated with alcohol and a local alcohol policy while they remain fresh in the minds of stakeholders and residents.

·    Will enable the Council to consider Policy issues and option provisions in light of changes in the city since the original decisions were made.

·    Puts in place a regulatory framework that enables alcohol licensing decisions to be made that take account of local issues and preferences and that seek to minimise alcohol-related harm.

·    A Local Alcohol Policy will be in place earlier than under the other options.

·    A Policy will provide a degree of certainty for both businesses and the wider community as to any restrictions on location and/ or maximum trading hours for different types and locations of licensed premises.

·    This decision is easily reversed – the Council can decide to discontinue the process at any time.

3.3.2   The disadvantages of this option include:

·    The Council will need to apply funding and resources to prepare a draft Local Alcohol Policy.

·    This option is unlikely to provide an opportunity for the 2019 incoming Council to have significant input to the Policy.

·    Resolving appeals on a new LAP could be a lengthy (and costly) process.

 

4.   Context/Background

Legislative context

4.1       The Sale and Supply of Alcohol Act 2012 (the Act) enables territorial authorities to have a local alcohol policy relating to the sale, supply or consumption of alcohol within its district (section 75).

4.2       There is no requirement for a territorial authority to have a local alcohol policy. In the absence of a policy the District Licensing Committee use the default licensing provisions of the Act as the basis of its licensing decisions.

4.3       Section 77 of the Act details what may be included in a local alcohol policy. These are:

(a)  location of licensed premises by reference to broad areas;

(b)  location of licensed premises by reference to proximity to premises of a particular kind or kinds;

(c)   location of licensed premises by reference to proximity to facilities of a particular kind or kinds;

(d)  whether further licences (or licences of a particular kind or kinds) should be issued for premises in the district concerned, or any stated part of the district;

(e)  maximum trading hours;

(f)   the issue of licences, or licences of a particular kind or kinds, subject to discretionary conditions;

(g)  one-way door restrictions.

A local alcohol policy must not include policies on any matter not relating to licensing.

4.4       The Council must not produce a draft Policy without having consulted the Police, licensing inspectors, and Medical Officers of Health. A draft Policy must be consulted on using the special consultative procedure prescribed in section 83 of the Local Government Act 2002.

4.5       Following consideration of submissions received on the draft policy and any resulting changes being made, the Council would adopt the policy as a Provisional Local Alcohol Policy and then notify it as such. In notifying the Policy the Council gives notice of:

(a)  the provisional policy; and

(b)  rights of appeal against it; and

(c)   the ground on which an appeal may be made.

4.6       The only ground on which an element of the provisional policy can be appealed against is that it is unreasonable in light of the objectives of the Act. This introduces an implicit limitation on the content of a local alcohol policy and on the reasons for any provision contained in a local alcohol policy – it must be directed to minimising harm caused by the excessive or inappropriate consumption of alcohol.   

4.7       The object of the Act is that—

(a)  the sale, supply, and consumption of alcohol should be undertaken safely and responsibly; and

(b)  the harm caused by the excessive or inappropriate consumption of alcohol should be minimised.

4.8       The Act defines harm caused by the excessive or inappropriate consumption of alcohol includes—

(a)  any crime, damage, death, disease, disorderly behaviour, illness, or injury, directly or indirectly caused, or directly or indirectly contributed to, by the excessive or inappropriate consumption of alcohol; and

(b)  any harm to society generally or the community, directly or indirectly caused, or directly or indirectly contributed to, by any crime, damage, death, disease, disorderly behaviour, illness, or injury of a kind described in paragraph (a).

4.9       A council may at any time before the adoption of a local alcohol policy discontinue its development.

 

Previous Local Alcohol Policy process

4.10    This Council has, for many years, advocated for greater community involvement in alcohol licensing decisions. In 2009 the Council made submissions on the Law Commission discussion paper Alcohol in our Lives supporting greater community input in licensing decisions. The Council’s submission on the draft Alcohol Reform Bill in 2009 again highlighted support for increased community involvement in alcohol licensing decisions.

4.11    Before the Act became law the Council stated it would prepare a Local Alcohol Policy as soon as possible. Following the passing of the Act, the Council commenced work on its draft Local Alcohol Policy, including undertaking an extensive survey of community attitudes to alcohol and a literature review of policy interventions available at that time. 

4.12    In 2013 the Council approved a draft Local Alcohol Policy and consulted on its provisions, with 4,060 submissions being received, representing a wide range of views, from sector groups, local communities and individuals. The Committee made a number changes to the Policy which was completed shortly before the triennial elections in October 2013. The Council deferred notification of the provisional Policy until the new Council was in place. The incoming Council then decided to further defer notification until the first appeals on other councils’ local alcohol policies had been decided.

4.13    In 2015 the Council notified its provisional Local Alcohol Policy triggering the appeals process to begin. Nineteen appeals were lodged and a number of parties notified the Alcohol Regulatory and Licensing Authority (ARLA) of their interest in the proceedings. Through mediation and negotiation with appellants and interested parties, the Council reached agreement with seventeen of the nineteen appellants.

4.14    The Council publicly notified an amended provisional Local Alcohol Policy in October 2016. Two appeals and six interested party notices were lodged with ARLA. In December 2016 Hospitality NZ filed judicial review proceedings on the Council’s 29 September 2016 reconsideration decision as it related to Victoria Street. In June 2017 the High Court issued its decision on the judicial review proceedings. The Court found against the Council and the two provisional LAP appeals were stayed.

4.15    In November 2017 the Council considered whether it should review its provisional Local Alcohol Policy to address the issues raised by the High Court and then resubmit its provisional Local Alcohol Policy to ARLA or to discontinue the Policy development process at that point. The Council decided to discontinue the Policy process and to have staff report back in early 2018 on options on preparing a draft Local Alcohol Policy.

 

National context

4.16    Many territorial local authorities in New Zealand have a local alcohol policy in place or are undertaking the process to prepare a policy. Christchurch’s neighbouring councils of Waimakariri and Selwyn both have local alcohol policies. Other councils in Canterbury without a local alcohol policy or not in the process of preparing one are Waitaki, Mackenzie and Kaikoura District Councils.

4.17    Of the major metropolitan councils, Christchurch, Wellington, Napier, Hastings, Nelson and Dunedin do not have a local alcohol policy. Napier, Hastings and Nelson all are parties to regional alcohol strategies aimed at reducing alcohol-related harm.  Auckland Council’s policy is not yet in force as it is still subject to appeals.

5.   Strategic Linkages

Strategic and policy objectives related to minimising harm from alcohol

5.1       The Council’s proposed strategic framework includes draft community outcomes that are health and safety related and which are likely to be impacted by alcohol-related harm. These are:

Community outcomes

Strong communities

·    Safe and healthy communities

Liveable city

·    Vibrant and thriving central city, suburban and rural centres

5.2       The Council has community safety focussed strategies and plans with direct links to alcohol and alcohol-related issues. These are:

Safer Christchurch Strategy

·    Identifies “reducing harm caused by alcohol use” as one of its cross-cutting themes to be considered within each of the priority areas of the strategy

·    Identifies alcohol as one of the significant contributing factors to many crimes

·    Strategy Objective - Support initiatives targeting at minimising alcohol-related harm, ensuring an integrated approach with injury and crime prevention

Alcohol-related harm at public events policy

·    Policy applies requires outdoor events provided by the Council, or on land controlled by the Council, or funded by the Council, where alcohol will be sold to plan for ways to reduce alcohol harm and care for people affected by alcohol.

5.3       The Council has an Alcohol Restrictions in Public Places bylaw which enables the Council to establish alcohol ban areas where alcohol is a cause of public disorder issues best resolved by using the alcohol ban tool. The purpose of alcohol restrictions or bans is to reduce alcohol-related harm, damage, disorder and crime, and to improve community safety in public spaces such as footpaths, streets, parks, reserves, riverbanks, and beaches.

5.4       The Christchurch District Plan has objectives and rules to preserve the amenity of residential areas from, amongst other things, any significant negative effects from inconsistent land use including the siting of premises selling alcohol. These are:

·    3.3.1 Enabling recovery and facilitating the future enhancement of the district

·    3.3.7 Urban growth, form and design

·    3.3.14  Incompatible activities

5.5       District Plan objective 3.3.1 above is the only objective that specifically seeks to meet[s] the community’s immediate and longer term needs …and social and cultural wellbeing

5.6       The implicit requirement for a local alcohol policy to address only matters related to harm minimisation mean these strategic linkages are likely to be important considerations in any decision to have a local alcohol policy or not, and if a policy is developed, what policy settings are included.

6.   Community and stakeholder views

Community survey

6.1       In 2012 the Council commissioned independent research company Research First to survey residents on their views to a range of alcohol licensing issues. The report on the findings of the survey was provided to the Council in March 2013. Responses from 1,700 residents were analysed with the sample size providing a maximum margin of error of +/- 2.4 per cent. Key findings of the survey (at a headline level) were:

·    Little support for more liberal alcohol licensing

·    Little change in attitudes or behaviour to alcohol due to the earthquakes

6.2       Survey participants were asked to rate their level of agreement to a series of statements regarding the availability of alcohol. The statements with the highest levels of agreement were that:

·    Anti-social behaviour mostly involves people who have been drinking (92%);

·    Excessive drinking leads to people being unable to carry out everyday tasks such as going to work (90%);

·    People don't feel safe in public places when there are people around who have been drinking (88%); and

·    Intimidating behaviour, assaults and violence usually involve people who have been drinking (87%).

The statements that people disagreed with most commonly were:

·    People should be able to buy alcohol readily at most hours (63% disagree, 28% agree); and

·    People should be able to buy alcohol readily throughout the city (51% disagree, 39% agree).

6.3       While these responses weren’t to a direct question about whether or not the Council should have a local alcohol policy they did show majority support on most questions for a regulatory approach consistent with a policy that is more restrictive than the default licensing provisions of the Act. 

Draft local alcohol policy submissions

6.4       In 2013 the Council undertook community engagement on its draft Local Alcohol Policy. The Council received 4,060 submissions; 1,053 through the Council’s Have Your Say portal; 1,929 from Hospitality New Zealand’s Facebook survey and 1,078 from the ChCh Late Facebook petition, 161 from various government and community groups and organisations, with the remainder from individuals including licensees, hospitality staff and providers of live entertainment, health and social service professionals and staff, residents and representatives of local neighbourhoods.

6.5       As with the survey discussed above, submissions received didn’t respond to a direct question about whether or not the Council should have a local alcohol policy but many did indicate support for a regulatory approach consistent with a policy that is more restrictive than the default licensing provisions of the Act. 

New Zealand Police

6.6       Local police have been supportive of the Council having a local alcohol policy from the outset of the previous policy development process. Police representatives were closely involved in the community discussions regarding the previous local alcohol policy and gave evidence at the ARLA hearings considering objections to the provisional Local Alcohol Policy.

6.7       Recent contact with a Police representative found they remain firmly of the view that a local alcohol policy is needed. They say that while there are default provisions in the Act these do not necessarily reflect the needs or wishes of the Christchurch City community nor do they necessarily minimise alcohol related harm in the Christchurch context.  The local alcohol policy is the vehicle by which the local community can impose provisions required to minimise alcohol related harm in Christchurch.

6.8       The Police favour an immediate start to policy development, saying any delay to a local alcohol policy will result in additional unnecessary victimisation due to alcohol related offending and harm.

Medical Officer of Health 

6.9       The Medical Officer of Health has been a strong and consistent advocate for the Council having a local alcohol policy. We did not receive a response from Doctor Humphrey regarding any preference for approach regarding a local alcohol policy but assume his view remains the same and he would support an immediate start on policy development.

Hospitality New Zealand

6.10    Hospitality NZ believes the Council should either wait for the new triennium (2019) to begin preparing a draft Local Alcohol Policy or rely only on the default provisions of the Act (and not have a Policy). They believe the conditions the District Licensing Committee can place on any licensed premises are sufficient to address matters related to alcohol-related harm.

6.11    Hospitality NZ states that the license application appeals process provides communities with sufficient means to have local issues considered as part of license applications.

6.12    Hospitality NZ note the costs incurred by the Council in preparing its previous provisional Local Alcohol Policy and the likelihood of any future policy being appealed means preparing a new policy is not fiscally responsible.

Licensing inspectors

6.13    Under the Sale and Supply of Alcohol Act, the licensing inspectors are required to “act independently when exercising and performing their functions, duties, and powers”.  Operationally, it is understood that the inspectors report that they would highly value the direction that could be given in any policy. The inspectors acknowledge the importance a LAP gives the community as an avenue for them to have input in licensing matters and that this was a fundamental part of the changes in the Act. The inspectors will work with whatever regulatory framework is decided by the Council and the community and that is deemed reasonable by ARLA. The inspectors support any decision that will give certainty and clarity to the licensing environment.

6.14    The Council’s licensing inspectors have provided operational observations on the current licensing environment that may be of interest to the Council in its consideration on this report.

·    The Christchurch approach to 3am closing was previously supported through:

The previous Christchurch Alcohol Policy 2004. This ceased to have effect when the Sale and Supply of Alcohol Act came into force.

The Central City Alcohol Accord – which had agreement from central city licensees to a one-way door policy and 3:00am closing. This ceased to operate following the earthquakes.

The previous Provisional Local Alcohol Policy.

·    Advice to parties on licensing matters:

The licensing inspectors provide advice to applicants for new licenses before they submit their application.

The general policy direction the Council was proposing through its previous local alcohol policy was well understood by licensees through the information and advice provided by inspectors.

Current policy gap - with no clear policy direction currently signalled, providing appropriate and practical day to day operational advice is problematic for the inspectors. A clear policy direction would enable better advice to be provided. 

·    There have been some practical gains since the implementation of the Act, despite the absence of a local alcohol policy:

Some voluntary reductions of licensed hours with some types of license, partly due to the costs of license application and annual fees under the risk based fees regime.

Various voluntary precinct area specific on-licence alcohol accords developing as main late night hospitality areas rebuild. This fosters and supports cooperation and consistency in management of late-night hospitality areas.

Communities, in various localities, have exercised their ability to object to alcohol licence applications, on licenced hours and amenity and good order criteria, where concerns relate to a particular site and operation. 

·    Over the past year there has been a noticeable increase in community objections to license applications based on non-application considerations under the Act and more closely aligned to matters more appropriately dealt with through a local alcohol policy:

An example is concerns relating to density of licensed premises and the number of types of licences in an area or across the whole city, such as off-licence bottle stores and on-licence hours to 3am near residential areas.

Consultation on a local alcohol policy is the only avenue for a community to voice these types of density and threshold concerns. Having this opportunity may reduce the incidence of objections to license applications on matters that can only be dealt with through a local alcohol policy.

7.   Council initiatives to minimise harm from alcohol

7.1       The Council has entered into a number of regulatory and community initiatives aimed at reducing alcohol-related harm. These are both regulatory and non-regulatory with most involving collaboration with other agencies.

Alcohol Restrictions in Public Places Bylaw

·    The bylaw enables the Council to establish alcohol ban areas within the city where the drinking of alcohol or the carrying of an open alcohol container in a public place (including in a car) is prohibited.

A breach of the bylaw is an offence that may result in arrest, prosecution and/or a fine. The bylaw is enforced by NZ Police, using special powers under the Local Government Act.

There are 13 ban areas in place with five in force 24 hours a day, 7 days a week and the remainder covering either specific times of day or specific days of the year.

Christchurch Alcohol Action Plan

·    Christchurch Police, Christchurch City Council and the Canterbury District Health Board have developed the Christchurch Alcohol Action Plan (CAAP).  The Plan provides a collective vision, strategies and actions aimed at achieving a sustained reduction in alcohol-related harm across Christchurch.

The CAAP is informed by New Zealand and international evidence; local data; and what our stakeholders and communities are saying about alcohol-related harm and how best to reduce it. It has been shaped by a shared vision, values and desired outcomes developed in consultation with the community.

The CAAP programme of action is extensive and builds on and complements existing activities within the regulated environment and identifies wider areas in the non-regulated environment where agencies can gain efficiencies and effectiveness through collaborative planning and service delivery.

Alcohol Licensing in the Community

·    The Council has produced an information brochure and templates to assist communities to object to the granting of alcohol licenses in their communities or to communicate concerns or issues with existing premises.  Council community development staff provide guidance and support to ensure communities can put forward their views through the licensing process. There is also extensive information and advice provided on how to navigate the licensing processes overseen by the District Licensing Committee. https://www.ccc.govt.nz/consents-and-licences/business-licences-and-consents/alcohol/objecting-to-a-grant-for-a-licence/

Alcohol-related harm at public events policy

·    Policy requires outdoor events provided by the Council, or on land controlled by the Council, or funded by the Council, where alcohol will be sold to plan for and implement ways to reduce alcohol harm and care for people affected by alcohol at the event.

7.2       The effect these initiatives are having, or are expected to have, on reducing alcohol-related harm should be considered by the Council in any decision on whether to have a local alcohol policy or not. The Council may consider the effects these initiatives are having reduces the need for a local alcohol policy, or alternatively may believe a local alcohol policy is needed to support and/ or add value to the initiatives outlined above.

 

8.   Policy preparation process

8.1       This report does not attempt to provide analysis of the specific issues associated with alcohol-related harm that would be included in the issues and options assessment of policy development.

8.2       Community views and those of statutory consultees and Hospitality NZ are included for the elected member’s information rather than to pre-empt any thinking around alcohol-related harm issues and/ or policy approaches. If the Council decides to proceed with preparation of a local alcohol policy all community engagement requirements would be fulfilled as part of that process.

8.3       Preparation of a local alcohol policy would include fresh alcohol-related harm statistics being sought and analysed where applicable and a review of relevant literature undertaken.

8.4       A fresh community survey would be commissioned to obtain community views on key matters associated with alcohol licensing, alcohol-related harm and possible policy approaches. This would closely follow the methodology used for the survey undertaken in 2012.

 

9.   Option 1 - Prepare a draft Local Alcohol Policy as soon as possible. (preferred)

Option Description

9.1       Undertake work required to prepare a Local Alcohol Policy.

9.2       Proposed timeline for preparing a Local Alcohol Policy

 

Key Steps

Complete by:

1

Briefing for elected member working party

April 2018

 

Gather required information/data.

·   Literature review

·   Community survey

·   Stakeholder forum(s)

·   Consult with statutory consultees (Police, Medical Officer of Health and Licensing Inspectors)

May 2018

2

Analysis - define policy problem/issue and scope of project. Identify possible policy responses

End of June 2018

3

Seek Community Board feedback on draft proposals

End of August

4

Committee and Council workshops

End of September

5

Prepare draft LAP for approval of Council

End of October

6

Adopt/ notify draft LAP and receive submissions

November/ December 2018

7

Hearing of submissions including deliberations on provisional LAP

February 2019

8

Council decision on provisional LAP

April 2019

9

Notification to allow commencement of appeals process

May 2019

10

Appeals lodged with ARLA

June 2019

11

Appeals process and adoption of LAP

Process to resolve appeals commences January 2019 including hearing and consideration of appeals by ARLA. Following resolution of appeals – Council can adopt LAP. LAP brought into force. Changes to maximum trading hours apply a minimum of 3 months after public notice of adoption.

June – September 2019

This depends on hearings, appeals and other possible actions

 

Significance

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

9.4       Engagement requirements for this level of significance are limited to whatever the Council considers appropriate at this time. A special consultation procedure would be undertaken if the Council adopts a draft Local Alcohol Policy for consultation purposes.

9.5       In addition to requirements related to the Council’s Significance and Engagement Policy the Council must engage with the statutory consultees (NZ Police, Medical Officer of Health, licensing inspectors) as part of the process to prepare a draft Local Alcohol Policy.

Impact on Mana Whenua

9.6       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

9.7       This report has summarised community views and preferences captured through the previous draft local alcohol policy process and has specifically included fresh views and preferences from statutory consultees and key affected stakeholders. Their views are included in the narrative of this report. As described in 9.4 above, further consultation will be undertaken if the Council decides to prepare a draft local alcohol policy.

9.8       The NZ Police and Medical Officer of Health (both statutory consultees) support the Council preparing a local alcohol policy as soon as possible. Hospitality NZ believes the Council should not prepare a local alcohol policy at this time.

9.9       Community engagement on the previous draft Local Alcohol Policy found support for the Council having a policy from community boards and some caveated support from residents surveyed (where a majority wanted the Council to have more restrictive licensing policies than those provided by the Act).

Alignment with Council Plans and Policies

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

Financial Implications

9.11    Cost of Implementation – to prepare a draft Local Alcohol Policy, undertake a special consultation procedure, analyse submissions and make recommendations to the Council is estimated to cost $150,000 (excluding legal costs associated with any appeals or subsequent legal actions initiated).

9.12    Maintenance / Ongoing Costs – Not applicable at this stage.

9.13    Funding source – existing budgets – largely from Strategic Policy team and Legal Services Unit.

Legal Implications

9.14    If the Council adopts this option it will need to comply with the statutory requirements set out in the Sale and Supply of Alcohol Act relevant to the content of a Local Alcohol Policy and the process for drafting and adopting a provisional local alcohol policy.

Risks and Mitigations  

9.15    There is a risk that some stakeholders or community members who want to be involved in the process to prepare a draft Local Alcohol Policy are unable to engage in the process due to it being fast-tracked.  This may result in these stakeholders and residents feeling unfairly shut out of the process.

9.15.1 Residual risk rating: The residual rating of the risk after the below treatment(s) are implemented will be Low/ Medium

9.15.2 Planned treatment(s) include

·    Engage as broadly as practicable within the confines the timeline to enable stakeholders and residents to have their views considered as part of the process.

·    Ensure the policy development process is well documented on the CCC website and that it is clear there are opportunities to be involved.

·    Maintain open channels of communication with community boards, stakeholders and residents to promote engagement opportunities.

Implementation

9.16    Implementation dependencies - information required from the statutory consultees – Police statistics, Canterbury District Health Board statistics and Council alcohol licensing data. In the past relevant data has sometimes been difficult to obtain within required timelines.

9.17    Implementation timeframe – complete a draft Local Alcohol Policy in time for it to be notified as a Provisional Local Alcohol Policy by end of August 2019.

Option Summary - Advantages and Disadvantages

9.18    The advantages of this option include:

·   Information and data needed to inform a policy is still largely current and relevant.

·   Enables the Council to re-engage with the community on matters associated with alcohol and a local alcohol policy while they remain fresh in the minds of stakeholders and residents.

·   Will enable the Council to consider Policy issues and options provisions in light of changes in the city since the original decisions were made.

·   Puts in place a regulatory framework that enables alcohol licensing decisions to be made that take account of local issues and preferences and that seek to minimise alcohol-related harm.

·   A Local Alcohol Policy will be in place earlier than under the other options.

·   A Policy will provide a degree of certainty for both businesses and the wider community as to any restrictions on location and/ or maximum trading hours for different types and locations of licensed premises.

·   This decision can be reversed – the Council can decide to discontinue the process at any time.

9.19    The disadvantages of this option include:

·   The Council will need to apply funding and resources to prepare a draft Local Alcohol Policy.

·   This option is unlikely to provide an opportunity for the 2019 incoming Council to have significant input to the Policy.

·   Resolving appeals on a new LAP could be a lengthy (and costly) process.

10. Option 2 – Defer any decision on whether to prepare a Local Alcohol Policy until 2019/20

Option Description

10.1    Defer any decision on whether to prepare a draft Local Alcohol Policy until after the triennial elections in 2019.

10.2    This option could include direction from the Council to staff to continue with some information gathering and other low cost policy preparation functions. This would enable policy preparation to proceed more quickly if there was a decision to prepare a local alcohol policy in late 2019 (after the October 2019 elections).

Significance

10.3    The level of significance of this option is assessed as being medium, which is consistent with section 2 of this report.

10.4    Engagement requirements for this level of significance are not applicable at this time.

Impact on Mana Whenua

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

Community Views and Preferences

10.6    This report has summarised community views and preferences captured through the previous draft local alcohol policy process and has specifically included fresh views and preferences from statutory consultees and key affected stakeholders. Their views are included in the narrative of this report. As described in 9.4 above, further consultation will be undertaken if the Council decides to prepare a draft local alcohol policy.

10.7    The NZ Police and Medical Officer of Health support the Council preparing a local alcohol policy as soon as possible. Hospitality NZ believes the Council should not prepare a local alcohol policy at this time.

10.8    Community engagement on the previous draft Local Alcohol Policy found support for the Council having a policy from community boards and implicit support from residents surveyed (where a majority wanted the Council to have more restrictive licensing policies than those provided by the Act).

Alignment with Council Plans and Policies

10.9    This option is not inconsistent with Council’s policies and plans but does not immediately support achievement of some Council policies and plans.

Financial Implications

10.10  Cost of Implementation – no budget required at this time.

10.11  Maintenance / Ongoing Costs – not applicable.

10.12  Funding source – not applicable.

Legal Implications

10.13  There is not a legal context, issue or implication relevant to this decision at this time.

10.14  This report has been reviewed and approved by the Legal Services Unit.

Risks and Mitigations

10.15  There is a risk that opportunities to reduce alcohol-related harm in Christchurch won’t be realised.  This may result in alcohol-related harm in Christchurch not being minimised.

10.15.1  Residual risk rating: The residual rating of the risk after the below treatment(s) is implemented will be medium/ low.

10.15.2  Planned and current treatment(s) include the various other initiatives the Council is delivering or plans to deliver to reduce alcohol-related harm that are detailed in section 7 of this report.

Implementation

10.16  Implementation dependencies - not applicable at this time.

10.17  Implementation timeframe – not applicable at this time.

Option Summary - Advantages and Disadvantages

10.18  The advantages of this option include:

·   The full process to develop a draft local alcohol policy and notify a provisional local alcohol policy can be undertaken by one Council over the 2019-22 triennium.

·   The ongoing development of the city, and particularly the hospitality sector in the central city, can be taken into account in policy decision-making.

·   No costs are incurred at this time.

10.19  The disadvantages of this option include:

·   The opportunities to reduce alcohol-related harm that can be applied through the provisions of a local alcohol policy won’t be available to be used.

11. Option 3 – Do not have a local alcohol policy

Option Description

11.1    The Council could decide not to have a Policy and to rely instead on the default licensing provisions of the Act.

Significance

11.2    The level of significance of this option is medium, which is consistent with section 2 of this report.

Impact on Mana Whenua

11.3    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

11.4    As for options 1 and 2.

Alignment with Council Plans and Policies

11.5    This option is not inconsistent with Council’s Plans and Policies. The Council has community outcomes, policies and strategies that have explicit or implicit objectives to promote community health and wellbeing and to reduce alcohol-related harm. However, not having a local alcohol policy may not necessarily be inconsistent with these policies and strategies.

 

Financial Implications

11.6    Cost of Implementation – Nil.

11.7    Maintenance / Ongoing Costs – Nil.

11.8    Funding source – Not applicable.

Legal Implications

11.9    There is not a legal context, issue or implication relevant to this decision

11.10  This report has been reviewed and approved by the Legal Services Unit

Risks and Mitigations

11.1    There is a risk that opportunities to reduce alcohol-related harm in Christchurch won’t be realised.  This may result in alcohol-related harm in Christchurch not being minimised.

11.1.1 Residual risk rating: The residual rating of the risk after the below treatment(s) is implemented will be medium/ low.

11.1.2 Planned and current treatment(s) include the various other initiatives the Council is delivering or plans to deliver to reduce alcohol-related harm that are detail in section 7 of this report.

Implementation

11.2    Implementation dependencies - not applicable.

11.3    Implementation timeframe – not applicable.

Option Summary - Advantages and Disadvantages

11.4    The advantages of this option include:

·   No costs are incurred at this time.

11.5    The disadvantages of this option include:

·   The opportunities to reduce alcohol-related harm that can be applied through the provisions of a local alcohol policy won’t be able to be used.

 

Attachments

There are no attachments to this report.

 

Confirmation of Statutory Compliance

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

(a) This report contains:

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

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

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

 

Signatories

Author

Gavin Thomas - Team Leader Policy

Approved By

Helen Beaumont - Head of Strategic Policy

Brendan Anstiss - General Manager Strategy and Transformation

 


Council

22 March 2018

 

Report from Regulatory Performance Committee  – 7 March 2018

 

10.    Review of the Brothels (Location and Commercial Sexual Services Signage) Bylaw 2013

Reference:

18/225518

Presenter(s):

Teena Crocker, Senior Policy Analyst

 

 

 

1.  Staff and Regulatory Performance Committee Recommendation to Council

 

That the Council:

1.         Note that the Local Government Act 2002 requires bylaws to be reviewed within certain timeframes, and that the Brothels (Location and Commercial Sexual Services Signage) Bylaw 2013 must be reviewed by 28 March 2018;

2.         Note that in order to undertake a review of a bylaw, the Local Government Act 2002 requires a council to make a determination under section 155; and

3.         Note that a subsequent report discussing possible changes to the bylaw, and public consultation on the bylaw, will be presented to the Regulatory Performance Committee and the Council in July 2018.

4.         Resolves that, in reliance on the information in this report, a bylaw is the most appropriate way of addressing perceived problems relating to brothel location and signage, in accordance with section 155(1) of the Local Government Act 2002.

 

 

Attachments

No.

Report Title

Page

1

Review of the Brothels (Location and Commercial Sexual Services Signage) Bylaw 2013

76

 

No.

Title

Page

a

Brothels (Location and Commercial Sexual Services Signage) Bylaw 2013 - review of existing bylaw, section 155 analysis 2018

85

 

 


Council

22 March 2018

 

 

Review of the Brothels (Location and Commercial Sexual Services Signage) Bylaw 2013

Reference:

18/18799

Contact:

Teena Crocker

Teena.Crocker@ccc.govt.nz

941 8551

 

 

1.   Purpose and Origin of Report

Purpose of Report

1.1       The purpose of this report is for the Regulatory Performance Committee to report to Council about the first stage of the review of the Brothels (Location and Commercial Sexual Services Signage) Bylaw 2013 (the brothels bylaw), and to recommend that determinations be made by the Council in accordance with statutory requirements.

Origin of Report

1.2       The Local Government Act 2002 (LGA) requires bylaws to be reviewed within certain timeframes.  This report is to facilitate compliance with statutory bylaw review requirements.

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 the limited impact of the decisions in this report.  The decisions are required to meet statutory bylaw review requirements. 

2.1.2   A subsequent report will discuss possible changes and public consultation on the bylaw.

 

3.   Staff Recommendations 

That the Regulatory Performance Committee recommends that the Council:

1.         Note that the Local Government Act 2002 requires bylaws to be reviewed within certain timeframes, and that the Brothels (Location and Commercial Sexual Services Signage) Bylaw 2013 must be reviewed by 28 March 2018;

2.         Note that in order to undertake a review of a bylaw, the Local Government Act 2002 requires a council to make a determination under section 155; and

3.         Note that a subsequent report discussing possible changes to the bylaw, and public consultation on the bylaw, will be presented to the Regulatory Performance Committee and Council in July 2018.

4.         Resolves that, in reliance on the information in this report, a bylaw is the most appropriate way of addressing perceived problems relating to brothel location and signage, in accordance with section 155(1) of the Local Government Act 2002.

 

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: 17.0.19 Bylaws and regulatory policies are reviewed to meet statutory timeframes and changing needs

4.2       This is a five-year review.  A new bylaw must be reviewed within five years in the first instance, and at least once every ten years thereafter. In order to meet the statutory requirements for review, the brothels bylaw must be reviewed by 28 March 2018.  In order to review a bylaw, the LGA requires a council to determine that a bylaw is the most appropriate way of addressing the perceived problem(s) under section 155. 

4.3       This report only concerns the review. A subsequent report will recommend any bylaw changes and consultation on those changes (consultation is still required, even if there are no changes).

4.4       Given the priority of the Long Term Plan consultation process in the first half of 2018, consultation on this (and other bylaws) will occur later in the year.

4.5       This report concludes that a bylaw is still needed, and is the most appropriate way of addressing perceived problems associated with the location of brothels and the advertising of commercial sexual services.

 

5.   Context/Background

Bylaw-making powers and enforcement tools

5.1       The brothels bylaw is made under the Prostitution Reform Act 2003 (PRA), which empowers councils to make bylaws to:

·   prohibit or regulate signage relating to commercial sexual services (CSS); and to

·   regulate the location of brothels.

5.2       The bylaw-making power allows councils to confine brothels to certain areas of the district, where there is good reason for this, but does not allow prohibiting them completely.  There is no power to regulate other location-related aspects of the sex industry (such as street-based sex work), only the location of brothels.

5.3       The PRA states that a bylaw made under the PRA “must be made in the same manner in all respects as if it were a bylaw made under the Local Government Act 2002”.  For the purposes of enforcement, a bylaw made under the PRA should be treated as if it were a bylaw made under section 145 of the LGA.

5.4       This means the penalty for breaching the bylaw is prosecution, with a fine on conviction of up to $20,000. There is no infringement (instant fines) regime available for breaching a bylaw made under the LGA. However, other enforcement tools under the LGA may be used, where relevant.

Coverage of the brothels bylaw

5.5       The brothels bylaw has been in force since 2013.  In summary, the bylaw regulates brothel location and commercial sexual services signage in the following ways:

Location

·    It allows brothels to locate in limited parts of the district (set out in maps)

·    It prohibits brothels from operating in all other locations

·    The mapped brothels-allowed areas are based on commercial zones in the 2013 district planning documents, with ‘buffer zones’ to separate residential areas and schools and pre-schools from areas where brothels are allowed

·    The location restrictions focused on larger, operator-run brothels

·    Small owner-operated brothels (SOOBs) are not restricted by zones

·    SOOBs are prohibited from multi-unit residential complexes

Signage

·    It allows signage associated with brothels in brothel-allowed areas

·    It restricts the placement, content and size of signage

·    It prohibits all other signage advertising commercial sexual services

5.6       Analysis relating to the brothels bylaw is covered in more detail in the attached section 155 analysis.

5.7       Generally, in this report, ‘brothel’ is used to describe commercial brothels, while ‘SOOB’ is used to refer to the home-based provision of commercial sexual services, or to a small business. The definition of SOOB is set out in the PRA, and involves a premises with no more than four sex workers, and where each worker retains control over their earnings from prostitution.

Brothel-allowed areas in the bylaw

5.8       The bylaw-making power allows councils to regulate, but not prohibit, the location of brothels.

5.9       The brothels-allowed areas were based on the draft Central City Plan, the Christchurch City Plan, and the proposed Banks Peninsula District Plan in late 2012. These documents have now been replaced with the Christchurch District Plan (the District Plan).

5.10    The brothels bylaw allows brothels to operate only in the larger commercial business zones (the smaller business zones were not included in the mapped areas).  An explanatory note in the bylaw clarifies that:

·   where commercial zones adjoined or were close to schools, preschools or residential areas (and were not suitably buffered by a major road), the zones were reduced to provide better separation of brothels from children and residential activity; and

·   other parts of some zones were also removed when the result of the ‘buffering’ left only small pockets of properties.

5.11    Although there have been changes in the planning zones on which the 2013 bylaw was based, the areas are still a mixture of commercial and industrial zones, not residential zones.

5.12    The brothels-allowed areas were very contentious during consultation on the brothels bylaw.  As there have been very few complaints about the location of brothels, or inquiries about establishing brothels outside of the allowable areas, there may be no need to change or update the areas, despite the District Plan zoning designations being different to what they were in 2013.  Although there have been changes, the areas are still a mixture of commercial and industrial zones, not residential zones.

Brothel locations and interaction with the District Plan

5.13    As a brothel is a business, all the usual requirements and restrictions in the District Plan apply.

5.14    A brothel that is located within a brothel-allowed area in the brothels bylaw must comply with the District Plan requirements in that location.  It may be considered a permitted activity, or may require a resource consent.  This will depend on the zoning and relevant rules, just like any other business.

5.15    If a brothel requires a resource consent, section 15 of the PRA applies.  This requires that a council must assess a resource consent application for land-use relating to a business of prostitution in relation to whether it:

·   is likely to cause a nuisance or serious offence to ordinary members of the public using the area in which the land is situated; or

·   is incompatible with the existing character or use of the area in which the land is situated.

Signage advertising Commercial Sexual Services in the bylaw

5.16    Signage relating to commercial sexual services is prohibited in areas outside of the brothel-allowed areas, and in any brothel-allowed area if the sign can be seen from a school.

5.17    Signage in the brothel-allowed areas is restricted by the bylaw. It must be attached to the premises and clearly display the number of the premises, and must not exceed 0.3m², display an image, be offensive, or be illuminated.  A premises may only display one sign, even if it has two road frontages.

Small owner-operated brothels (SOOB)

5.18    The PRA defines a SOOB as a place where no more than four sex workers work, and where each sex worker retains control over their own earnings.

5.19    There is no requirement under the PRA for registration or licensing of a SOOB, and no legal means for the Council to require such information. This means the Council does not know where SOOBs are operating – unless information comes to light, such as via a complaint.

5.20    Due to the earthquakes in Christchurch and damage to the central city (where most brothels were located), sex workers may now be working independently (either alone or in small groups, in a SOOB situation), in higher numbers than was the case pre-quake, when work was available in brothels. 

5.21    The Council’s report of the Hearings Panel on the brothels bylaw (6 December 2012) acknowledged that …in most cases the general public are unaware of the location of SOOBs as these are small, usually extremely discreet businesses that are mostly located in residential areas.  It is not uncommon for a SOOB to operate on a part-time or casual basis, and most operate by appointment only.

5.22    However, there have been some complaints about SOOBs in Christchurch on the basis of late-night comings and goings, and traffic or other noise.  These have largely been dealt with as District Plan (home occupation) breaches, as set out below.

Regulation of SOOBs in the brothels bylaw

5.23    The brothels bylaw explicitly excludes SOOBs from the location restrictions relating to other brothels, but prohibits SOOBs from operating out of a ‘multi-unit residential complex’, which is defined in the bylaw as:

·   two or more residential units situated together on an area of land, whether or not the land is in more than one legal title, and irrespective of the legal ownership of the land as a whole, or of the units.

5.24    It goes on to give some examples:

·   a block of flats, whether multi storey or not, where there are shared walls between the units or garages of the units;

·   a townhouse complex, where the units may be physically separated but there is a shared driveway or paths between the units.

5.25    The intent of this restriction is to prevent issues arising from brothel-related activities in apartments, units, flats or townhouses, such as the comings and goings of clients. SOOB activities could impact on other residents through the use of common areas such as foyers, hallways, lifts, paths, parking spaces or driveways.  Noise may also be an issue.

District Plan home occupation requirements and operating a SOOB

5.26    The District Plan requirements applicable to operating a SOOB in a residential zone are the ‘home occupation requirements’.  A SOOB operating in a non-residential zone must comply with the applicable District Plan requirements in that zone, just like any other business.

5.27    A home occupation is defined in the District Plan as “any occupation, including a profession, undertaken within a residential unit by a person who lives permanently within that residential unit”.  Any home occupation is intended to be secondary in scale to the residential use of the site.

5.28    Home occupations are permitted in all residential zones, provided certain conditions are met. These largely relate to limits on the floor area used; opening hours (7am-9pm weekdays, and 8am-7pm on weekends and public holidays); and parking restrictions.  There are also limits on the number of people than can be engaged in the activity on-site. 

5.29    While the PRA defines a SOOB as involving “no more than four sex workers”, the District Plan home occupation restrictions are:

Residential Central City zone

Only those who live permanently on-site can be employed in the activity

All other residential zones

Only two full time equivalent persons who live off-site  can be employed in the home occupation (plus any who live permanently on-site)

 

5.30    If these conditions cannot be met, a resource consent is required for the home occupation as a restricted discretionary activity under the District Plan. The application must address the scale of the activity, traffic generation and access safety, and hours of operation, depending on which particular standards are not met.

Signage associated with home occupations and SOOBs

5.31    The District Plan restricts any signage associated with a home occupation, generally limiting it to a maximum of 2m².  However, the brothels bylaw further restricts signage relating to commercial sexual services, limiting it in the brothels-allowed areas, and prohibiting it in all other areas.  Generally SOOBs wish to operate discreetly and have no signage.

High Court challenge relating to SOOBs

5.32    The Council’s Brothels (Location and Signage) Bylaw 2004 was challenged in 2005 in Willowford Family Trust and T R Brown v Christchurch City Council.  The challenge resulted in the location provisions in the 2004 bylaw being quashed. 

5.33    The 2004 bylaw prohibited brothels, except in business zones (‘brothels’ included SOOBs).  The Judge found that the practical effect of the bylaw was an ‘effective prohibition’ on SOOBs.  He found the location provisions unreasonable, as the power enabled regulation, not prohibition.

5.34    This case is worth noting in relation to the review, and any proposed changes to the bylaw.

5.35    Although the location provisions were quashed, the signage provisions remained in force.  The 2004 bylaw was automatically revoked on 7 July 2011 (as per section 160 of the LGA).  Between then and March 2013, the Council had no bylaw regulating brothels or signage.

Brief history of brothel-related bylaws in Christchurch

Date

What happened and why

2003

The Prostitution Reform Act came into force, enabling bylaws to be made relating to brothel locations and associated signage

2004

The Council adopted a brothels bylaw regulating brothel locations and signage

2005

The 2004 brothels bylaw was successfully challenged in the High Court - the location provisions were quashed (due their impact on SOOBs)

~

The signage provisions of the 2004 brothels bylaw remained in force

2009

The Council consulted on revoking the brothels bylaw.  Overwhelmingly, submitters disagreed (99% of 345 submitters). The Council directed staff to work on a new bylaw (to be in place before the 2004 bylaw lapsed in 2011) 

~

Work did not proceed as planned due to the 2011 earthquakes

2011

The 2004 bylaw was not reviewed in time, so was automatically revoked by section 160 of the LGA

~

Christchurch had no bylaw relating to brothels

2013

The Council adopted the 2013 brothels bylaw, regulating brothel locations (explicitly exempting SOOBs from the location restrictions, but prohibiting SOOBs in multi-unit residential complexes) and regulating associated signage.  The need for a new bylaw was reinforced due to concerns about central city brothels relocating post-quake to other parts of the district.

2018

Review of the 2013 brothels bylaw (five year review requirement in the LGA)

Information on brothels, SOOBs, complaints and bylaw enforcement activities

5.36    There is no legal means for the Council to collect accurate information on the total number of brothels or SOOBs operating in the district.  There is no statutory requirement to register businesses of prostitution. 

5.37    Although operators of brothels are required to obtain an operator’s certificate (and renew it annually), this information is held by the Registrar of Auckland District Court.  The PRA does not allow the release of information on brothel operators that identifies individual applicants or certificate holders, but does enable the release of statistical information (section 41).

5.38    Staff sought information from the Registrar of Auckland District Court on holders of brothel operator certificates in the district for the five years the bylaw has been in force:

Year

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

Applications

6

2

5

4

5

 

5.39    The number of people who hold brothel operator certificates may not be indicative of the number of brothels, as a certificate-holder may operate more than one brothel.  The Police have a role in ensuring compliance with this aspect of the PRA.

5.40    The Council is aware of some existing brothels (for example, those specified in the current brothels bylaw as exempt from the location provisions), and has received several applications in the last five years relating to resource consents for operating a “business of prostitution”.

5.41    The Council has not received many complaints in relation to brothel locations or signage relating to commercial sexual services.  The majority of complaints have related to the operation of SOOBs, some in multi-unit residential complexes, and more often than not, complaints have related to District Plan ‘home occupation’ breaches, rather than non-compliance with the bylaw.  Breaches have tended to relate to the floor area used for business activities, car-parking and times of operation.

5.42    Inquiries and investigations by Council staff have often resulted in a non-compliant brothel or SOOB ceasing to operate voluntarily. 

5.43    The Council has taken one prosecution in relation to a brothel (in 2014) in the five years since the bylaw came into force.  This related largely to home occupation District Plan breaches (hours of operation and floor space), but also looked at whether the situation breached the brothels bylaw in relation to whether it was operating as a SOOB or a brothel.  If operating as a brothel, it would be in breach of the bylaw location provisions, but if it was acting as a SOOB, it was not.  In the end, the defendant was found guilty of District Plan breaches, but not guilty of a bylaw breach.

5.44    The penalties under the Resource Management Act 1991 (for breaches of the District Plan) are potentially for more significant than those available for a bylaw breach.

5.45    The Compliance and Investigation Team has, on occasion, been involved or worked in conjunction with Immigration New Zealand when there have been employment visa issues.

5.46    There have been some instances of commercial brothels operating without a resource consent (or applying for a resource consent and undergoing the PRA ‘business of prostitution’ considerations), and these have been adequately dealt with under the District Plan.

If there was no brothels bylaw

5.47    If a brothels bylaw was not in place, the only restriction on the location of brothels (including SOOBs) would be through District Plan provisions:

·   As a brothel is a business, it is treated like any other business under the District Plan, and if a resource consent is needed, there is an assessment under the PRA in relation to ‘existing character’, as set out above. 

·   Without a bylaw to regulate location, there may be cases where a resource consent is not needed (as all other requirements in the District Plan are met), which means there is no requirement under the PRA to assess its impact, which could result in a brothel locating in an area where it could cause community tensions or offence.

·   A SOOB is treated like any other business in a non-residential zone and is subject to District Plan requirements.  If a SOOB is in a residential zone, the District Plan requires the home occupation restrictions to be met.

·   Without a bylaw, there may be little restriction on SOOBs operating out of multi-unit dwellings.

5.48    It is clearer to have zones or areas where brothels are allowed, or not allowed, than to rely on District Plan provisions alone.  It is useful to have clarity (via a bylaw) as to where SOOBs can operate.

5.49    The only restrictions on signage for commercial sexual services, if there was no bylaw, would be District Plan provisions, with any issues relating to content (decency or offensiveness) covered by the Advertising Standards Authority (via a Code of Practice, which is part of the industry’s self-regulation). 

Initial stakeholder views

5.50    Staff met with the New Zealand Prostitutes Collective to discuss any issues relating to the coverage and operation of the brothels bylaw.  The Collective expressed some concern about the broad coverage of the multi-unit residential complex definition.

5.51    The Collective believes the definition is too broad, and makes it difficult in practice for anyone to operate a SOOB from the lower-cost housing options covered by the multi-unit residential complex definition.  Where there is separate pedestrian access to a front door servicing a single unit, the Collective believes a SOOB should be able to operate with minimal impact on neighbours. 

5.52    There was a recent article in The Press (13 October 2017) about a SOOB operating from a Merivale townhouse.  In the article, the woman operating the SOOB thought the standalone townhouse would not breach the bylaw.  Since a complaint to the Council, she had realised that the townhouse was considered a multi-unit residential complex under the bylaw, so had ceased operations. The article also quoted her as saying that none of her neighbours realised she was operating as a SOOB from the property until a message to that effect was anonymously spray-painted on her fence.

5.53    The Police have a role in compliance and enforcement activities in relation to the operation of brothels under the PRA.  The Police have advised that they are not aware of any issues relating to brothel locations or signage.

5.54    Health authorities have a role in relation to health and hygiene aspects of the operation of brothels under the PRA.  Community and Public Health and the Medical Officer of Health have advised that they have no concerns in relation to the bylaw’s coverage (location and signage).  However, Community Public Health noted that SOOBs can be a safer option for sex workers than working on the street, and did not support changes that would make it more difficult for SOOBs to operate.

Section 155 assessment – conclusions on whether a bylaw is the most appropriate way of addressing the perceived problems

5.55    By having a bylaw to regulate brothel location, and to control signage relating to commercial sexual services, it means:

·   the location of brothels can be limited (the current bylaw does not allow brothels in residential areas and near schools, limiting their location to specified industrial and business zones, providing further location controls than those in the District Plan);

·   the potential negative impact of SOOBs in some residential settings can be controlled (the current bylaw prohibits SOOBs from multi-unit residential complexes, further restricting the current ‘home occupation’ restrictions under the District Plan, and potentially reducing tensions that may arise if a SOOB were to operate from an apartment, unit, flat or townhouse); and

·   signage can be controlled (the current bylaw prohibits signage across most of the city, only allowing it where brothels are allowed, and limiting its size, content and placement.  This allows specific restrictions relating to brothel signage, rather than relying on the decency or offensiveness provisions of the Advertising Standards Authority Code of Practice, or the District Plan).

5.56    Revoking the bylaw would reduce the tools that the Council has to manage the problems identified in this review, and result in a lack of regulatory options to manage the issues.  There has historically been strong public support for regulation in this area.

5.57    This review concludes that a bylaw to regulate the location of brothels and the display of signage advertising commercial sexual services is still needed.  This information is set out in more detail in the attached section 155 analysis.

5.58    Some amendments may need to be made to update or further improve the bylaw, and if so, these will be set out in the subsequent report to Council.

Legal implications

5.59    Although the Council had a brothels bylaw prior to the 2013 bylaw, this lapsed, so for the purposes of section 158, the current bylaw is considered a ‘new’ bylaw, subject to the five year review requirement, and not an established bylaw, subject to the ten year review requirement (section 159)

5.60    The Legal Services Unit has advised that the risk of not reviewing a bylaw within its statutory review deadline is that any bylaw made in replacement would be considered a new bylaw (and subject to a subsequent five year review, under section 158), rather than being considered an established bylaw (and subject to a subsequent ten year review, under section 159).

5.61    The Legal Services Unit has advised that there are no enforcement implications relating to meeting or not meeting the review deadline. Even if the bylaw were not reviewed within the statutory review deadline, the bylaw would still be enforceable for two years after the required review date.  After this time, a bylaw not otherwise revoked would be automatically revoked by section 160A of the LGA. 

5.62    In order to ‘review’ a bylaw, a council must make a determination under section 155 of the LGA.  Section 155(1) requires a determination that a bylaw is the most appropriate way of addressing the perceived problem(s). 

5.63    Section 155(2) and 155(3) relate to New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990 (NZBoRA) implications, and whether the bylaw is in the most appropriate form.  These determinations will be appropriately addressed in the July report discussing possible changes and public consultation on the bylaw.  Note that section 13 of the Prostitution Reform Act allows bylaws restricting advertising relating to commercial sexual services (CSS) to breach NZBoRA (freedom of expression).

5.64    Regardless of whether the brothels bylaw is to be amended, replaced, revoked, or retained as is, this will be covered in a subsequent report, followed by a public consultation process.

 

 

Attachments

No.

Title

Page

a 

Brothels (Location and Commercial Sexual Services Signage) Bylaw 2013 - review of existing bylaw, section 155 analysis 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

Authors

Teena Crocker - Senior Policy Analyst

Judith Cheyne - Associate General Counsel

Approved By

Helen Beaumont - Head of Strategic Policy

Brendan Anstiss - General Manager Strategy and Transformation

 


Council

22 March 2018

 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


Council

22 March 2018

 

Report from Regulatory Performance Committee  – 7 March 2018

 

11.    Review of the Public Places Bylaw 2008

Reference:

18/225530

Presenter(s):

Libby Elvidge, Policy Analyst

 

 

 

1.  Staff and Regulatory Performance Committee Recommendation to Council

 

That the Council:

1.         Note that the Local Government Act 2002 requires bylaws to be reviewed within certain timeframes, and that the Public Places Bylaw 2008 must be reviewed by 19 June 2018.

2.         Note that in order to undertake a review of the bylaw, the Local Government Act 2002 requires a council to make a determination under section 155.

3.         Note that a subsequent report discussing proposed changes to the bylaw, and public consultation on the bylaw, will be presented to the Regulatory Performance Committee and the Council in July 2018.

4.         Resolves that a bylaw is the most appropriate way of addressing the perceived problems relating to public places, in accordance with section 155(1) of the Local Government Act 2002, and identified in this report, and that a bylaw is required to provide for reasonable controls to:

a.         Protect health and safety;

b.         Protect the public from nuisance; and

c.         Provide for the regulation of trading in public places.

5.         Agrees that a draft bylaw be prepared for consideration by the Council.

6.         Agrees that the draft bylaw will cover the regulation of:

a.         Commercial activities in public places;

b.         Obstructions in public places; and

c.         Other issues that may arise during further analysis, including street numbering requirements and signage permission.

 

 

Attachments

No.

Report Title

Page

1

Review of the Public Places Bylaw 2008

96

 

No.

Title

Page

a

Section 155 Report Christchurch City Council Public Places Bylaw 2008

103

 

 


Council

22 March 2018

 

 

Review of the Public Places Bylaw 2008

Reference:

18/20429

Contact:

Libby Elvidge

Libby.Elvidge@ccc.govt.nz

941 8999

 

 

1.   Purpose and Origin of Report

Purpose of Report

1.1       The purpose of this report is for the Regulatory Performance Committee to report to Council about the first stage of the review of the Public Places Bylaw 2008 (attached), and to recommend that determinations be made by the Council in accordance with statutory requirements.

Origin of Report

1.2       The Local Government Act 2002 (LGA) requires bylaws to be reviewed within certain timeframes.  This report is to facilitate compliance with statutory bylaw review requirements. 

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.

·        The level of significance was determined by the limited impact of the decisions in this report. The decisions are required to meet statutory bylaw review requirements.

·        A subsequent report will provide a draft replacement bylaw, and discuss proposed changes and public consultation on the bylaw.

 

3.   Staff Recommendations 

That the Regulatory Performance Committee recommends that the Council:

1.         Note that the Local Government Act 2002 requires bylaws to be reviewed within certain timeframes, and that the Public Places Bylaw 2008 must be reviewed by 19 June 2018.

2.         Note that in order to undertake a review of the bylaw, the Local Government Act 2002 requires a council to make a determination under section 155.

3.         Note that a subsequent report discussing proposed changes to the bylaw, and public consultation on the bylaw, will be presented to the Regulatory Performance Committee and Council in July 2018.

4.         Resolves that a bylaw is the most appropriate way of addressing the perceived problems relating to public places, in accordance with section 155(1) of the Local Government Act 2002, and identified in this report, and that a bylaw is required to provide for reasonable controls to:

a.         Protect health and safety;

b.         Protect the public from nuisance; and

c.         Provide for the regulation of trading in public places.

5.         Agrees that a draft bylaw be prepared for consideration by the Council.

6.         Agrees that the draft bylaw will cover the regulation of:

a.         Commercial activities in public places;

b.         Obstructions in public places; and

c.         Other issues that may arise during further analysis, including street numbering requirements and signage permission.

 

4.   Key Points

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

·        Activity: Strategic Planning and  Policy

·     Level of Service: 17.0.19 Bylaws and regulatory policies are reviewed to meet statutory timeframes and changing needs

4.2       The LGA requires bylaws to be reviewed within certain timeframes. This bylaw must be reviewed no later than 10 years after it was last reviewed.  In order to meet the statutory requirements for review, the bylaw must be reviewed by 19 June 2018.  In order to undertake the review, section 155 of the LGA requires a council to determine that a bylaw is the most appropriate way of addressing the perceived problem(s).

4.3       This report only concerns the review. A subsequent report will recommend any bylaw changes and consultation on those changes. Given the priority of the Long Term Plan consultation process in the first half of 2018, consultation on this bylaw will occur later in the year.

4.4       The problems that existed in 2008 are still present, and a bylaw is needed to continue to provide these controls:

·   requires anyone wanting to undertake a commercial activity or to create an obstruction in a public place to get permission from the Council

·   enables the Council to declare Special Use Areas to prohibit or allow activities in specific areas

·   prevents barbed, razor or electrified wire from being used in fencing in a way that could endanger public safety.

4.5       New issues and problems that have been identified include a requirement for the display of street numbering, and permission for signage in public places.

4.6       A perceived issue with the 2008 bylaw, is that the bylaw provides no regulation of nuisance behaviours occurring in public places. Staff have previously provided advice to Councillors about the limitations of bylaws (such as, no instant fines) to address behavioural issues (in relation to street-based sex work and loitering).

4.7       There are more effective tools available for addressing some anti-social issues, and many behavioural matters are already covered under existing law, in particular, the Summary Offences Act 1981, which the Police enforce. The Council has formed collaborative community work groups to address street-based sex work and street begging, and the associated antisocial behaviour. These working groups will report to the Council separately to the bylaw review.

 

5.   Context/Background

Legal implications and statutory review requirements

5.1       The LGA requires bylaws to be reviewed within certain timeframes.  In order to meet the statutory requirements for review, the Council must determine that the bylaw has been reviewed by 19 June 2018.  

5.2       In order to ‘review’ a bylaw, a council must make a determination under section 155 of the LGA.  Section 155(1) requires a determination that a bylaw is the most appropriate way of addressing the perceived problem(s).  Section 155(2) and 155(3) relate to New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990 (NZBoRA) implications, and whether the bylaw is in the most appropriate form.  These determinations will be appropriately addressed in the July report discussing possible changes and public consultation on the bylaw.

5.3       The Legal Services Unit has advised that the risk of not reviewing a bylaw within its statutory review deadline is that any bylaw made in replacement would be considered a new bylaw (and subject to a subsequent five year review, under s158), rather than being considered an established bylaw (and subject to a subsequent ten year review, under s159). The current bylaw is an established bylaw and subject to the 10 year review.

5.4       The Legal Services Unit has advised that there are no enforcement implications relating to meeting or not meeting the review deadline. Even if the bylaw was not reviewed within the statutory review deadline, the bylaw would still be enforceable for two years after the required review date.  After this time, a bylaw not otherwise revoked would be automatically revoked by section 160A of the LGA. 

5.5       Proposed changes to the bylaw will be covered in a subsequent report, followed by a consultation process.

Bylaw-making powers and enforcement options

5.6       The bylaw is made under section 145 and 146 of the LGA which empowers councils to make bylaws to:

·        Protect the public from nuisance, promote and maintain public health and safety, and minimise the potential for offensive behaviour in public places

·        Regulate a number of activities, including trading in public places

·        Manage, regulate against or protect from damage, misuse or loss, certain structures, infrastructure and land under the control of the territorial authority. 

5.7       The penalty for breaching the bylaw is prosecution and a fine on conviction of up to $20,000. 

5.8       There is no infringement (instant fines) regime available at this time for breaching a bylaw made under the LGA. However, there is a range of other enforcement options and tools available under the LGA (for example, seizing offending equipment, or recovering costs from damage).

5.9       Additionally, enforcement officers have tools under other legislation, such as the Litter Act 1979, the Resource Management Act 1991, and other Council bylaws.

5.10    The bylaw only relates to public places that are owned or managed by the Council (not private property), and does not have any impact on maintenance or repairs to Council property. In general, it is accepted that Council control of public places through a bylaw should not:

·        Apply to matters that are covered adequately by other legislation

·        Deal with matters that unnecessarily restrict individual freedoms

·        Cover matters that are insignificant in effect or magnitude

·        Deal with matters that can be more appropriately dealt with by other tools at the Council’s disposal

·        Be impractical to enforce.

Public Places Bylaw 2008

5.11    The bylaw's purpose is to balance the different needs and preferences of our community in relation to public places, in order to balance private use with public use.  The bylaw:

·   requires anyone wanting to undertake a commercial activity or to create an obstruction in a public place to get permission from the Council

·   enables the Council to declare Special Use Areas to prohibit or allow activities in specific areas, and

·   prevents barbed, razor or electrified wire from being used in fencing in a way that could endanger public safety.

5.12    Commercial activities in public places, where appropriate and managed, can add character, vibrancy and safety to urban areas, and can attract visitors to these locations. Examples of commercial activities include market stalls, events, mobile traders, busking and street collections.

5.13    However, trading and events need to be balanced against the needs of the environment and the impact public and commercial activities may have on private properties adjacent to public areas, as well as to general public access to, and use of, the public areas. Commercial activity is regulated so the Council is aware of who is carrying out commercial activities on Council land and to manage any appropriate conditions for specific activities.

5.14    Some activities are allowed in public places without a written permit from the Council, provided they are carried out in accordance with the Trading and Events in Public Places Policy 2010. Other activities are only allowed in a public place with a written permit from the Council.

5.15    Public places provide many opportunities for the community to use and enjoy the space, however, due to the nature of public land being open to all, the competing interests can create obstructions and/or be a nuisance. Examples of obstructions are sandwich board signs on footpaths and encroachment. Encroachment is a good example of how obstructions can impede others’ use of public places, for example overgrown vegetation, vehicles unloading goods onto the footpath, and building site fences blocking access to footpaths. The Policy on Structures on Roads 2010 is another policy which supports the Bylaw in this area.

5.16    Obstructions in public places need to be managed to ensure access is unimpeded, particularly for pedestrians with impaired mobility. Regulation assists in managing the hazards created by obstructions.

5.17    The issues in public places are complex due to the interaction with other requirements for roads and parks. The general public are often unaware of the distinction and what permissions the Council requires for use of the land (e.g. road reserves, Cathedral Square).

Relationship with Council policies and other bylaws

5.18    When the 2008 bylaw was drafted, much of the prescriptive detail was removed from the bylaw, and this information was put in operational policies.  This allows a greater degree of flexibility, as operational policies can be altered or updated without the need to undertake the full Special Consultative Procedure to amend the bylaw. This means that they are more flexible and can be altered as situations and needs change  (In 2014 amendments were made to the LGA which mean a special consultative procedure is not required to be used for less significant bylaw amendments.)

5.19    The policies cover a range of issues in public places, including footpath extensions for café seating, signboards in public places, structures on roads, and trading activities. Many of these operational policies are due for review over the next two to three years. The review of the Trading and Events in Public Places Policy 2010 will be presented to the Regulatory Performance Committee (and then Council) at the same time as the bylaw.

5.20    The bylaw has some overlaps with the Traffic and Parking Bylaw 2017 and the Parks and Reserves Bylaw 2014. The Public Places Bylaw 2008 is very broad, whereas there is more specific detail related to roads and parks in those respective bylaws.

Other issues in public places that may be explored for a proposed new bylaw

5.21    The review of the bylaw has raised several issues that occur in public places which are not regulated by the current bylaw. The analysis attached to this report identifies the following specific problems and issues that staff recommend should be covered by the bylaw:

·        Street numbering: Requiring the owner/occupier of any building to display the building number in a position visible from the road. This would ensure greater visibility of street numbering on buildings (particularly business addresses) to assist the public, and also for emergency services to locate buildings.

·        Signage: Advertising and signage in public places are a means of providing information to the public. This includes businesses using signage outside their premises so they are more easily locatable. However, there is also a need to ensure that signage does not impede pedestrian or vehicular access, and to manage the proliferation of signage in some areas. When the current bylaw was drafted, it amalgamated versions of the Christchurch City Council and Banks Peninsula District Council public place-related bylaws. At the time, it was decided that some clauses related to signage in the Banks Peninsula District Council bylaw would remain in force.  However, the remaining parts of the Banks Peninsula District Council bylaw were not reviewed by December 2009 (as was required by the LGA), so those parts have now lapsed and have no legal force.

Antisocial and nuisance behaviour in public places

5.22    A perceived issue with the 2008 bylaw, is that the bylaw provides no regulation of some nuisance behaviours occurring in public places – such as begging, loitering or street-based sex work. Staff have previously provided advice to Councillors about the limitations of bylaws to address behavioural issues.  

5.23    The law requires that any bylaw must be intra vires (within the statutory powers that authorise the making of bylaws), certain and reasonable. There is a considerable body of case law on ‘reasonableness’ in the bylaw context. The Courts have noted that in ascertaining the reasonableness of a bylaw, they will look to the surrounding facts, including the nature and condition of the locality in which it is to take effect, the problem it seeks to solve or proposes to remedy, and whether public or private rights are unnecessarily or unjustly affected.

5.24    Section 155 of the LGA requires that a bylaw is shown to be the ‘most appropriate way of addressing the perceived problems’, and part of this consideration is how any bylaw would be enforced, and whether this would be effective or not.

5.25    There is no dispute that these types of nuisance or antisocial behaviours are problematic; however, the tools available to the Council are limited. The LGA does not provide for an infringement (instant fine) regime for bylaws made under section 145 of the LGA. Other bylaws have legislation that enables instant fines, such as the Dog Control Bylaw 2016 and the Alcohol Restrictions in Public Places Bylaw 2009, as they are made under different legislative powers

5.26    For some anti-social issues, there are more effective tools available for addressing behavioural issues, and many behavioural matters are already covered under existing law, in particular, the Summary Offences Act 1981, which the Police enforce. The Summary Offences Act covers: offences against public order; offences against persons or property (such as graffiti); intimidation, obstruction and hindering police; indecency; loitering and trespass; and offences relating to nuisances.   

Street-based sex work

5.27    There is a history of tension between street-based sex workers and residents on and surrounding the northern section of Manchester Street (and now also some issues on Manchester Street, south of Bealey Ave). The impacts are causing stress to the residents (particularly late night noise, offensive and hazardous litter, intimidation, vandalism and trespassing).  Some residents sought a regulatory response from the Council.

5.28    On 2 November 2017, the Council agreed not to develop a bylaw to regulate the location of street-based sex workers. This was largely because the only means to create a bylaw is under section 145 of the Local Government Act, and this does not enable instant fines, give the Police any special enforcement powers, or allow arrests, meaning any bylaw would have been very difficult to enforce.

5.29    Instead, the Council has formed a collaborative community partnership to explore non-regulatory ways of reducing the issues.  The group will meet regularly and report to the Regulatory Performance Committee on a quarterly basis.

Begging

5.30    Street begging is another complex issue that happens in public places. While begging appears to be a relatively low level problem, it can create a significant issue for those affected, including the beggars themselves who often suffer from addiction, mental health problems, and can be unwilling to accept assistance. Existing legislation is sufficient to deal with most begging incidences that cause nuisance to the public, including removal of items that are causing an obstruction to the public place. Aggressive begging or harassing passers-by can be dealt with through other legislation, such as the Summary Offences Act. Beggars typically get charged with disorderly behaviour, threatening behaviour or in more serious cases demanding with menaces.  

5.31    A number of organisations such as the City Mission and Salvation Army extend their community outreach work to beggars, including offering places to shower and eat, and providing information on resources that may be able to assist them. While not all beggars are homeless, the recently adopted Housing First initiative aims to put 100 of the city's long-term homeless people into homes and provide them with additional services and support to increase the chances of them staying off the streets.

5.32    On 15 February 2018, the Safer Christchurch Governance Group held a forum to discuss street begging – the issues, challenges, and possible ways forward. It was agreed that the Council could support the development of multi-stakeholder working group over a six month period to consider actions and generate a partnership to assist the street begging community under the Safer Christchurch umbrella. Staff will report to the Social and Community Development Committee on this working party.

Review of the current bylaw

5.33    The bylaw enables the management of public places in order to balance the various different, and sometimes competing, lawful uses for which public places may be used.  It seeks to provide for reasonable controls to protect health and safety, to protect the public from nuisance and to provide for the regulation of trading in public places.

5.34    The review concludes that a bylaw is still needed to provide these controls and a proposed replacement bylaw should be drafted – the proposed Public Places Bylaw 2018.  In drafting a replacement bylaw, staff will look at known and emerging issues where regulation may be needed and assess whether a bylaw is appropriate, and will be effective.

5.35    Revoking the bylaw would reduce the tools that the Council has to manage the problems identified in the review, and result in a lack of regulatory options to manage the issues. Keeping the existing bylaw is not a reasonably practicable option either, as improvements and alignments with current practice, as well as new issues, have been identified through the review, and it would be inadvisable to maintain the status quo when known improvements have been identified.

5.36    Information and evidence for the clause-by-clause (section 155 analysis) was sought from staff across the Council with operational involvement in parks management, events, urban regeneration, planning and consenting, leasing, data management, traffic operations and asset management, as well as the Christchurch Transport Operations Centre (CTOC).  Staff will present to the Community Boards on the issues and proposed changes during the preparation of a draft replacement bylaw.

 

 

Attachments

No.

Title

Page

a 

Section 155 Report Christchurch City Council Public Places Bylaw 2008

 

 

 

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

Libby Elvidge - Policy Analyst

Ruth Littlewood - Senior Policy Analyst

Judith Cheyne - Associate General Counsel

Approved By

Helen Beaumont - Head of Strategic Policy

Brendan Anstiss - General Manager Strategy and Transformation

 


Council

22 March 2018

 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


Council

22 March 2018

 

Report from Regulatory Performance Committee  – 7 March 2018

 

12.    Review of the Cemeteries Bylaw 2013

Reference:

18/225549

Presenter(s):

Ruth Littlewood, Senior Policy Analyst

 

 

 

1.  Regulatory Performance Committee Recommendation to Council

 

That the Council:

1.         Note that the Local Government Act 2002 requires bylaws to be reviewed within certain timeframes, and that the Cemeteries Bylaw 2013 must be reviewed by 27 June 2018;

2.         Note that in order to undertake a review of the bylaw, the Local Government Act 2002 requires a council to make a determination under section 155; and

3.         Note that a subsequent report discussing proposed changes to the bylaw, and public consultation on the bylaw changes, will be presented to the Regulatory Performance Committee and the Council in July 2018.

4.         Resolves that a bylaw is the most appropriate way of addressing the perceived problems relating to Council controlled cemeteries in accordance with section 155(1) of the Local Government Act 2002, and identified in this report, and that a bylaw is required to regulate activities and conduct taking place in cemeteries.

5.         Agrees that draft bylaw amendments be prepared for consideration by the Council.

 

 

Attachments

No.

Report Title

Page

1

Review of the Cemeteries Bylaw 2013

112

 

No.

Title

Page

a

S155- Review of the Christchurch City Council Cemeteries Bylaw 2013

116

 

 


Council

22 March 2018

 

 

Review of the Cemeteries Bylaw 2013

Reference:

18/87138

Contact:

Ruth Littlewood

Ruth.littlewood@ccc.govt.nz

941-5574

 

 

1.   Purpose and Origin of Report

Purpose of Report

1.1       The purpose of this report is for the Regulatory Performance Committee to report to Council about the first stage of the review of the Cemeteries Bylaw 2013 and to recommend that the Council make certain decisions with regard to the review.

Origin of Report

1.2       The Local Government Act 2002 (LGA) requires bylaws to be reviewed within certain timeframes.  This report is to facilitate compliance with statutory bylaw review requirements. 

2.   Significance

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

2.2       The level of significance was determined having regard to the small number of people affected by the bylaw and the technical nature of the bylaw.

2.3       A community engagement and consultation process will follow the statutory review as outlined in this report.

 

3.   Staff Recommendations 

That the Regulatory Performance Committee recommends that the Council:

1.         Note that the Local Government Act 2002 requires bylaws to be reviewed within certain timeframes, and that the Cemeteries Bylaw 2013 must be reviewed by 27 June 2018;

2.         Note that in order to undertake a review of the bylaw, the Local Government Act 2002 requires a council to make a determination under section 155; and

3.         Note that a subsequent report discussing proposed changes to the bylaw, and public consultation on the bylaw changes, will be presented to the Regulatory Performance Committee and Council in July 2018.

4.         Resolves that a bylaw is the most appropriate way of addressing the perceived problems relating to Council controlled cemeteries in accordance with section 155(1) of the Local Government Act 2002, and identified in this report, and that a bylaw is required to regulate activities and conduct taking place in cemeteries.

5.         Agrees that draft bylaw amendments be prepared for consideration by the Council.

 

 

4.   Key Points

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

·     Activity: Strategic Planning and  Policy

·     Level of Service: 17.0.19 Bylaws and regulatory policies are reviewed to meet statutory timeframes and changing needs

4.2       For a number of years, the Council made bylaws for cemeteries under the Burial and Cremation Act 1964. In 2013 the Council made a new bylaw for cemeteries under both the Burial and Cremation Act 1964 and the Local Government Act 2002(LGA).  The LGA requires new bylaws to be reviewed within 5 years and the Cemeteries Bylaw 2013 must be reviewed by 27 June 2018.  In terms of reviewing a bylaw section 155 of the LGA obliges the council to determine that a bylaw is the most appropriate way of addressing the perceived problem(s).

4.3       This report only concerns the bylaw review. A subsequent report will recommend any bylaw changes and the consultation on those changes. Given the priority of the Long Term Plan consultation process in the first half of 2018, consultation on this (and other bylaws) will occur later in the year.

4.4       In terms of the need for a bylaw, the problems that existed in 2013 are still present and a bylaw is needed to provide controls on activities within the Council’s cemeteries.  The bylaw provides the regulatory framework for the Cemeteries Handbook which sets out in detail the terms and conditions for users of the cemeteries including the conduct of visitors in cemeteries.

4.5       In terms of the current bylaw, staff consider that while it is largely fit for purpose,  some provisions have been identified for further analysis including the current ‘object’ of the bylaw and the use of terms such as ‘eco burial’.

5.   Context/Background

Legal implications and statutory review requirements

5.1       The LGA requires bylaws to be reviewed within certain timeframes.  In order to meet the statutory requirements for review, the Council must determine that the bylaw has been reviewed by 27 June 2018.  

5.2       In reviewing a bylaw, a council makes certain decisions under section 155 of the LGA.  This report addresses only section 155(1) which requires a council to determine that a bylaw is the most appropriate way of addressing the perceived problem(s).  Section 155(2) relates to New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990 (NZBoRA) implications of a bylaw and section 155(3) to whether the bylaw is in the most appropriate form. Staff will prepare a further report for the committee and Council to discuss possible changes to the bylaw, the public consultation process and make recommendations to address these matters.

5.3       The Legal Services Unit has advised that the risk of not reviewing the bylaw within its statutory review deadline is that any bylaw made in replacement may be considered a new bylaw (and subject to a further five year review, under section 158), rather than being considered an established bylaw (and subject to a subsequent ten year review, under section 159).

5.4       The Legal Services Unit has advised that there are no enforcement implications relating to meeting or not meeting the review deadline. Even if the bylaw were not reviewed within the statutory review deadline, the bylaw would still be enforceable for two years after the required review date.  After this time, a bylaw not otherwise revoked would be automatically revoked by section 160A of the LGA. 

5.5       Any proposed changes to the bylaw will be covered in a subsequent report, followed by a consultation process.

Bylaw-making powers and enforcement options

5.6       The bylaw is made under section 146 (b)(v) of the LGA which specifically identifies cemeteries as land and infrastructure for which bylaws can be made and also under section 16 of the Burial and Cremation Act 1964. Both of these acts empower councils to make bylaws for the management and protection of cemeteries.

5.7       The penalty for breaching a bylaw under the LGA is prosecution, and a fine on conviction of up to $20,000. There is no infringement (instant fines) regime available at this time for breaching a bylaw made under the LGA. However, there is a range of other enforcement options and tools available under the LGA (for example, seizing offending equipment, or recovering costs from damage). 

5.8       Staff note that section 16(h) of the Burial and Cremation Act 1964 also allows the Council to prescribe fines for the bylaw breach.  This is an outdated provision and fines under this Act cannot exceed 50 pounds in any case and, where the breach is a continuing one, not exceeding 5 pounds for every day or part of a day during which the breach has continued.

5.9       In addition enforcement officers have tools under other legislation, such as the Litter Act 1979, the Resource Management Act 1991, and other Council bylaws.

Section 155 Report and Options Analysis

5.10    When reviewing a bylaw under the Local Government Act 2002, the Council must comply with the matters in section 155 of that Act which requires the Council to determine whether the bylaw is the still most appropriate way of addressing the perceived problem.  Attachment A to this report contains a section 155 analysis for the review of the bylaw.

5.11    The issue or problem in this particular instance is the appropriate management of activities and works in cemeteries and the Council needs to ask the question in relation to the current cemeteries bylaw – is it still the most appropriate way to address the particular issue?

5.12    Section 77 of the Local Government Act 2002 requires the Council, in the course of a decision making process, to seek to identify and assess all reasonably practicable options for the achievement of the objectives.  The attached section 155 report  identifies three practical options:

·    Revoke the bylaw and rely on voluntary co-operation to ensure compliance with the terms and conditions contained within the Cemeteries Handbook.

·    Replace the 2013 bylaw with a new bylaw.  Staff do not recommend this option as the bylaw on the whole remains fit for purpose.    

·    Amend the current bylaw.  This is the preferred option and staff will present the committee and the Council with draft amendments to the bylaw later this year.

5.13    Staff consider that the 2013 bylaw is generally in an appropriate form.  The current bylaw still works well although it may be desirable to make some minor changes to its clauses.  It allows the Council to set out more detailed rules in the Cemeteries Handbook, and the flexibility to amend the Handbook as and when required.

Conclusion

5.14    The Council’s Cemeteries Bylaw 2013 provides the legal framework for the matters addressed in detail in the Cemeteries Handbook.  The review of the bylaw concludes that the ‘problem’ that existed in 2013 is still present and a bylaw remains the most appropriate tool to manage cemeteries.  In drafting possible amendments to the bylaw, staff will consider any new and emerging issues.

 

 

Attachments

No.

Title

Page

a 

S155- Review of the Christchurch City Council Cemeteries Bylaw 2013

 

 

 

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

Ruth Littlewood - Senior Policy Analyst

Approved By

Helen Beaumont - Head of Strategic Policy

Brendan Anstiss - General Manager Strategy and Transformation

 


Council

22 March 2018

 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


Council

22 March 2018

 

 

13.    Regulatory Performance Committee Minutes - 7 March 2018

Reference:

18/229083

Presenter(s):

Aidan Kimberley, Committee Advisor

 

 

1.   Purpose of Report

The Regulatory Performance Committee held a meeting on 7 March 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 Regulatory Performance Committee meeting held 7 March 2018.

 

 

Attachments

No.

Title

Page

A

Minutes Regulatory Performance Committee - 7 March 2018

122

 

 

Signatories

Author

Aidan Kimberley - Committee and Hearings Advisor

  


Council

22 March 2018

 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


Council

22 March 2018

 

Report from Social, Community Development and Housing Committee  – 28 February 2018

 

14.    Housing First Proposal

Reference:

18/209973

Presenter(s):

Paul Cottam, Principal Advisor Social Policy

 

 

 

1.   Housing Subcommittee Consideration

 

Cate Kearney, Ōtautahi Community Housing Trust and Kay Fletcher, Comcare Charitable Trust joined the table for item 7.

 

2.   Housing Subcommittee Recommendation to Social, Community Development and Housing Committee

 

Subcommittee Decided HSTF/2018/00001

Part A

That the Social, Community Development and Housing Committee:

1.            Supports, in principle, a Christchurch Housing First Partnership to end chronic homelessness in Christchurch by 2020, including:

a.         Acting as Chair of a ‘Champions Group’.

b.         Continuing to assist the community sector led development of a Christchurch initiative.

c.         Providing staff support through its community governance and development work.

         2.         Provides funding of $800,000 over three years to support the Christchurch Housing First Partnership, through a mix of funding sources, including:

 

a.         The Community Resilience Partnership Fund and Council’s Strengthening Communities Fund; and review the funding during an Annual Plan review in two years’ time.

 

 

Secretarial Note:  The proposed cost of implementation of the Housing First Partnership, $800,000 over three years, has not been included within the Council’s current Long Term Plan budget.  It is envisaged that discretionary funding options be considered.

 

 

3.   Social, Community Development and Housing Committee Consideration

 

1.         Jill Hawkey, Executive Director of the Christchurch Methodist Mission joined staff at the table for this item. 

2.         Discussion was held about the amount of funding being suggested for the Housing First Proposal, and particularly in respect to Central Government responsibilities and funding.

 

4.   Social, Community Development and Housing Committee Decisions Under Delegation

 

Part C

Committee Resolved SOC/2018/00002

That the Social, Community Development and Housing Committee:

 

         1.         Acknowledge that funding of $600,000 is required over three years to support the Christchurch Housing First Partnership.

 

Part C

 

Committee Resolved SOC/2018/00003

That the Social, Community Development and Housing Committee:

 

2.         Request staff report to the Social, Community Development and Housing Committee on all Council, and external options, to fund the proposed initiatives.

 

 

5.   Social, Community Development and Housing Committee Recommendation to Council

 

Part A

That the Council:

1.            Supports, in principle, a Christchurch Housing First Partnership to end chronic homelessness in Christchurch by 2020, including that:

a.         Council offers to Chair a ‘Champions Group’.

b.         It continues to assist the community sector led development of a Christchurch initiative.

c.         It provides staff support through its community governance and development work.

 

 

Attachments

No.

Report Title

Page

1

Housing First Proposal

 

 

 

 


Council

22 March 2018

 

 

Housing First Proposal

Reference:

17/1428140

Contact:

Paul Cottam

paul.cottam@ccc.govt.nz

941 8999

 

 

1.   Purpose and Origin of Report

Purpose of Report

1.1       The purpose of this report is to recommend to Council that it support a community led proposal to operate a ‘Housing First’ initiative in Christchurch.

Origin of Report

1.2       This report gives effect to the Social, Community Development and Housing Committee resolution SOC/2017/00016, i.e. to ‘Work with people without homes, and a range of Government and non-government agencies, to develop and implement a Housing First proposal to take to the Ministry of Social Development’.

2.   Significance

2.1       The decision in this report is of low-medium significance in relation to the Christchurch City Council’s Significance and Engagement Policy.  The level of significance is based on:

·        the expected cost to the Council – low impact

·        the effect on the wider community - medium impact

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

 

3.   Staff Recommendations 

That the Housing Subcommittee:

1.         Supports in principle a Christchurch Housing First Partnership to end chronic homelessness in Christchurch by 2020, including:

a.         Acting as Chair of a ‘Champions Group’.

b.         Continuing to assist the community sector led development of a Christchurch initiative

c.         Providing staff support through its community governance and development work

2.         Determine whether it wishes to recommend to Council that it provides funding of up to $600,000 to support the Housing First Partnership initiative.

 

 

4.   Key Points

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

·        Activity: Housing

·     Level of Service: 18.0.11 Support the development of affordable housing

4.2       The following feasible options have been considered:

·     Option 1 – Provide funding support for a ‘Housing First’ community building initiative for Christchurch (preferred option)

·     Option 2 – Do not provide funding support a ‘Housing First’ initiative for Christchurch

4.3       Option Summary - Advantages and Disadvantages (Preferred Option)

·        The advantages of this option include:

·     Addressing homelessness through a proven model

·     Supporting the government and the community sector as part of a combined partnership approach

·        The disadvantages of this option include:

·     Potentially unbudgeted costs to Council.

 

5.   Context/Background

Background – the need for Housing First

5.1       In Christchurch, in early September 2017 there were estimated to be at least 170 men and 20 women without homes and sleeping rough and/or accessing the Christchurch City Mission’s emergency accommodation.  A further 25 women were judged by the Christchurch City Mission as vulnerable to being homeless either because they are known to have been previously homeless or because their circumstances were about to change.  

5.2       The current estimated total is equivalent to the 2013 census data and research carried out by the University of Otago.  Despite ongoing efforts by a range of social service agencies the issue of chronic homelessness in Christchurch is not reducing and is becoming more visible in city streets and some suburbs.  Many of these people have been rehoused many times but need intensive ongoing support to sustain a permanent tenancy along with a more grounded sense of wellbeing in their communities.

5.3       People defined as chronically homeless in Christchurch, are those who have been living on the streets for over one year, having difficulty sustaining a tenancy due to issues such as: mental health, addiction issues, anti-social behaviour or the lack of skills necessary to manage a house. The Christchurch Housing First Partnership is aimed at this particular group of people – the chronic homeless.

5.4       The Council’s Housing Policy (2016) states under the goal of ‘Acute Needs’ that it will ‘work with other agencies in the effective provision of housing and associated support services to address acute housing need and to eliminate homelessness’. 

5.5       At the moment a range of housing services are provided in Christchurch, including:

·        Shelters (places of refuge for people in high housing need, or with compelling reasons to leave previous accommodation)

·        Emergency housing (temporary accommodation while a permanent housing solution found and support provided to set up and sustain new home)

·        Social housing (permanent tenancies for people with low income, mostly via Income Related Rent)

·        Housing facilitation (assistance to people in high housing need to find accommodation)

·        Supported tenancies (specialist community housing providers offering social housing plus supports to niche groups)

·        Home Rescue (operates to save tenancies where a deterioration in mental health/addiction issues has put the tenancy at risk)

·        Sustaining tenancies (a restricted access pilot to assist vulnerable people sustain their tenancy)

 

5.6       Notwithstanding the housing services available in Christchurch the gap that exists is intensive and comprehensive support and services to home people with acute housing needs, many of whom are chronically homeless.

5.7       The Housing First model aims to end the current level of homelessness.  There is also a wider opportunity for Council to work with the new Government given its broader outlook to addressing issues contributing to homelessness, such as opportunities for increased social and affordable housing provision.

Housing First

5.8       Housing First has been widely used in cities across the USA and in Canada and more recently in Hamilton and Auckland, and is in the process of being adopted and supported by Wellington and Tauranga City Councils.  It has a strong evidence base as being an effective practice for ending homelessness, particularly for those who are chronically homeless.  Housing First is a multi-partnership, integrated approach to addressing homelessness, which in a New Zealand context recognises that central and local government are necessary partners in working alongside the community sector to end chronic homelessness. 

5.9       The model is defined as “a recovery-oriented approach to homelessness that involves moving people who experience homelessness into independent and permanent housing as quickly as possible, with no preconditions, and then providing them with additional services and supports as needed”.  Central to Housing First are the key principles of firstly, immediate access to housing with no readiness conditions, and secondly consumer choice and self-determination.

5.10    Research and evaluation results for individuals and families in the United States (US) show between 80 to 95% success in housing retention. The pilot project in Hamilton (The People’s Project, implemented by the Wise Group) indicates that after two years, 96% remain housed.  The Mental Health Commission of Canada evaluated the delivery of Housing First programs across five Canadian cities.  On average across the two-year study period, every $1 invested in Housing First interventions resulted in an average savings of $2.17

5.11    The Government provided funding in Budget 2017 to support the model in New Zealand, including Christchurch.  This is also a recognition that significant resourcing is needed to effectively end homelessness.

5.12    Council’s commitment to Housing First as a community led initiative to address and end chronic homelessness in Christchurch was included in the Briefing to Incoming Minister in December 2017.  “The Council is currently supporting a community led Housing First proposal for Christchurch. The proposal envisages a partnership model under which three community housing providers, supported by other social service agencies, will work with long-term homeless. The proposal is currently with the Ministry of Social Development and, if accepted, the Council will consider funding or resourcing for the proposal as part of the 2018-2028 Long term Plan”

5.13    Existing Christchurch networks and those developed post-quake, such as Te Waipounamu Community Housing Providers Network, provide a solid platform to enable a strong integrated response for people with high housing distress and associated social, health and welfare issues. 

5.14    In terms of a concerted, collaborative approach to ending chronic homelessness by providing both housing and associated support services, the Housing First model is a needed component to complete the above range of housing services that will both end homelessness and ensure people in need get access to services and supports to prevent it reoccurring.  In this way it is a ‘homing the homeless’ approach rather than simply housing them.

 

Christchurch Housing First Partnership Development

5.15    The Christchurch Housing First Partnership has been initiated by Christchurch community housing providers as a means to address the ongoing and seemingly intractable problem of chronic homelessness in Christchurch. The Housing First model was chosen following an investigation of other approaches in 2016. It was selected because of the evidence of its success addressing chronic homelessness in other cities.

5.16    This has coincided with central Government’s adoption of Housing First and its support for the model in Auckland initially, which is now seeking to extend it to Wellington, Tauranga and Christchurch.

5.17    The Christchurch Housing First Partnership includes Christchurch Methodist Mission, Emerge Aotearoa, Comcare, and the Ōtautahi Community Housing Trust.

5.18    The Partnership has developed a proposal to secure funding from the Ministry of Social Development to support a Community Housing Provider led Housing First Partnership to end chronic Homelessness in Christchurch by 2020.

5.19    The goal of the partnership is to end long-term homelessness by 2020, rather than continue to manage it.  The priority will be people who have been homeless for more than a year or have had at least four episodes of homelessness in the last three years.

5.20    A range of government agencies including the New Zealand Police, the Department of Corrections and the Canterbury District Health Board, Community Housing Providers have been consulted and support the proposal and  will participate in a Champions Group which will help guide the initiative.  Social service and community based agencies including the Christchurch City Mission and Te Whare Roimata will work alongside the Community Housing Providers in either the Management Group or Champions Group.

5.21    The Partnership will draw on the skills and expertise of a range of agencies working in a co-ordinated and consistent way to provide intensive and ongoing housing and support to people who are street homeless and are less able to engage with or sustain housing through other housing services because of low tenancy skills, anti-social behaviour, use of substances, and/or chaotic lifestyle.  They are often disaffected from current services and the welfare system and so are invisible to those systems.

5.22    The point of difference with the Housing First is that it prioritises housing the person first and then providing appropriate intensive support and access to services to address attendant issues (e.g. addictions, mental illness) that have led to the person’s history of chronic homelessness. As such it differs from other less successful approaches that have prioritised addressing attendant issues first, and permanent housing after that.   

5.23    The Partnership intends to start the Christchurch Housing First Service as early as possible in 2018.

Christchurch Partnership Operating model

5.24    The model the partners designed is specifically for Christchurch. It draws on the strengths and experiences of the Christchurch community housing and social service providers, heath and government agencies. It is founded on the critical elements of Housing First as outlined above, and learnings from the experience of other centres particularly Auckland and Hamilton.

5.25    The service will provide a single multi-disciplinary team and coordinating resource managed by four agencies within a wider collaborative of housing, social services, health services, government services and the Council. 

5.26    Young people who are homeless will be assessed as to whether the Housing First initiative is appropriate for them or whether a different type of service is more appropriate. The Housing First initiative would work with youth organisations (for example, Youth and Cultural Development) to meet the particular support needs of the young person.

5.27    The target of the service, based on experience in other centres is that over a three-year period, at least 80 per cent of participants will still be in continuous housing (not necessarily in the same house) at 12 months.  They will ideally be attaining their own personal goals, and reporting positive changes in other areas of their lives including reduced health issues, reduced interactions with police and justice, increased social, cultural and whānau connection, and greater sense of tino rangatiratanga/ self-determination.

Champions Group

5.28    The organisational structure of the Housing First initiative will be guided and supported by a Champions Group consisting of senior employees of the following agencies that are in a position to make decisions and commit to process or practice change on behalf of the agency that they are representing.  They will have a deep understanding of the principles and purpose of Housing First and will strive to create opportunities to overcome barriers to success and optimize the outcomes of Housing First.

5.29    Participants in the Champions Group are expected to include:

·        Christchurch City Council (Chair)

·        Ngāi Tahu

·        Government Agencies CDHB, MSD, Police, Corrections, Te Puni Kōkiri, Housing NZ

·        Pegasus Health

·        Representative from support agencies (e.g. Anglican City Mission, Te Whare Roimata)

·        People with lived experience of homelessness

 

Lived Experience Advisory Group

5.30    A lived experience advisory group will bring together those with lived experience of homelessness to help guide the initiative. Opportunities will be provided for people with lived experience to gain training and experience and to undertake either voluntary or paid work as part of the Housing First Team.  This group will also nominate two people to represent them on the Champions group.

Organisational Structure – Management Group

5.31    This will comprise managers from Christchurch Methodist Mission, Comcare, Ōtautahi Community Housing Trust and Emerge Aotearoa to oversee the delivery and operational development of the contract. The Management Group will have a particular role in overseeing the implementation of the initiative and adjusting it as required. It is anticipated that this group will seek to include other partners including Christchurch City Council as appropriate.

5.32    The Christchurch Methodist Mission will be the contract holder for the Housing First initiative and will have overall responsibility for the coordination and management of the initiative. They will be the first point of contact for the MSD.

5.33    Comcare and Emerge will second experienced workers into the multi-disciplinary team. It will also be a housing provider, either through utilising its own stock or leasing properties from the private housing sector, if required.

5.34    Emerge will second experienced workers into the multi-disciplinary team. It will also be a housing provider, either through utilising its own stock or leasing properties from the private housing sector.

5.35    Ōtautahi Community Housing Trust will second experienced workers into the multi-disciplinary team. It will also be a housing provider, either through utilising its own stock or leasing properties from the private housing sector.

Housing First Team

5.36    A multi-disciplinary team of staff will be developed, drawing on secondments from the community housing providers and other specialist agencies. The team will include:

·        Housing First Team Leader 

·        Key Workers

·        Peer or Support Workers

·        Mental Health specialist / key worker

·        Alcohol and Drug specialist/ key worker

·        Cultural specialist with iwi / hapu / whānau connections/key worker

·        Community Engagement worker /key worker

·        Housing Specialist

·        Administration and finance staff

 

5.37    The specialist agencies will provide support including mentoring and training to the whole team, supporting peer workers to access the services required by those they are working with. They will also be keyworkers supporting individuals.  Due to the level of intensity in the work, a ratio of 1 key worker to 10 people/households is considered appropriate.  Two to three peer workers will also be employed.  These positions are for people with lived experience of homelessness.

5.38    Agencies part of this collaboration are all members of the New Zealand Housing First Community of Practice and are committed to fidelity to the model.  This Forum provides the opportunity to share learnings with other Housing First initiatives both nationally and internationally.

5.39    In particular it is intended that they will work with the Auckland Housing First Collective and other Housing First implementations across the country around the co-design approaches that have been used, including data collection, reporting and evaluation frameworks, and with the broader community of practice to  share training, professional development and learnings.  The data collection will also be in line with MSD’s reporting requirements.

Central Government Support

5.40    The Christchurch Partnership has been working closely with MSD to secure funding from the total allocated for the Housing First initiative in Budget 2017.  

5.41    MSD has indicated it will provide funding support to enable the Christchurch Housing First Partnership to home 50 chronically homeless people a year for two years.  The initial proposal for the Christchurch Housing First Partnership was to work with 80 people per year which would have enabled the goal of eliminating chronic homelessness in Christchurch 2020 to be achieved.

5.42    The Christchurch Housing First Partnership has prepared an indicative budget that will cover the costs of housing 50 people in years 1 and 2, with the year 2 budget including ongoing support to those people who were housed in year 1.  MSD has undertaken to review the level, and continuity of funding beyond two years, during the next financial year.

5.43    It is expected that the Minister will wish to announce the Government’s support for the Christchurch initiative in early 2018.

Council’s Role and Contribution

5.44    As noted Council has indicated its support for the community led Housing First initiative as a mean to address and end chronic homelessness in Christchurch.  The Christchurch Housing First initiative is a significant opportunity for Council to directly contribute to ending chronic homelessness.

 

5.45    A Council funding contribution would be additional to what is to be funded by MSD.  A Council contribution would help enable the Initiative to provide a fully wrap around service.  While the core multi-disciplinary team will be funded through MSD, funding is not available for community building initiatives.

5.46    Many people who are street homeless are disconnected from their whanau and geographical homes.  In some cases, people have a hunger to reconnect with their roots, but in many cases they have developed kinship and a sense of connection and belonging with the community on the streets.  One of the risks of the Housing First initiative is that people who have been long-term homeless become isolated and lose their social connections as they are housed.

5.47    Council funding would support the fifth Housing First Principle of ‘ensuring that those who are homeless have opportunities to build social connections and participate in local community initiatives’.  This would include funding of $200,000 per year for three years for a Community Connections / Engagement worker, community building programme and its associated costs.  Council’s contribution would also allow additional people to participate in the programme, with more chronically homeless people to be housed.

5.48    A further contribution to the partnership and as part of its commitment to address acute housing need and to eliminate homelessness, could also be to:

·        Offer to Chair the Champions Group

·        Continue to support the work of the community housing providers, including  the street count of people who are currently homeless

 

5.49    The benefits of eliminating chronic homelessness extend beyond the individuals themselves. Managing the problem through supporting individuals on an ongoing basis is a significant cost of time and resources for community and social service organisations many of whom receive grant funding support from Council. Ending chronic homelessness will reduce this work and cost and enable the supporting organisations to redirect their resources to working with a wider group of people.

5.50    Eliminating chronic homeless also has a wider benefit of the community. Many citizens and visitors feel distressed about the number and presence of homeless people in public places such as parks and retail areas. This impacts on their use of public areas, feeling of safety and perception of Christchurch as a safe and attractive place. While not all people in public places who appear destitute or are begging are actually homeless, a certain number are. Council assisting to eliminate chronic homelessness will help to reduce this incidence.

5.51    Given the alignment of the goals of the Christchurch Housing First Partnership with Council’s goals and community outcomes, and the evidence of success of the Housing First model in eliminating chronic homelessness it is recommended that Council contribute funding to support the Christchurch Housing First initiative in partnership with central government and local community agencies to eliminate chronic homelessness in Christchurch by 2020.

6.   Option 1 – Provide funding support for a Housing First Initiative for Christchurch (preferred)

Option Description

6.1       Support a community-led and implemented ‘Housing First’ initiative in Christchurch.

Significance

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

6.3       Engagement requirements for this level of significance are to work with the Housing First stakeholders to support the implementation of the initiative.

Impact on Mana Whenua

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

Community Views and Preferences

6.5       Community housing providers, social service agencies, and people who are homeless are specifically affected by this option due to the challenges associated with addressing homelessness and the opportunity to effectively address them.  The wider community is also concerned about homelessness and its effects on the City. 

Alignment with Council Plans and Policies

6.6       This option is consistent with Council’s Plans and Policies, e.g. the Council’s Housing Policy

Financial Implications

6.7       Cost of Implementation – $600,000 over three years (see 5.47).

6.8       Maintenance / Ongoing Costs – possible further contribution may be sought by the government if the contract for the initiative is renewed.

6.9       Funding source – currently unbudgeted. If Council included this in the final LTP budget it would either need to agree to increase in rates, fund it from a grants pool, or reduce funding in another area to support this initiative. At this point no potential substitution has been identified.

6.10    This report has not been signed off by Finance and that will be required before the report is considered by the Social and Community Development and Housing Committee.

Legal Implications

6.11    There not a legal context, issue or implication relevant to this decision

6.12    This report has not been reviewed and approved by the Legal Services Unit

Risks and Mitigations  

6.13    There is a risk to the integrity of the Proposal if the Council does not provide some form of funding support.  This may result in a less collaborative approach being taken.

·        Residual risk rating: The residual rating of the risk after the below treatment is implemented will be low.

·        Planned treatment(s) include offering a modest amount of support for the initiative, e.g. providing ongoing staff support for the development and implementation of the initiative.

Implementation

6.14    Implementation dependencies  - none

6.15    Implementation timeframe – three years from 2018

Option Summary - Advantages and Disadvantages

6.16    The advantages of this option include:

·   Addressing homelessness through a proven model.

·   Supporting the government and community sector as part of a combined partnership approach.

6.17    The disadvantages of this option include:

·   Potentially unbudgeted costs to Council depending on how it wishes to provide support.

7.   Option 2 – Do not provide funding support for a Housing First Initiative for Christchurch

Option Description

7.1       Do not provide funding support for a community-led and implemented ‘Housing First’ initiative in Christchurch.

Significance

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

7.3       Engagement requirements for this level of significance are none.

Impact on Mana Whenua

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

Community Views and Preferences

7.5       Community housing providers, social service agencies, and people who are homeless are specifically affected by this option due to the challenges associated with addressing homelessness and the opportunity to effectively address them.  The wider community is also concerned about homelessness and its effects on the City, with recent consultation showing support for increasing the supply of social housing.

Alignment with Council Plans and Policies

7.6       This option is inconsistent with Council’s Plans and Policies, i.e. the Council’s Housing Policy

·        Inconsistency – not supporting a proven model to address homelessness

·        Reason for inconsistency – The Council’s Housing Policy has a goal of working with agencies to eliminate homelessness

·        Amendment necessary – amending the Council’s Housing Policy is not recommended

Financial Implications

7.7       Cost of Implementation - Nil

7.8       Maintenance / Ongoing Costs - Nil

7.9       Funding source – N/A

Legal Implications

7.10    There is not a legal context, issue or implication relevant to this decision

7.11    This report has not been reviewed and approved by the Legal Services Unit

Risks and Mitigations

7.12    There is a risk to the integrity of the initiative if the Council does not support it.  This may result in a less collaborative approach being taken.

·        Residual risk rating: The residual rating of the risk after the below treatment is implemented will be low-medium.

·        Planned treatment(s): N/A

Implementation

7.13    Implementation dependencies  - N/A

7.14    Implementation timeframe – N/A

Option Summary - Advantages and Disadvantages

7.15    The advantages of this option include:

·   No cost to Council

7.16    The disadvantages of this option include:

·   Not addressing homelessness through a proven model

·   Not supporting the government, community and local business sectors in doing so

 

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

Paul Cottam - Principal Advisor Social Policy

Lester Wolfreys - Head of Community Support, Governance and Partnerships

Approved By

Mary Richardson - General Manager Citizen and Community

 


Council

22 March 2018

 

Report from Social, Community Development and Housing Committee  – 28 February 2018

 

15.    Christchurch Housing Initiative

Reference:

18/210030

Presenter(s):

Paul Cottam, Principal Advisor Social Policy

 

 

 

1.  Social, Community Development and Housing Committee Recommendation to Council

 

That the Council:

1.         Support giving effect to the Christchurch Housing Initiative by:

a.         The utilising of a Council Controlled Organisation to act as a ‘Custodian’ of the Initiative’s funds.

b.         The carrying out of a closed tender process with registered Community Housing Providers operating in Christchurch to identify a ‘Provider’ for the Initiative.

c.         Request staff report to the Housing Subcommittee on these steps by 30 April 2018.

 

 

Attachments

No.

Report Title

Page

1

Christchurch Housing Initiative

 

 

 

 


Council

22 March 2018

 

 

Christchurch Housing Initiative

Reference:

17/1514564

Contact:

Paul Cottam

paul.cottam@ccc.govt.nz

941 8999

 

 

1.   Purpose and Origin of Report

Purpose of Report

1.1       The purpose of this report is for the Housing Subcommittee to recommend to Council an organisational structure to operate the Christchurch Housing Initiative, and that a closed tender process be carried out to identify a Provider for the Initiative.

Origin of Report

1.2       This report is being provided to fulfil Council Resolution CNCL/2017/00219 that staff report back to Council on an agreement for a third party to operate the Christchurch Housing Initiative.

2.   Significance

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

·        The level of significance was determined by the overall low impact on the Council of giving effect to the Agreement for Funding

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

 

3.   Staff Recommendations 

That the Housing Subcommittee:

1.         Recommend to the Social, Community Development and Housing Committee that it support giving effect to the Christchurch Housing Initiative by:

a.         The utilising of a Council Controlled Organisation to act as a ‘Custodian’ of the Initiative’s funds.

b.         The carrying out of a closed tender process with registered Community Housing Providers operating in Christchurch to identify a ‘Provider’ for the Initiative.

c.         Report back to Council on these steps by 30 June 2018.

 

4.   Key Points

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

·        Activity: Housing

·     Level of Service: 18.0.11 Support the development of affordable housing

4.2       The following feasible options have been considered:

·     Option 1 – Give effect to the Agreement for Funding for the Christchurch Housing Initiative (preferred option)

·     Option 2 – Do not give effect to the Agreement for Funding for the Christchurch Housing Initiative

4.3       Option Summary - Advantages and Disadvantages (Preferred Option)

·        The advantages of this option include:

·     Council does not have any potential liabilities from being registered on the title to properties purchased by the Initiative’s participating households, yet still has a secured position.

·     The use of a CCO as a ‘Custodian’ of the Initiative’s funds means that the assets of the Initiative are ‘ring fenced’ both from the Initiative's Provider, and from Council as a funder.

·     No income tax implications in relation to gains or losses that may be made on the loans by the Custodian to participating households as the Custodian will be holding the funds and mortgages as a bare trustee with Council being the sole beneficiary.

·     A closed tender process that will adequately capture a sufficient range of responses

·        The disadvantages of this option include:

·     An extra service level agreement (with the Custodian) is needed.

·     A less secured position by not being registered on property titles of the Initiative’s participating households.

·     Provider fees for the administration and management of the Initiative not be able to be claimed for GST purposes.

 

5.   Context/Background

5.1       In August 2017 the Council endorsed an Agreement for Funding between the Crown and the Council for the Christchurch Housing Initiative (the Initiative) to give effect to the Christchurch Housing Accord objective of establishing an affordable home ownership initiative. 

5.2       The Council’s matching funds of $3.07 million with those of the Crown are to be considered as part of the 2018 Long Term Plan.  If the Council does not match or fully match the Crown’s contribution then their (unmatched) funding will need to be returned.

5.3       Using a shared equity model, the aim of the Initiative is to help Christchurch households on modest incomes to buy their own home where they would not normally be able to do so given standard deposit and mortgage servicing requirements.  A structure for the Initiative and a third party provider to operate it is now needed.

Nature of the Initiative’s Shared Equity funding

5.4       It is proposed that Council, via a Council Controlled Organisation (CCO), should hold a registered second mortgage over participant's properties rather than be listed on the title as a part owner.  The mortgage would secure the repayment of the Initiative's contribution, based on the value of the property.

5.5       The advantages of a second mortgage structure are:

·     While the Council would still receive an equity based return, it does not have the potential liabilities arising from being registered on the title to the property, such as rates, insurance and other obligations;

·     Council would not need to sign the first mortgage as an owner and have potential liabilities in relation to that;

·     A second mortgage structure is familiar to, and should be accommodated by, first mortgagees such as registered banks (subject to usual first priority arrangements); and

·     Although more of a social funder rather than an investor, Council would have a secured position to be able to enforce its position if required.

 

Having a ‘Custodian’ to manage the Initiative’s Funds

5.6       Having a ‘Provider’ operate the Initiative was previously recommended to Council.  It is also considered preferable from an efficiency and transparency perspective to transfer the funds to a separate entity, or ‘Custodian’, from the provider to manage and release funding for each shared equity transaction.

5.7       The Initiative’s Provider would manage the delivery of the Initiative for Council and be the point of liaison with the Initiative's participants.  The Provider would be a third party, appointed through a procurement process, and would enter into a provider agreement with the Council.

5.8       The Custodian entity would act as a bare nominee for the Council in the form of a CCO to hold the Crown and Council contributions for the Initiative, and also to hold the second mortgages taken over the properties purchased by participants of the Initiative.

5.9       The Custodian would also be a party to the provider agreement with Council and the Provider, but would have a very limited role. The Custodian would hold the assets of the Initiative and only act on instructions of the Provider/Council.  Service level agreements between Council and the Custodian, and Council and the Provider, would need to be entered into.

5.10    The advantages in having a Custodian act as a bare nominee to hold the Initiative funds and second mortgages in these circumstances (as opposed to the Council or Provider holding these directly) are:

·     Having a separate entity holding the assets of the Initiative provides a point of separation and additional layer of protection, including in the case of the insolvency of the Provider;

·     If the Provider changes for any reason, the assets (cash and second mortgages) of the Initiative do not need to change hands, they stay with the Custodian. This avoids the need to change the name on registered mortgages, if changing the Provider;

·     The assets of the Initiative are ‘ring fenced’ both from the Initiative's Provider, and from the Council as a funder. This has the advantages of keeping those assets separate from other assets, and being able to more easily account for them in a special purpose vehicle;

·     It should be administratively efficient for the Custodian to grant and discharge registered mortgages. This is something that the Custodian can do on the appropriate instructions of the Provider/Council; and

·     The Custodian would have a limited role of only holding the Initiative's assets on behalf of Council.

Tax Issues

5.11    As the Custodian would be holding the funds and mortgages as a bare trustee for the Council and with the Council being the sole beneficiary of the trust, for income tax purposes, the Council would be treated as holding the mortgages and the Custodian would be ignored. For income tax purposes, this means any income or expenses arising from the mortgages will be deemed to be derived or incurred by the Council and not by the Custodian. Since the income would be derived by the Council, and the Council is exempt from income tax, there would be no tax implications in relation to gains or losses that may be made on the loans.

5.12    The supply of financial services is exempt from GST. This means that GST is not charged on the supply of financial services and no input tax can be claimed on the purchase of any goods and services used for supplying financial services.

5.13    The loan and repayment of the loans will meet the definition of financial services in the GST Act. Therefore, the Council would be unable to claim input tax on any expenditure for the purchase of any goods and services used in the initiative.

5.14    The Provider would charge GST on their fees for the administration and management of the initiative. However, since the expenditure would be in relation to the Council making exempt supplies GST on the expenditure would not be able to be claimed.

5.15    Since the repayment of the loans would be a supply of financial services, and the supply of financial services are an exempt supply, no GST would be charged on the repayment of the loans

Process for Identifying a Third Party Provider to Implement the Initiative

5.16    A closed sourcing method is considered preferable given that there are relatively few specialist operators who could effectively carry the work out. 

5.17    There is likely to be interest from several community housing providers from Te Wai Pounamu Community Housing Providers Network (TWPCHPN), whom Council supports, with several having approached the Council already.  Council’s Procurement Policy requirement that all qualified suppliers must have a reasonable opportunity to participate in all Council procurements will still need be satisfied.

5.18    To ensure that a sufficient cross-section of potential Providers is obtained in a closed tender it is recommended that registered New Zealand Community Housing Providers (CHPs) operating in Christchurch are approached (all of which also belong to TWPCHPN).  There are nine such registered CHPs (making up all the registered CHPs operating in Christchurch), although it is not anticipated that all would respond.

6.   Option 1 - Give effect to the Agreement for Funding for the Christchurch Housing Initiative (preferred)

Option Description

6.1       Establish a CCO as a ‘Custodian’ of the Christchurch Housing Initiative’s funds and identify via a closed tender process a Community Housing Provider to operate it.

Significance

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

6.3       Engagement requirements for this level of significance are working with relevant stakeholders to implement the Initiative.

Impact on Mana Whenua

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

Community Views and Preferences

6.5       Community housing providers and potential modest income households are specifically affected by this option due to the possibility of affordable home ownership it presents.  Recent expressions of community views have found overall support for the Council to work with the Government, community groups, the private sector and other agencies and providers to increase the supply of affordable housing.

Alignment with Council Plans and Policies

6.6       This option is  with Council’s Plans and Policies, e.g. the Council’s Housing Policy

Financial Implications

6.7       Cost of Implementation - minor

6.8       Maintenance / Ongoing Costs - minor

6.9       Funding source – The fund was created with funding from the Crown and matching funding from Council which is being considered in the 2018 LTP. The costs of implementation and ongoing operating costs will be met from the fund.

Legal Implications

6.10    Obligations under service level agreements between the Council and the Custodian (i.e. CCO entity), and the Council and the Provider of the Initiative.  The wider contractual obligations are under the Agreement for Funding, e.g. the Crown and the Council funding is only used for the purposes of the Agreement, and obligations to repay the Crown’s funding if the Council does not match the Crown’s funding.

Risks and Mitigations

6.11    Risk of not finding a Provider under a closed tender process.

·        Treatment: broaden the scope of the closed tender.

·        Residual risk rating: The rating of the risk is low.

Implementation

6.12    Implementation dependencies  - utilising a CCO to establish the operational structure for carrying out the Initiative

6.13    Implementation timeframe – 1 March 2018 to 31 May 2018

Option Summary - Advantages and Disadvantages

6.14    The advantages of this option include:

·     Council does not have any potential liabilities arising from being registered on the title to properties purchased by the Initiative’s participating households, yet still has a secured position.

·     The use of a CCO as a ‘Custodian’ of the Initiative’s funds means that the assets of the Initiative are ‘ring fenced’ both from the Initiative's Provider, and from Council as a funder.

·     No tax implications in relation to gains or losses that may be made on the loans by the Custodian to participating households

·     A closed tender process that will adequately capture a sufficient range of responses

6.15    The disadvantages of this option include:

·     An extra service level agreement (with the Custodian) is needed.

·     A less secured position by not being registered on property titles of the Initiative’s participating households.

·     GST on provider fees for the administration and management of the Initiative not be able to be claimed.

7.   Option 2 - Do not give effect to the Agreement for Funding for the Christchurch Housing Initiative

Option Description

7.1       Do not give effect to the Initiative by establishing a CCO as a ‘Custodian’ of the Christchurch Housing Initiative’s funds, and identifying via a closed tender process a Community Housing Provider to operate it.

Significance

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

7.3       Engagement requirements for this level of significance for this option are nil.

Impact on Mana Whenua

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

Community Views and Preferences

7.5       Community housing providers and potential modest income households are specifically affected by this option due to the possibility of affordable home ownership it presents.  Recent expressions of community views have found overall support for the Council to work with the Government, community groups, the private sector and other agencies and providers to increase the supply of affordable housing.

Alignment with Council Plans and Policies

7.6       This option is consistent with Council’s Plans and Policies, notwithstanding that other means to give effect to the Initiative would need to be identified.

Financial Implications

7.7       Cost of Implementation – Nil

7.8       Maintenance / Ongoing Costs – N/A

7.9       Funding source – N/A

Legal Implications

7.10    There is not a legal context, issue or implication relevant to this option.

Risks and Mitigations

7.11    There are no risks posed with this option, notwithstanding that other means to give effect to the Initiative would need to be identified.

Implementation

7.12    Implementation dependencies  - N/A

7.13    Implementation timeframe – N/A

Option Summary - Advantages and Disadvantages

7.14    The advantages of this option include:

·   Not having to set up a CCO as a ‘Custodian’

7.15    The disadvantages of this option include:

·   Not making use of the advantages of a CCO structure

·   Will need to identify other operational structures that may expose Council to greater risk

 

Attachments

There are no attachments to this report.

 

Confirmation of Statutory Compliance

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

(a) This report contains:

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

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

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

 

Signatories

Author

Paul Cottam - Principal Advisor Social Policy

Approved By

Helen Beaumont - Head of Strategic Policy

Brendan Anstiss - General Manager Strategy and Transformation

 


Council

22 March 2018

 

Report from Social, Community Development and Housing Committee  – 28 February 2018

 

16.    Heritage Incentive Grants Six Monthly Report February 2018 and Proposed Operational Guidelines following the Heritage Grant Review Workshop held in November 2017

Reference:

18/210074

Presenter(s):

Brendan Smyth, Team Leader Heritage

 

 

 

1.  Social, Community Development and Housing Committee Recommendation to Council

 

That the Council:

1.         Receive the Heritage Incentive Grant and Conservation Covenant summary report for the period 1 July 2017 to 31 December 2017.

2.         Approve the amended Heritage Policy Operational Guidelines for the Heritage Incentive Grant Scheme (Attachment A);

3.         Approve that grant applications are considered quarterly commencing from 1 July 2018;

4.         Approve the request to allow unallocated sums from the Heritage Incentive Grant Scheme in any one financial year to be carried over into the next financial year.

 

 

Attachments

No.

Report Title

Page

1

Heritage Incentive Grants Six Monthly Report February 2018 and Proposed Operational Guidelines following the Heritage Grant Review Workshop held in November 2017

150

 

No.

Title

Page

a

Heritage Incentive Grants Operational Guidelines - Revisions 2016

156

 

 


Council

22 March 2018

 

 

Heritage Incentive Grants Six Monthly Report February 2018 and Proposed Operational Guidelines following the Heritage Grant Review Workshop held in November 2017

Reference:

17/1454925

Contact:

Brendan Smyth

brendan.smyth@ccc.govt.nz

941 8934

 

 

1.   Purpose and Origin of Report

Purpose of Report

1.1       The purpose of this report is to update the Social, Community Development and Housing Committee on Heritage Incentive Grants and Conservation Covenant Consents approved during the period 1 July 2017 to 31 December 2017 and to advise the Committee of any covenants removed under the delegated authority of the General Manager Strategy and Transformation.

1.2       This report also includes an update following the Heritage Grants Review Workshop held with Councillors on 3 November 2017 and the proposed amended Heritage Policy Operational Guidelines for the Heritage Incentive Grant Scheme.

Origin of Report

1.3       This report is being provided to fulfil the Social, Community Development and Housing Committee reporting requirements.

2.   Significance

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

2.1.1   The level of significance was determined by the summary nature of the report and the minor changes to the Heritage Policy Operational Guidelines for the Heritage Incentive Grant Scheme.

 

3.   Staff Recommendations

That the Social, Community Development and Housing Committee:

1.         Receive the Heritage Incentive Grant and Conservation Covenant summary report for the period 1 July 2017 to 31 December 2017.

2.         Recommend to Council to approve the amended Heritage Policy Operational Guidelines for the Heritage Incentive Grant Scheme (Attachment A);

3.         Recommend to Council to that grant applications are considered quarterly commencing from 1 July 2018;

4.         Recommend to Council to approve the request to allow unallocated sums from the HIG scheme in any one financial year to be carried over into the next financial year.

 

 

 

 

4.   Key Points

Heritage Grants and Conservation Covenants

4.1       Table 1 provides a list of grants and covenants approved between 1 July 2017 and 31 December 2017.

4.2       There were a high number of applications for the Heritage Incentive Grant Fund in the first part of the financial year resulting in the full allocation of the fund in the first six months.

Table 1: Heritage Incentive Grants approved by Committee and/or Council 1July 2017- 31 December2018

Annual Budget for the Heritage Incentive Grant (HIG) fund 2017/18          

$719,000

Commitment from 2016/2017 to Duncan’s Buildings, 143-157 High Street

$76,734

Approved grant to the Canterbury Club, 129 Cambridge Terrace

 $24,552

Approved grant to the dwelling at 28 Dublin Street, Lyttelton

$44,900

Approved grant to the dwelling at 26 Godley Quay, Lyttelton

$28,253

Approved grant to the former Vicarage at 185 Kilmore Street, Christchurch

$204,892

Approved grant to the former Pumphouse, 544 Tuam Street

$200,000

Approved grant to the dwelling at 52 Longfellow Street, Beckenham

$3,690

Approved grant to the dwelling at 64 Opawa Road, Opawa

$135,979

Total Available Funds 2017/2018

$0

 

 

5.   Covenant consents

5.1       Delegated authority is given to the General Manager Strategy and Transformation for the removal of covenants following the demolition of the building as a result of the earthquakes or for the undertaking of minor works.  This delegation has not been used in the last six months. There have been no requests for covenant consent approval from the Committee in this time period.

6.   Grant Work Progress

6.1       It has been a very busy year for the Heritage Incentive Grants scheme with a number of significant projects commencing and others approaching completion. Some grant funded projects have required further extensions of time to allow for their completion, including 88 Chester Street East. However, work is continuing on all of these projects and completion is expected within the extended timeframes granted by the Committee.

6.2       Work is continuing on the Woods Mill repair, upgrade and restoration project (enclosed photos). Substantial progress has been achieved with the installation of new large scale seismic bracing, new concrete floors and a new roof in the original form that was lost in 1960’s modifications.

6.3       The repainting of the former Post and Telegraph Office at the junction of High Street and Tuam Street has been completed and the building has also had missing elements reinstalled including the rooftop flagpoles. The building has also had the original projecting text highlighted at rooftop level.  Further down on High Street work continues on the façade works for the Duncan’s Buildings with steel propping now installed to provide temporary support while the back of the properties are rebuilt.

6.4       The project to renovate the former St Luke’s Vicarage on Kilmore Street has reached a significant milestone with the completion of the new foundation raft and the relocation of the building back to the original position on the site. Work has also progressed well at Tiptree Cottage in Harewood with seismic bracing installed to support the original cob walls.

6.5       In Lyttelton work has been completed on the refurbishment of the Harbour Board Building on Norwich Quay and the owner is seeking new tenants prior to finalising internal finishes. Work has been completed on the residential building at 28 Dublin Street and work is continuing on the refurbishment of 26 Godley Quay with the dwelling being fully underpinned with new foundations.

7.   Grant Review Workshop Summary

7.1       The Heritage Grants Review Workshop was held on the 3 November 2017 with the Social, Community Development and Housing Committee. The Committee agreed that a summary of the points from the workshop and recommendations to amend the Operational Guidelines be reported as part of the next six monthly update. The points are set out below and the amended Operational Guidelines in Attachment A. The Committee noted the value of the six monthly update reports to the Committee on the heritage grants.

7.2       The sections below deal with the issues raised by the Committee at the workshop point-by-point; discusses the issue and identifies the outcome.  Where this requires an amendment to the operational policy and guidelines, an amendment has been included in the documentation for the Committee to consider (Attachment A).

Council-owned heritage buildings

7.3       The Committee asked about the link between Council-owned and privately owned heritage buildings and the grant funding.  Staff noted that Council-owned heritage buildings have funding in Long Term Plans for maintenance, upgrades and modifications.  The Heritage Incentive Grants and Central City Landmark Grants provide funding to privately-owned buildings.  Council, as asset owner, is undertaking a separate process to determine the future use of those buildings where a use is not currently known. Using grant funds for Council-owned buildings was noted as beyond the scope of the workshop and would require further discussion and decisions by Council.

Funding allocation timing

7.4       The Committee suggested that the allocation of grant approvals be done on a quarterly basis rather than on a monthly basis.   This would allow a more comparative approach to grant approvals without having a detrimental effect on prompt decision making and causing undue delay to important repair and upgrade projects.  It is recommended that this approach is instigated from July 2018.   It is noted that this would result in the first consideration of Heritage Incentive Grant applications at the end of the first quarter of 2018/19; should there be a number of applications in the meantime, and this creates any timing issues for potential grant applicants, staff will raise the matter with the Committee. 

Grant funding proportion

7.5       The Committee discussed the current maximum percentage of grant support provided by the funding.  There was agreement that the maximum percentage of grant funding (50%) be retained.  The Committee noted a preference for reports to recommend 30% funding.   No cap to funding amounts was agreed to retain flexibility for use of grant funds.

 

Heritage Grant Funding in the Long Term Plan

7.6       The draft 2018-2028 Long Term Plan (LTP) provides continued funding for Heritage Incentive Grants.   The draft plan does not include funding for Central City Landmark Heritage grants or the Arts Centre grant, although the consultation document seeks the community’s views on the possible continuation of the Central City Landmark Heritage grant.   Should the Central City Landmark Heritage Grant be re-introduced there may be benefits in considering how the two grant funds operate.

7.7       The Committee discussed how funds from the Heritage Incentive Grant fund operate from year to year.  Currently unallocated funds are not available for allocation in the following year.  The number of applications varies from year to year which results in under- or over-allocation of funds.  The Committee identified the preference would be for unallocated grant funds to be carried into the following year. 

Funding Mechanisms and Sources

7.8       The Committee discussed whether grants or loans was the most effective mechanism.  Grants enable Council to contribute to and support worthwhile heritage projects without adopting any risks or liabilities. Should the grants become loans or equity taken in buildings then Council would have to manage the associated liabilities, responsibilities and risks of ownership. A report prepared for Council in 2012 considered these issues including legal advice, was distributed to all Councillors who attended the workshop. Given the advice supplied, the Committee confirmed that the current arrangement of grants rather than loans was appropriate.

7.9       The Committee noted that other funding sources are available for heritage building repair and maintenance.  The discussion identified that other funding sources often have very specific requirements and eligibility criteria.  Council staff were asked to continue to promote other non-Council funding sources to grant applicants as appropriate.  Funding for heritage buildings is a matter the Committee identified as a topic to discuss with Central Government.  

Use of Insurance Funds

7.10    The Committee discussed the situation where the sale of damaged heritage buildings on an ‘as is where is’ basis may result in a loss of insurance funds from any repair or restoration project.  A new owner willing to take on a complex heritage restoration project, under the current policy and guidelines, is eligible for grant support.  A willingness by a landowner to invest in a repair and restoration project is more likely to drive to a better outcome.   The Committee agreed that the eligibility should not change and the grant funds should continue to support purchasers of heritage buildings including those who purchase 'as is where is'.  One measure of success of the grant scheme is the legacy of restored heritage buildings available to future generations; the work completed to the building as a result of a grant being awarded; and the additional funds incentivised into the project despite what are often significant project risks.

Compliance with Building Code and regulatory building policy

7.11    The grant scheme continues to support adaptive reuse of heritage buildings including Building Code compliance to ensure an ongoing and viable economic use of the building. Staff advice into the regulatory process is likely to ensure that any required changes to heritage buildings are designed and implemented with minimal loss of heritage fabric and heritage values. This promotes best practice conservation in line with the International Council on Monuments and Sites (ICOMOS) Charter.

Access and Promotion

7.12    The Committee raised the notion that in response to receiving public funds for heritage buildings, owners would ideally enable public access.  Legal Services Unit staff provided advice relating to conservation covenants.  It was noted that public access can be guaranteed from within a conservation covenant by modifying Clause 8 (or the equivalent relevant clause). This clause is not fixed and can be amended to suit particular building requirements. It was noted that covenants are legal agreements between both signatory parties and are independent of any Resource Management Act control. The parties to the agreement would need to consider their health and safety and other legal liabilities and the impact on their insurance policies of any agreement they sign. Public visibility of grant funded projects can also be ensured through the covenant clauses. Recent examples are the open railings to the site perimeter of St Michael and All Angels and a limitation on new structures in front of the Vicarage at St Luke's. A further example is the covenant clause that ensures the retention as open space of the former bowling green in front of Woods Mill. All of these measures help to ensure that these buildings remain prominent ‘landmark’ features in the public realm. 

7.13    Councillor involvement in the promotion and celebrations of completed grant funded projects was discussed and it was noted that this provides an opportunity for wider promotion of the value of heritage to the city.  The Committee noted to staff that they wish to take a more active role in these events.  Staff will work to facilitate this as grant-funded projects are completed over the coming year(s).

7.14    The Council’s showcase Heritage Week event was noted as a further opportunity to promote the value of heritage to the city.  The Committee discussed that mechanisms such as signage on site fences and scaffolding are also opportunities – recognising that there are regulatory requirements under the District Plan to consider.  While this can be included in the ‘New Direction for Heritage’ work, the temporary use of legal road incentive for creative hoardings also provides some opportunity. 

Site Visits

7.15    The Committee were in agreement that site visits provide an invaluable insight to a grant application, particularly if combined with a meeting with the owner(s). Staff will continue to facilitate these visits and work to programme them prior to application consideration, where possible.

Funding Intangible Heritage

7.16    It was agreed that intangible heritage funding would be better funded through other grant schemes or mechanisms as it would present difficulties if it was included within the current Heritage Policy and Operational Guidelines of the Heritage Incentive Grant Scheme.

 

 

Attachments

No.

Title

Page

a 

Heritage Incentive Grants Operational Guidelines - Revisions 2016

 

 

 

Confirmation of Statutory Compliance

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

(a) This report contains:

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

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

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

 

Signatories

Author

Brendan Smyth - Team Leader Heritage

Approved By

Carolyn Ingles - Head of Urban Regeneration, Design and Heritage

Brendan Anstiss - General Manager Strategy and Transformation

 


Council

22 March 2018

 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


Council

22 March 2018

 

 

17.    Social, Community Development and Housing Committee Minutes - 28 February 2018

Reference:

18/229511

Presenter(s):

Liz Ryley, Committee Advisor

 

 

1.   Purpose of Report

The Social, Community Development and Housing Committee held a meeting on 28 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 Social, Community Development and Housing Committee meeting held 28 February 2018.

 

 

Attachments

No.

Title

Page

A

Minutes Social, Community Development and Housing Committee - 28 February 2018

166

 

 

Signatories

Author

Liz Ryley - Committee Advisor

  


Council

22 March 2018

 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


Council

22 March 2018

 

Report from Finance and Performance Committee  – 28 February 2018

 

18.    Regenerate Christchurch - Half year performance to 31 December 2017

Reference:

18/201187

Presenter(s):

Linda Gibb, Performance Monitoring Advisor

 

 

 

1.  Staff and Finance and Performance Committee Recommendation to Council

 

That the Council:

1.         Notes Regenerate Christchurch’s performance for the month of December 2017, and year to date to 31 December 2017; and

2.         Notes that Council staff and Regenerate Christchurch are working towards agreeing a process that is clear on engagement requirements between Regenerate Christchurch, staff and shareholders in order to progress the Cathedral Square and Surrounds’ strategy to completion.

 

 

Attachments

No.

Report Title

Page

1

Regenerate Christchurch - Half year performance to 31 December 2017

174

 

No.

Title

Page

a

Regenerate Christchurch DPMC/CCC Quarterly Performance Report to December 2017

177

b

Regenerate Christchurch Quarterly Report ending 31 December 2017

184

 

 


Council

22 March 2018

 

 

Regenerate Christchurch - Half year performance to 31 December 2017

Reference:

18/57043

Contact:

Linda Gibb

Linda.Gibb@ccc.govt.nz

941 6762

 

 

1.   Purpose and Origin of Report

Purpose of Report

1.1       The purpose of this report is for the Finance and Performance Committee to recommend that Council notes Regenerate Christchurch’s performance for the half year to 31 December 2017.

Origin of Report

1.2       The attached report has been prepared jointly with the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet, based on quarterly performance reporting from Regenerate Christchurch.

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.  The level of significance was determined by taking into account the impact of the noting decisions sought on the community.

 

3.   Staff Recommendations

That the Finance and Performance Committee recommends the Council:

1.         Notes Regenerate Christchurch’s performance for the month of December 2017, and year to date to 31 December 2017; and

2.         Notes that Council staff and Regenerate Christchurch are working towards agreeing a process that is clear on engagement requirements between Regenerate Christchurch, staff and shareholders in order to progress the Cathedral Square and Surrounds’ strategy to completion.

 

4.   Key Points

4.1       Regenerate Christchurch has submitted its quarterly performance report for December, which includes information for the half year to 31 December 2017.  The report is at Attachment A.

4.2       Staff from the Council and the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet (DPMC) have prepared a joint report to shareholders assessing Regenerate Christchurch’s performance against its 2017/18 Statement of Performance Expectations’ targets.  This report is at Attachment B

4.3       At the time Regenerate Christchurch finalised its December quarterly report, it had not finalised its December accounts, and therefore its quarterly report provides financial information only to November 2017.  Regenerate Christchurch subsequently provided updated financial information for December which is provided in the Council and DPMC report. 

4.4       The Council and DPMC report notes the following key point:

Project delays

4.4.1   Delays in delivery are prevalent across Regenerate Christchurch’s work programme, due in part to Regenerate Christchurch’s preference for collaboration between its staff and Council staff after it has completed its draft advice.  This has led to time delays while Regenerate Christchurch revises its work to take Council feedback into account.  Council staff are continuing to work towards agreeing on a collaborative process with Regeneration Christchurch in order to achieve completion of the projects as soon as possible.

4.4.2   As a result of the problems experienced to date, Regenerate Christchurch has revised its timeframe for presenting the following:

·   Ōtākaro Avon River Corridor – Regenerate Christchurch has advised that it expects to report to its board with a short-list of options in March 2018, followed by engagement with shareholders (SPE expectations were for delivery of the project between July and September 2017); and

·   Cathedral Square and Surrounds – now projected to be delivered in March 2018 (SPE expectations were for delivery of the project by December 2017).  Council staff consider that this date is at risk given that engagement with shareholders has yet to commence, followed by any review and rework that may be required.

4.4.3   There are a number of reasons that may have contributed to the ongoing delays.  Regenerate Christchurch advises that the change of Government late last year and more recently the appointment of the new Chair to the board have impeded its ability to stay on track with its projects.  It is important that the process established to conclude the Cathedral Square and Surrounds’ Strategy is clear on engagement requirements with staff and shareholders. 

New Brighton

4.4.4   A budget reforecast has been undertaken by Regenerate Christchurch based on re-scheduling within the work programme to take account of delays that have, and continue to occur.  The reforecast has yet to be finalised but has been provided to staff as indicative.  It shows a major re-allocation of existing resources in the current year from delivery of regeneration outputs in New Brighton, to delivery for South Shore and South New Brighton and central city (including Cathedral Square and surrounds).  The expenditure and funding for New Brighton is now expected to be in 2018/19.

4.4.5   We have raised questions with Regenerate Christchurch about its activities in New Brighton which underpin the transfer of budgeted resources from 2017/18 to 2018/19.  We have received advice from Regenerate Christchurch that its board has directed the organisation to “ensure all resources and efforts are focused on the priority areas of the Ōtākaro Avon River Corridor and Cathedral Square & Surrounds / Central City at this time, and to ensure the involvement of Regenerate Christchurch in relation to New Brighton is limited to a light touch of occasional design urban design advice / support only”.

 

 

 

 

Attachments

No.

Title

Page

a 

Regenerate Christchurch DPMC/CCC Quarterly Performance Report to December 2017

 

b 

Regenerate Christchurch Quarterly Report ending 31 December 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

Linda Gibb - Performance Monitoring Advisor

Approved By

Mushe Shoko - Manager External Reporting & Governance

Diane Brandish - Head of Financial Management

Karleen Edwards - Chief Executive

 


Council

22 March 2018

 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


Council

22 March 2018

 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


Council

22 March 2018

 

Report from Finance and Performance Committee  – 28 February 2018

 

19.    Development Christchurch Ltd - Status Report December 2017 - February 2018

Reference:

18/201213

Presenter(s):

Rob Hall, Development Christchurch Limited

 

 

 

1.  Staff and Finance and Performance Committee Recommendation to Council

 

That the Council:

1.         Receives Development Christchurch Ltd’s Status Report for the period December 2017 - February 2018.

 

 

Attachments

No.

Report Title

Page

1

Development Christchurch Ltd - Status Report December 2017 - February 2018

188

 

No.

Title

Page

a

Development Christchurch Ltd Status Report - December 2017 - February 2018

190

 

 


Council

22 March 2018

 

 

Development Christchurch Ltd - Status Report December 2017 - February 2018

Reference:

18/130720

Presenter(s):

Rob Hall, Chief Executive, Development Christchurch Ltd

 

 

1.   Purpose and Origin of Report

Purpose of Report

1.1       The purpose of this report is for the Finance and Performance Committee to recommend that the Council notes Development Christchurch Ltd’s (DCL) Status Report for December 2017, and January and February 2018.

Origin of Report

1.2       This report has been prepared to accompany DCL’s quarterly report on its activities.

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.  The level of significance was determined by taking into account the likely impact of the noting decisions on the community.

 

3.   Staff Recommendations

That the Finance and Performance Committee recommends that the Council:

1.         Notes Development Christchurch Ltd’s Status Report for the period December 2017 - February 2018.

 

4.   Key Points

4.1       DCL’s Status Report for December 2017 – February 2018 is at Attachment A

4.2       We note the ‘creating momentum fund’ for New Brighton is now closed, and the activities that were funded from it have now ceased.  While many of the initiatives were one-off events, the Carnaby Lane Refurbishment Project has welcomed a small amount of private sector activity in this space, leveraging off DCL’s funding.

 

Attachments

No.

Title

Page

a 

Development Christchurch Ltd Status Report - December 2017 - February 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

Mushe Shoko - Manager External Reporting & Governance

Carol Bellette - General Manager Finance and Commercial (CFO)

 


PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator

 


 

20.    Finance and Performance Committee Minutes - 28 February 2018

Reference:

18/201457

Presenter(s):

Aidan Kimberley, Committee Advisor

 

 

1.   Purpose of Report

The Finance and Performance Committee held a meeting on 28 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 Finance and Performance Committee meeting held 28 February 2018.

 

 

Attachments

No.

Title

Page

A

Minutes Finance and Performance Committee - 28 February 2018

194

 

 

Signatories

Author

Aidan Kimberley - Committee and Hearings Advisor

  


Council

22 March 2018

 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


Council

22 March 2018

 

 

21.    Infrastructure, Transport and Environment Committee Minutes - 7 March 2018

Reference:

18/231333

Presenter(s):

Samantha Kelly – Committee and Hearings Advisor

 

 

1.   Purpose of Report

The Infrastructure, Transport and Environment Committee held a meeting on 7 March 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 7 March 2018.

 

 

Attachments

No.

Title

Page

A

Minutes Infrastructure, Transport and Environment Committee - 7 March 2018

200

 

 

Signatories

Author

Samantha Kelly - Committee and Hearings Advisor

  


Council

22 March 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


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

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 March 2018

 

Report from Strategic Capability Committee  – 22 November 2017

 

22.    Policy Register Review Results

Reference:

17/1509825

Contact:

Nicole Randall

Nicole.randall@ccc.govt.nz

941 6366

 

 

 

 

This report was left to lie on the table at the Council meeting of 20 December 2017, to enable a Councillor workshop to be held prior to consideration. 

 

A Councillor workshop on the policy register review and forward work programme was held on 6 March.  Drop in sessions for Councillors to discuss specific policies will be held later in March, prior to this Council meeting

 

1.  Strategic Capability Committee Consideration

 

The Committee made the following changes to the recommendations:

·    Adding clauses 3 and 4 to explicitly approve the removals and reclassifications set out in Attachments B and C, with the exception that the Capital Endowment Fund Policy 2001 should remain on the website.

·    Clauses agreeing that stage two of the policy register review will be coordinated with the three year Council Strategy and Policy forward work programme to be approved by the Council during the development of the 2018-28 Long Term Plan, and that a workshop be held with the Council to discuss the proposed consolidations, policy reviews and documents to be contained, in advance of the Council approving the forward work programme.

·    A note that the Council will retain a record of revoked policies and policies removed from the website in line with the requirements of the Public Records Act 2005.

 

2.  Strategic Capability Committee Recommendation to Council

 

Part A

That the Strategic Capability Committee recommends That the Council:

1.         Notes the review of the Council’s policy register which will result in the updating of the register from 250 documents to 203 documents. 

2.         Approves the revocation of the following policies and their removal from the policy register:

a.         Bus passenger shelters and seats 1993

b.         Bus stop locations 1999

c.         Community van policy 1990

d.         Kerb and channel renewal 2003

e.         Kerbside parking limit lines policy 2010

f.          Notification of information added to LIMs policy 2004

g.         Out of school programmes policy 1999

h.         Partnerships with the private sector 2009

i.          Pensioner housing 2001

j.          Traffic calming policy 1999

k.         Traffic safety works on school grounds 1997

l.          Tree trimming (private planting) 1994

m.       Use of public streets by private businesses 2003

n.         Vehicle entrance feature paving treatment 1990.

3.         Approves the removal from the Council website of the policies as set out in Attachment B to the report, excluding the Capital Endowment Fund Policy 2001 which is to be retained.

4.         Approve the policy reclassifications as set out in Attachment C to the report.

5.         Agrees that stage two of the Policy Register review be coordinated with the three year Council Strategy and Policy forward work programme that will be approved by the Council during the development of the 2018-28 Long Term Plan.

6.         Note that a workshop to discuss the proposed consolidations, policy reviews and documents to be retained has been held.

7.         Note that documents removed from the Council website, including revoked policies, will be saved in the Council’s record management system as superseded documents to enable future referencing as required.  This will enable compliance with the Public Records Act 2005 requirements to maintain records.

 

Secretarial Note:  Since previous consideration of this report a workshop incorporating discussion the policy register has been held.  Committee recommendation 6. above has been amended to reflect that the Committee request for the workshop has been fulfilled.

 

 

Attachments

No.

Report Title

Page

1

Policy Register Review Results

243

 

There are no attachments for this report.

 


Council

22 March 2018

 

 

Policy Register Review Results

Reference:

17/444160

Contact:

Nicole Randall

nicole.randall@ccc.govt.nz

941 6366

 

 

1.   Purpose and Origin of Report

Purpose of Report

1.1       This report is for the Strategic Capability Committee to recommend to the Council that it note the review of the Council’s policy register and approve the revocation of 14 policies.  

Origin of Report

1.2       This report is staff generated.  The policy register is on the Council’s public website and contains 250 Council approved policies, strategies, plans and bylaws.

2.   Significance

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

2.1.1   The level of significance was determined by the low level of cost and risk to the Council, ratepayers and the wider community of carrying out the decision.

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

 

3.   Staff Recommendations 

That the Strategic Capability Committee recommends that the Council:

1.         Notes the review of the Council’s policy register which will result in the updating of the register from 250 documents to 202 documents. 

2.         Approves the revocation of the following policies and their removal from the policy register:

a.         Bus passenger shelters and seats 1993

b.         Bus stop locations 1999

c.         Community van policy 1990

d.         Kerb and channel renewal 2003

e.         Kerbside parking limit lines policy 2010

f.          Notification of information added to LIMs policy 2004

g.         Out of school programmes policy 1999

h.         Partnerships with the private sector 2009

i.          Pensioner housing 2001

j.          Traffic calming policy 1999

k.         Traffic safety works on school grounds 1997

l.          Tree trimming (private planting) 1994

m.       Use of public streets by private businesses 2003

n.         Vehicle entrance feature paving treatment 1990.

 

4.   Key Points

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

4.1.1   Activity: Strategic Policy and Planning

4.2       The following feasible options have been considered:

·     Option 1 – The Council notes the results of the policy register review and approves the revocation of 14 policies.

4.3       Option Summary - Advantages and Disadvantages (Preferred Option)

4.3.1   The advantages of this option include:

·     Reduces confusion about whether a document is current or has been superseded by another document on the register.

·     Reduces the number of documents on the register, making it easier for people to locate the current document/s relevant to a certain topic.

·     Places operational matters into internal policies or procedures where they can be more easily updated.

 

 

5.   Context/Background

Council register of policies, strategies, plans and bylaws

5.1       The Council’s public website includes a register of Council approved policies, strategies, plans and bylaws (the policy register).  The purpose of the register is to provide a one-stop location for the general community, elected members and staff to find Council approved documents.  The register is not required by law.  It is an administrative tool that supports transparent Council decision making.  

5.2       The policy register contains 250 documents.  Some of these are no longer in use as they are obsolete and/or have been superseded by more recent documents on the same topic.  Their inclusion on the register makes it difficult to identify which documents are current and how they relate to each other.    

5.3       A prior review of the policy register, containing 290 documents, was conducted between 2007 and 2009.  This resulted in the revocation of 36 documents in 2007 and a further 25 in 2009.  

2017 Register Review

5.4       Council staff have reviewed the register to identify which documents were current, which need review and which may be removed.

5.5       The review identified that of the 250 documents, 202 are current and the balance of 48 may be removed from the website for one of the following reasons:

5.5.1   They concern operational matters more appropriately contained in internal organisational policies or procedures – for example the Bus Passenger Shelters and Seats Policy 1993; or

5.5.2   They concern a role the Council no longer performs or are obsolete – for example the City Scene and Rates Insert policy concerns a publication, the City Scene, which no longer exists.; or

5.5.3   They have been superseded by a more recently approved Council policy, strategy, plan or bylaw.

5.6       The 14 documents that fall into the category of 5.5.1 above require formal revocation by the Council.  This is to ensure there is no uncertainty as to which document applies – the Council resolution or a management approved document.  Attachment A describes these 14 documents and outlines the reasons for revoking them.

5.7       The 34 documents that have been superseded or are obsolete (5.5.2 and 5.5.3 above) no longer have any effect and may be removed from the register without formal revocation.  Attachment B describes those documents and the reasons for removing them.

5.8       Of the 202 documents remaining on the register, 109 can remain as they are without change.  Of the other 93 documents:

5.8.1   22 are under review now;

5.8.2   54 are proposed to be reviewed over the next three years;  

5.8.3   7 are proposed to be consolidated into another Council approved document on a similar topic; and  

5.8.4   10 will be retained on the website and reclassified to reflect their correct status as a research or other supporting document. 

5.9       Staff will seek the Council’s approval for the outcomes of the reviews and the consolidations noted above.  These reviews and consolidations should further reduce the number of documents on the policy register.  Attachment C lists the 93 documents to be reviewed, consolidated or reclassified.

5.10    Attachment D lists the 109 documents to remain on the register unchanged.

Further streamlining of the register

5.11    The review of the register is stage one of a wider programme to rationalise the number of external policies, strategies and plans.  Stage two is the development of a coherent and streamlined structure for the Council’s external strategy and policy documents. 

5.12    The new structure will propose fewer, higher-level strategies with a number of action plans addressing a specific set of issues under those strategies.  Staff are developing the structure for Council consideration and approval in 2018.

5.13    To help prevent documents remaining on the policy register beyond their relevancy, all new policies, strategies and plans will contain a review date.   These dates will be placed on a central register and monitored.  

5.14    The Council has an established bylaw review programme which meets legislative requirements for bylaw reviews.

 


 

6.   Option 1 – The Council notes the review results and approves the revocation of 14 policies

Option Description

6.1       Under this option the Council notes the results of the review of the policy register and approves the revocation of the 14 policies listed in Attachment A.   These policies concern operational matters more appropriately contained in internal organisational policies or procedures – for example the Bus Passenger Shelters and Seats Policy 1993.

6.2       As a result of the 14 revocations and the removal of another superseded or obsolete 34 documents, the number of documents on the register will reduce from 250 to 202.

6.3       Documents removed from the website, including revoked policies, will be saved in the Council’s record management system as superseded documents to enable future referencing as required.  This will enable compliance with the Public Records Act 2005 requirements to maintain records.

6.4       A record of the 2017 policy register review will be kept in the Council’s record management system.  This will enable people to identify why a document was removed from the register.

Significance

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

6.6       Engagement requirements for this level of significance are consultation with Council staff. 

Impact on Mana Whenua

6.7       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

6.8       The Christchurch community is not specifically affected by this option.

Alignment with Council Plans and Policies

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

Financial Implications

6.10    Cost of Implementation – not applicable. 

6.11    Maintenance / Ongoing Costs – not applicable.

6.12    Funding source – not applicable.

Legal Implications

6.13    The removal and revocation of documents from the policy register supports the obligation of local authorities to carry out their duties and make decisions in a transparent manner.

Risks and Mitigations    

6.14    There is a low risk that a document is removed or revoked that is current.

6.15    The review has been the subject of consultation across the Council organisation including the Legal Services Unit.  As such the residual risk is low.

Implementation

6.16    Implementation dependencies - none.

6.17    Implementation timeframe – implementation can occur immediately following the Council’s decision.

Option Summary - Advantages and Disadvantages

6.18    The advantages of this option include:

·   Reduces confusion about whether a document is current or has been superseded by another document on the register.

·   Reduces the number of documents on the register, making it easier for people to locate the current document/s relevant to a certain topic.

·   Places operational matters into internal policies and procedures where they may be more easily updated.

 

Attachments

No.

Title

Page

a 

Proposed Revocations

 

b 

Remove from the website

 

c 

Consolidations, Reclassifications and Reviews

 

d 

Retain As Is

 

 

 

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

Nicole Randall - Principal Advisor Policy

Approved By

Helen Beaumont - Head of Strategic Policy

Brendan Anstiss - General Manager Strategy and Transformation

 


Council

22 March 2018

 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


Council

22 March 2018

 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


Council

22 March 2018

 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


Council

22 March 2018

 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


Council

22 March 2018

 

 

23.    Linwood-Woolston Pool: Community Board Delegations

Reference:

18/179576

Presenter(s):

Kent Summerfield – Senior Project Manager

 

 

1.   Purpose and Origin of Report

Purpose of Report

1.1       The purpose of this report is for the Council to approve delegation of certain project decisions regarding the Linwood-Woolston Pool to the Linwood-Central-Heathcote Community Board.

Origin of Report

1.2       This report is being provided to fulfil Council resolution CNCL/2017/00347.

1.3       Under that resolution (passed at the meeting of 7 December 2017), it was resolved that the Council:

1.         Delegate community consultation on a site and initial scope of the proposed Linwood/Woolston Pool to the Linwood Central Heathcote Community Board, noting that:

a)     Community consultation is based upon the parameters of the project detailed in the 2015-25 Long Term Plan as amended by the 2017/18 Annual Plan.

b)     Council’s Engagement Team will be available to advise any statutory or best practice requirements of the consultation.

2.         Request staff to report back early in 2018 on the elements of the decision making that can be delegated to the Linwood-Central-Heathcote Community Board.

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 in accordance with the Council’s significance and engagement policy, including a review of the numbers of affected people, the positive social and cultural impacts, the benefits and opportunities created and the related capital expenditure.

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

 

3.   Staff Recommendations 

That the Council:

1.         Approve delegating to the Linwood-Central-Heathcote Community Board:

a.         The decision on site selection for the new Linwood-Woolston Pool.

b.         The decision on a scope and final Concept Design for the new Linwood-Woolston Pool.

2.         Resolves that both decisions in recommendation 1 must be consistent with Council policy; and capital and operational provision for the Linwood/Woolston Pool within the 2015-2025 Long Term Plan as updated by the 2018-2028 Long Term Plan.


 

3.         Notes that:

a.         The specific financial delegation relating to executing the main build contract for the Linwood-Woolston Pool project remains with Council.

b.         Should the final preferred site be subject to specific decision making processes that are unknown at this time then a further report will be brought back to Council covering proposed delegations to the Linwood-Central-Heathcote Community Board.

c.         The opening ceremony and welcoming the community to the new facility will be undertaken by the Linwood-Central-Heathcote Community Board.

 

4.   Key Points

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

4.1.1   Activity: Recreation and Sports Facilities

a)     Level of Service: 7.0.1 Provide residents access to fit-for-purpose recreation and sporting facilities

4.2       The following feasible options have been considered:

a)     Option 1 – Delegate decisions on site selection, scope and Concept Design for the Linwood-Woolston Pool to the Linwood-Central-Heathcote Community Board.

b)     Option 2 – Retain decisions on site selection and/or Concept Design for the Linwood-Woolston Pool at Council level.

4.3       Option Summary - Advantages and Disadvantages (Preferred Option)

4.3.1   The advantages of this option include:

a)     Delegating these decisions to the Community Board would promote local decision making and encourage citizens to take an active role in steering projects destined for their neighbourhoods.

b)     Whilst relatively large in scale, the Linwood-Woolston Pool is a unique community based project, and the Linwood-Central-Heathcote Community Board is well placed to understand the requirements of the distinct local cultural mix and ensure it is represented in the site selection and Concept Design.

4.3.2   The disadvantages of this option include:

a)     A risk exists that the Community Board may be placed in a difficult position if certain community expectations do not align with project constraints (e.g. funding budgets, operational best practice and scope).

 

5.   Context/Background

5.1       Council have included funding allowances for the development of a Linwood-Woolston Pool within the 2015-2025 Long Term Plan as updated by the 2017-2018 Annual Plan.

5.2       Staff and supporting consultants have conducted an investigation of five sites identified as potential locations for the Linwood-Woolston Pool facility: 180 Smith Street, 141 Smith Street, 502 Ferry Road, 170 Buckley’s Road and 252 Linwood Avenue.

5.3       Staff and supporting consultants also conducted a review of available community feedback and held discussions with some key identified stakeholders to understand broadly the scale and nature of the facility.

5.4       Following analysis against key assessment criteria and discussions with the Linwood-Central-Heathcote Community Board, staff identified 141 Smith Street as the favoured site option.  Work to date indicated that this site will not be subject to the Reserves Act so delegations in and around the Reserves Act have not been considered.  Should the final preferred site by subject to specific decision making processes that are unknown at this time then a further report will be brought back to Council covering delegations to the Linwood-Central-Heathcote Community Board.

5.5       Following approval from the Linwood-Central-Heathcote Community Board at their meeting of 26 February, 2018, community consultation is currently underway and closes on 9 April 2018.

5.6       This present round of community consultation primarily seeks community input into site selection but also requests feedback on how the community may use/access the facility.

5.7       Following analysis of the community feedback, staff will be in a position to make a recommendation on a preferred site.

5.8       Once site selection is confirmed, staff will commence the Concept Design process which will include further consultation with the community.

5.9       On 7 December Council asked staff to report back early in 2018 on the elements of the decision making in relation to the Linwood/Woolston pool project that can be delegated to the Linwood-Central-Heathcote Community Board. 

6.   Option 1 - Delegate decisions on site selection and Concept Design for the Linwood-Woolston Pool to the Linwood-Central-Heathcote Community Board (preferred)

Option Description

6.1       Under this option, Council would:

6.1.1   Approve delegating to the Linwood-Central-Heathcote Community Board:

a)     The decision on site selection for the new Linwood-Woolston Pool.

b)     The decision on scope and a final Concept Design for the new Linwood-Woolston Pool.

6.1.2   Resolve that both decisions in recommendation 1 must be consistent with Council policies; and, capital and operational provision for the Linwood/Woolston Pool within the 2015-2025 Long Term Plan as updated by the 2018-2028 Long Term Plan.

6.1.3   Note that:

a)     The specific financial delegation relating to executing the main contract for the Linwood-Woolston Pool project remains with Council. 

b)     Should the preferred site be subject to specific decision making processes that are unknown at this time then a further report will be brought back to Council covering proposed delegations to the Linwood-Central-Heathcote Community Board.

c)      The opening ceremony and welcoming the community to the new facility will be undertaken by the Linwood-Central-Heathcote Community Board.

6.2       Staff would provide the Linwood-Central-Heathcote Community Board with a report containing a recommended site following analysis of community feedback gathered during the current process.

6.3       Staff would engage further with the community and Linwood-Central-Heathcote Community Board to support development of a scope and Concept Design prior to submitting a report to the Board recommending a final Concept option.

Significance

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

6.5       The consultative processes as outlined within this report reflect the level of significance.

Impact on Mana Whenua

6.6       This option does not involve a significant decision in relation to ancestral land or a body of water or other elements of intrinsic value, therefore this decision does not specifically impact Ngāi Tahu, their culture and traditions. Should this change as a result of community consultation on a site then this will be reported to Council before any further decision making is undertaken.

Community Views and Preferences

6.7       While community views specifically on delegation have not been ascertained it is expected that they would be supportive of the Community Board holding signoff as elected community representatives.

Alignment with Council Plans and Policies

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

Financial Implications

6.9       Cost of Implementation – While there are no direct costs associated with delegating decision making for site selection and Concept Design there will be considerable costs associated with reaching and then implementing those decisions themselves.  The project budget is $21,600,000.

6.10    In accordance with Section 3, Item 2 above all decisions to be made by the Community Board must be consistent with capital and operational provision for the Linwood/Woolston Pool within the 2015-2025 Long Term Plan as updated by the 2018-2028 Long Term Plan.

Legal Implications

6.11    The Council can delegate the decisions proposed in this option to the Community Board in reliance on clause 32 of Schedule 7 of the Local Government Act 2002.  Delegation to 'a committee or other subordinate decision-making body, community board, or member or officer of the local authority' certain responsibilities, duties, or powers of the Council, is done 'for the purposes of efficiency and effectiveness in the conduct of a local authority’s business'

6.12    This report has been reviewed and approved by the Legal Services Unit.

Risks and Mitigations  

6.13    There is a risk that the Linwood-Central-Heathcote Community Board may be placed in a difficult position if certain community expectations do not align with project constraints. This may result in an inability to make or decision or protracted rework.

6.13.1 Residual risk rating: The residual rating of the risk after the below treatment is implemented will be low.

6.13.2 Planned treatments include staff clearly communicating the project constraints to the community and Community Board as part of Concept Development so that any potential clashes can be identified and worked through ahead of a decision being required.

Implementation

6.14    Implementation dependencies - none.

6.15    Implementation timeframe – delegation would be effective immediately.

Option Summary - Advantages and Disadvantages

6.16    The advantages of this option include:

·   Delegating these decisions to the Community Board would promote local decision making and encourage citizens to take an active role in steering projects destined for their neighbourhoods.

·   Whilst relatively large in scale, the Linwood-Woolston Pool is a unique community based project, and the Linwood-Central-Heathcote Community Board is well placed to understand the requirements of the distinct local cultural mix and ensure it is represented in the site selection and Concept Design.

6.17    The disadvantages of this option include:

·   A risk exists that the Community Board may be placed in a difficult position if certain community expectations do not align with project constraints (e.g. funding budgets, operational best practice and scope).

7.   Option 2 - Retain decisions on site selection and/or Concept Design for the Linwood-Woolston Pool at Council level.

Option Description

7.1       Under this option the Linwood-Central-Heathcote Community Board would make recommendations to Council who would retain the ultimate decision making authority on the site selection and/or Concept Design for the Linwood-Woolston Pool.

Significance

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

7.3       The consultative processes as outlined within this report reflect the level of significance (proposed consultative processes do not differ between options).

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. Should this change as a result of community consultation on a site then this will be reported to Council before any further decision making is undertaken.

Community Views and Preferences

7.5       While community views specifically on delegation have not been ascertained it is expected that they would be less supportive of this option as it may erode community confidence in the Council’s goal of encouraging local decision making, and the fact that the community has less direct contact with the Council than they do the Community Board.

Alignment with Council Plans and Policies

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

Financial Implications

7.7       Cost of Implementation – While there are no direct costs associated with retaining decision making for site selection and Concept Design there will be considerable costs associated with reaching and then implementing those decisions themselves.  The project budget is $21,600,000.

7.8       All staff actions and recommendations associated with these items will be consistent capital and operational provision for the Linwood/Woolston Pool within the 2015-2025 Long Term Plan as updated by the 2018-2028 Long Term Plan.

Legal Implications

7.9       There is not a legal context, issue or implication relevant to this decision.

7.10    This report has been reviewed and approved by the Legal Services Unit.

Risks and Mitigations  

7.11    There is a risk that retaining decision making on site selection and Concept Design at Council level may be viewed unfavourably by the community.

7.11.1 Residual risk rating: The residual rating of the risk after the below treatment is implemented will be high.

7.11.2 Planned treatment includes clearly communicating to the community the rationale for retaining decision making at a Council level, explaining that the additional time involved is minimal relative to the overall project duration, and ensuring that the views of the community are clearly in staff recommendations to Council.

Implementation

7.12    Implementation dependencies - none.

7.13    Implementation timeframe – none.

Option Summary - Advantages and Disadvantages

7.14    The advantages of this option include:

·   Council would retain full oversight of what is a relatively significant capital project.

7.15    The disadvantages of this option include:

·   Retaining decision making on site selection and Concept Design at Council level would likely lengthen the project timeframe overall (given an expectation that reporting on these items would still be provided to the Community Board in the first instance).

·   It may erode community confidence in the Council’s goal of encouraging local decision making.

·   Council has less direct interaction with the community than the Community Board does.

 

Attachments

There are no attachments to this report.

 

Confirmation of Statutory Compliance

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

(a) This report contains:

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

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

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

 

Signatories

Author

Kent Summerfield - Senior Project Manager

Approved By

Lester Wolfreys - Head of Community Support, Governance and Partnerships

Michael Down - Finance Business Partner

John Filsell - Head of Recreation, Sports & Events

Mary Richardson - General Manager Citizen and Community

  


Council

22 March 2018

 

 

24.    Draft submission on Environment Canterbury's Long Term Plan 2018-2028

Reference:

18/200333

Presenter(s):

Libby Elvidge, Policy Analyst, Strategic Policy

 

 

1.   Purpose and Origin of Report

Purpose of Report

1.1       The purpose of this report is for the Council to approve the attached draft submission on Environment Canterbury’s Long Term Plan (LTP) 2018-2018. 

Origin of Report

1.2       This report, and the attached draft submission, have been provided by staff in response to councillors’ interest in participating in Environment Canterbury’s consultation process for its LTP.  

 

2.   Staff Recommendations 

That the Council:

1.         Approve the attached draft submission in support of the proposed Environment Canterbury Long Term Plan 2018-2028.

 

3.   Key Points

3.1       Environment Canterbury released its Consultation Document, Consultation on the Long-Term Plan 2018-2028 and the Revenue and Financing Policy, on 26 February 2018. The consultation period closes on 26 March 2018 at 5:00pm.  Hearings will take place between 30 April and 2 May 2018.

3.2       Environment Canterbury’s Long-Term Plan sets out the service priorities, work programmes and resource requirements, such as expenditure and funding for a 10-year period.

3.3       Staff sought feedback from Community Board members via email between 2 and 7 March. Staff considered the feedback for inclusion in the submission, and provided clarification for queries that were relevant to separate work programmes.

3.4       An informal subcommittee (Councillors Templeton, Cotter, Davidson and Johansson) met on 8 March 2018 and the submission incorporates discussions from that meeting. Overall there was support for the LTP and additional comments related to the Pollution Hotline (particularly resource and responsiveness); allocating the budget across all priorities; broadening the criteria for eligibility to Healthy Homes; and sourcing funding to retain the bus routes until the full transport review is completed (in 2 years' time).

3.5       The Council’s submission also provides further comment on the following areas:

·    Freshwater management: The Council is committed to improving water quality, including stormwater and flood protection, and has identified safe and sustainable water supply and improved waterways as one of its six strategic priorities. The draft submission supports Environment Canterbury’s work relating to freshwater and suggests that zone committees are provided with an additional ‘fresh water’ fund to allow zone committees to fund projects to enhance or improve water quality or ecosystem health

 

 

·    Biodiversity and biosecurity: The draft submission generally supports Environment Canterbury’s biodiversity and biosecurity programmes, as well as the emphasis on collaboration with multiple agencies, groups and landowners. Opportunities include increasing funding for the immediate steps in the biodiversity programme; adding a programme to address the Canterbury low plains dryland ecosystem; and the development of effective data sharing between agencies.

·    Hazards, risk and resilience: The draft submission supports a greater integration of climate change impacts in the hazards work stream. It makes a number of suggested additions, including further studies on a number of hazards; including studies on risk (not just hazards); and recommends shallowing of groundwater to be included in Environment Canterbury’s list of hazards.

·    Public Transport Changes: Environment Canterbury proposes to rationalise six bus routes in the city and alter how public transport is funded. This has led to some disquiet in the community and will obviously impact on bus users and those affected communities. The three options In ECan’s LTP propose the discontinuation of six routes; changes to how the Total Mobility Subsidy is applied; and propose other changes including fare and rates increases. Council are concerned that any change to bus routes impacts citizens’ mobility, and can have negative consequences, particularly for those reliant on public transport. The draft submission urges Environment Canterbury to consider additional funding options (or increased utilisation approaches) for the next two years, before the implementation of the Regional Public Transport Plan brings further changes to the public transport network in the city; the Total Mobility Subsidy is also maintained; and that the six bus routes are not removed at this time. 

 

 

Attachments

No.

Title

Page

a

Council submission to ECan LTP 2018-28 March 2018

278

 

 

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

Libby Elvidge - Policy Analyst

Jasmine Mouat - Senior Advisor to Chief Executive

Approved By

Helen Beaumont - Head of Strategic Policy

Adair Bruorton - Chief Advisor

Brendan Anstiss - General Manager Strategy and Transformation

  


Council

22 March 2018

 

DRAFTPDF Creator


 

DRAFTPDF Creator


 

DRAFTPDF Creator


 

DRAFTPDF Creator


 

DRAFTPDF Creator


Council

22 March 2018

 

 

25.    Draft submission on Environment Canterbury's Regional Land Transport Plan

Reference:

18/227874

Presenter(s):

Ruth Hudson, Senior Policy Planner - Transport

 

 

1.   Purpose of Report

1.1       The purpose of this report is for the Council to approve the attached draft submission on Environment Canterbury’s (ECan) Regional Land Transport Plan (RLTP). 

2.   Staff Recommendations

That the Council:

1.         Approve the attached draft submission on the proposed Environment Canterbury Regional Land Transport Plan.

 

3.   Key Points

3.1       The draft Regional Land Transport Plan 2015-2025 is a statutory document prepared by the Canterbury Regional Transport Committee. The RLTP sets out the investment priorities for the Canterbury region and the programme of transport activities which will give effect to these priorities for the next ten years. The RLTP is essentially the region's request for funding support from the National Land Transport Fund. The RLTP was last approved in 2015 and is currently under review.

3.2       Council is a key partner organisation and have contributed to the review of the RLTP. There have been two phases to the review. The first phase, completed in 2016, focused on the strategic context and issues and challenges sections of the RLTP.  The second phase review, now open for consultation, is focused on the rest of the RLTP. The review includes changes to the: investment priorities; framework for prioritising transport activities; monitoring and performance indicators; and significance policy.

3.3       The attached submission is in general support of the draft RLTP which aligns with Councils transport investment priorities and the strategic priorities. Staff recommended that the investment priorities, prioritisation framework and performance indicators are all reviewed by the Regional Transport Committee once the Government Policy Statement on Land Transport (GPS 2018) is released. This will ensure a strong link between national, regional and local investment priorities. The government has already indicated a stronger emphasis on an integrated, multi-modal transport system, which may not be fully reflected in the current prioritisation approach.

3.4       The Christchurch City Council Long Term Plan process is running in parallel to the Regional Land Transport Plan process. Council will work with ECan on any necessary variations to the Statement of Priorities in the draft RLTP once our Long Term Plan is finalised by 30 June 2018.

 

Attachments

No.

Title

Page

a

Council submission to ECan on RLTP 2018

285

 

 

Signatories

Authors

Libby Elvidge - Policy Analyst

Rae-Anne Kurucz - Team Leader Transport

Ruth Hudson - Senior Policy Planner Transport

Approved By

David Griffiths - Head of Planning & Strategic Transport

Brendan Anstiss - General Manager Strategy and Transformation

 

 

 


Council

22 March 2018

 

DRAFTPDF Creator


 

DRAFTPDF Creator


Council

22 March 2018

 

 

26.    Update on Central City One-Hour Free Parking

Reference:

18/207786

Presenter(s):

Steffan Thomas

 

 

1.   Purpose and Origin of Report

Purpose of Report

1.1       The purpose of this report is to provide an update to Council on the Central City one-hour free parking initiative and for the Council to:

1.1.1   Approve that staff consult on recommencing the central city one-hour free parking initiative from 1 July 2018, and

1.1.2   Note that the 4 month one-hour free parking trial is due to finish in March 2018.

Origin of Report

1.2       This report is being provided to fulfil Part 1 of the Council resolution CNCL/2017/00252 as follows.

                      That the Council:

1.         Agrees:

a.            to provide one hour free parking in Council off-street sites for four months from the opening of the Lichfield Street car parking building.

b.            to fully review the initiative while it is operating.

c.            to consult on whether the initiative should be extended during the 2018 Long Term Plan process.

2.         Undertakes a cost effective joint Central City marketing campaign between private sector central city business interests and the Council, and report back to the Council with details when they are available.

3.        Converts all Council managed paid off-street parking to short stay.

4.        Instruct Development Christchurch Limited and Council staff to develop a wider central city parking strategy, including:

a.            An investigation into extending this scheme to privately owned car parking buildings;

b.         options around validation and/or a targeted rate;

             and to report back to the Development Forum within three months.

5.         Note that as part of the report back on fee setting for Lichfield Street carpark that it will include consideration for different options of calculating the charges

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 engagement and significance assessment criteria

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

 

3.   Staff Recommendations 

That the Council:

1.         Approve that staff consult on recommencing the central city one-hour free parking initiative from 1 July 2018, and

2.         Note that the four month one-hour free parking trial is due to finish in 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 – That staff consult on recommencing the central city one-hour free parking from 1 July 2018 (preferred option)

·     Option 2 - That staff consult on recommencing the central city one-hour free parking from 1 July 2018 and that the trial initiative is restarted and finishes on 30 June 2018

·     Option 3 - That staff consult on recommencing the central city one-hour free parking from 1 July 2018 and that the trial initiative is restarted and finishes on 30 June 2018 only on weekends and late nights.

4.3       Option Summary - Advantages and Disadvantages (Preferred Option)

4.3.1   The advantages of this option include:

·     There is an opportunity to consult on recommencing the one-hour free parking initiative in the central city.

4.3.2   The disadvantages of this option include:

·     Public perception that Christchurch City Council is not supporting the recovery of the central city.

 

5.   Context/Background

5.1       At its 7 September 2017 meeting, Council resolved to provide one-hour free parking at its central city sites for four months (from the date of the Lichfield Street Car park opening). This was to provide a marketing boost to the Central Business District (CBD) with the aim of attracting people in to the city (whereby paying for parking was perceived to be a barrier).

5.2       Council also resolved to review the initiative while it is operating and to consult on whether the initiative be extended during the 2018 Long Term Plan process.

Review of Initiative

5.3       Since the commencement of the initiative, Council has provided over 22,500 hours of free parking in the Lichfield Street car parking building and the Art Gallery car park.  Additionally, over 12,500 parkers have received free parking at the Worcester Street, New Regent Street, Rolleston Avenue and Aldersgate car parks.

5.4       The cost of the initiative over the first three months of the trial was approximately $90,000 which is one-third of the revenue that would have been received from those Council car parks during that period.

5.5       Parking supply and demand in the central city is surveyed quarterly.  The December 2017 survey, taken during the period of the one-hour free parking trial initiative, indicated that the supply of parking in the central city exceeded the demand (9,800 of the 14,400 parking spaces were being utilised).  This is shown on the December 2017 Parking Dashboard that is attached (see Attachment 1).  Please note that this dashboard is a snapshot in time.

5.6       During December, the Lichfield Street Car Park Building’s occupancy was around 60%.

5.7       It has been difficult to determine whether the scheme has successfully attracted people in to the city as none of the car parking buildings in the central city have been operating near, or at, capacity, and occupancy rates in the Council facilities surveyed in September and December 2017 remained consistent.  However, it has been useful in terms of promoting the central city as a destination for retail and hospitality.


 

6.   Option 1 - Staff consult on recommencing the central city one-hour free parking from 1 July 2018 (preferred option)

Option Description

6.1       As part of the 7 September 2017 decision, Council resolved to consult on whether the initiative to provide one-hour free parking in the Council off-street parking sites should be extended during the 2018 Long Term Plan process.   Staff are recommending to consult with key central city stakeholders to determine their views.  The key stakeholders that will be consulted include, but are not limited to: developers, retailers, the Parking Forum, Central City Business Association, the Canterbury Employers’ Chamber of Commerce, Spokes, GenZero and the Transport Liaison Group.  A survey of visitors to the central city could also be undertaken.

Significance

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

6.3       Engagement requirements for this level of significance are to inform of the end of the trial and to consult with key parking stakeholders regarding the extension of the initiative from 1 July 2018.

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       Staff are recommending to consult with key central city stakeholders regarding recommencing the one-hour free parking initiative from 1 July 2018.

6.6       Prior to commencing the trial initiative, views of the community were investigated.

6.7       Parking asset owners felt that a decision to offer free parking at Council facilities would seriously undermine the confidence of private sector investors contemplating provision of city parking facilities. There was a view that any offering needed to achieve a level playing field.

6.8       A view was that the city needed stability and that continuing to change the rules becomes confusing for citizens so a preference was to set a fixed regime and not chop and change.

6.9       Members of the retail business community were generally supportive of the idea of providing free parking.  

6.10    Views of individuals visiting the central city seem to vary with most people appreciating that it was common to pay for parking in a city centre and that private asset owners need to achieve a return on investment. 

6.11    Most people that were asked about parking and their views on a portion of time for free were more concerned with the rate per hour for parking than the fact that it was a requirement to pay.

Alignment with Council Plans and Policies

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

Financial Implications

6.13    Based on the actual costs of the trial, extending the initiative from 1 July 2018 would reduce Council’s revenue by approximately $400,000 per year.  The estimated cost conservatively assumes that there will be no increase in average occupancy rates during the year, however, if occupancy rates increased then the loss of revenue would also increase. The reduction in revenue would need to be included into the Long Term Plan.

6.14    Funding source – Transport Operational Budgets.  There is currently no allowance for the reduction of revenue in the transport operational budgets so the reduction would need to be included into the Long Term Plan as a 0.1% rate increase.

Legal Implications

6.15    There is not a legal context, issue or implication relevant to this decision.

6.16    This report has been reviewed by the Legal Services Unit.

Risks and Mitigations

6.17    A full risk assessment has not been carried out for this option. 

Implementation

6.18    Implementation dependencies - Approval of financial implications.

6.19    Implementation timeframe – by the end of March 2018.

Option Summary - Advantages and Disadvantages

6.20    The advantages of this option include:

·   There is an opportunity to consult on recommencing the one-hour free parking initiative in the central city.

6.21    The disadvantages of this option include:

·   Public perception that Christchurch City Council is not supporting the recovery.

7.   Option 2 - That staff consult on recommencing the central city one-hour free parking from 1 July 2018 and that the trial initiative is restarted and finishes on 30 June 2018

Option Description

7.1       As part of the 7 September 2017 decision, Council resolved to consult on whether the initiative to provide one-hour free parking in the Council off-street parking sites should be extended during the 2018 Long Term Plan process.   Staff are recommending to consult with key central city stakeholders to determine their views.  The key stakeholders that will be consulted include, but not limited to: developers, retailers, the Parking Forum, Central City Business Association, the Canterbury Employers’ Chamber of Commerce, Spokes, GenZero and the Transport Liaison Group.  A survey of visitors to the central city could also be undertaken.

7.2       This option proposes that the current one-hour free parking trial be restarted and finishes on 30 June 2018.

Significance

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

7.4       Engagement requirements for this level of significance are informing people that the trial will be restarted and finish on 30 June 2018 and to consult on recommencing the central city one-hour free parking from 1 July 2018.

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       The community views and preferences are the same as Option 1.

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 – There is no cost in implementation as the reconfiguration of electronic control equipment was undertaken as part of the trial.

7.9       Based on the actual costs of the trial, recommencing the initiative from 1 July 2018 would reduce Council’s revenue by approximately $400,000 per year.  The estimated cost conservatively assumes that there will be no increase in average occupancy rates during the year, however, if occupancy rates increased then the loss of revenue would also increase. The reduction in revenue would need to be included into the Long Term Plan.

7.10    Based on the actual costs of the trial, restarting the initiative until the end of June 2018 would reduce Council’s revenue by approximately $100,000.  The financial impact of the trial initiative has been allowed for within the current forecast up until March 2018.  There has been no allowance made in the current year’s forecast for extending this past March 2018.

7.11    Funding source –Transport Operational Budgets.  There is currently no allowance for the reduction of revenue in the transport operational budgets so the reduction would need to be included into the Long Term Plan as a 0.1% rate increase.

Legal Implications

7.12    There is not a legal context, issue or implication relevant to this decision.

7.13    This report has been reviewed by the Legal Services Unit.

Risks and Mitigations

7.14    A full risk assessment has not been carried out for this option.

Implementation

7.15    Implementation dependencies - Approval of financial implications.

7.16    Implementation timeframe – by the end of March 2018.

Option Summary - Advantages and Disadvantages

7.17    The advantages of this option include:

·   Restarts the initiative of providing one-hour free parking at Council’s five central city parking sites until the initiative is further consulted on and the outcome included in the Long Term Plan

7.18    The disadvantages of this option include:

·   Loss of revenue to Council of approximately $100,000 up until the end of June 2018 and another $400,000 per annum thereafter.

·   Potentially encourages more people to travel by motor vehicles into the central city rather than other modes.

8.   Option 3 - That staff consult on recommencing the central city one-hour free parking from 1 July 2018 and that the trial initiative is restarted and finishes on 30 June 2018 on weekends and late nights only

Option Description

8.1       As part of the 7 September 2017 decision, Council resolved to consult on whether the initiative to provide one-hour free parking in the Council off-street parking sites should be extended during the 2018 Long Term Plan process.   Staff are recommending to consult with key central city stakeholders to determine their views.  The key stakeholders that will be consulted include, but not limited to: developers, retailers, the Parking Forum, Central City Business Association, the Canterbury Employers’ Chamber of Commerce, Spokes, GenZero and the Transport Liaison Group.  A survey of visitors to the central city could also be undertaken.

8.2       This option proposes that the current one-hour free parking trial be restarted and finishes on 30 June 2018 on weekends and late nights only.

Significance

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

8.4       Engagement requirements for this level of significance are inform.

Impact on Mana Whenua

8.5       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

8.6       The community views and preferences are the same as Option 1.

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 – Some cost is involved in reconfiguration of electronic control equipment. This is estimated at around $2,000.

8.9       Based on the actual costs of the trial, recommencing the initiative from 1 July 2018 would reduce Council’s revenue by approximately $400,000 per annum.  The estimated cost conservatively assumes that there will be no increase in average occupancy rates during the year, however, if occupancy rates increased then the loss of revenue would also increase. The reduction in revenue would need to be included into the Long Term Plan.

8.10    Based on the actual costs of the trial, restarting and finishing the initiative on 30 June 2018 on weekends and late nights only would reduce Council’s revenue by approximately $30,000.  The financial impact of the trial initiative has been allowed for within the current year’s forecast up until March 2018.  There has been no allowance made in the current year’s forecast for extending this past March 2018.

8.11    Funding source – Transport Operational Budgets.  There is currently no allowance for the reduction of revenue in the transport operational budgets so the reduction would need to be included into the Long Term Plan as a 0.1% rate increase.

Legal Implications

8.12    There is not a legal context, issue or implication relevant to this decision.

8.13    This report has been reviewed by the Legal Services Unit.

Risks and Mitigations

8.14    A full risk assessment has not been carried out for this option. 

Implementation

8.15    Implementation dependencies - Approval of financial implications

8.16    Implementation timeframe – by the end of March 2018

Option Summary - Advantages and Disadvantages

8.17    The advantages of this option include:

·   Continues to provide an element of free parking in the central city.

·   Reduces the financial impact compared to the initiative being restarted throughout the week.

·   Encourages weekend activity.

8.18    The disadvantages of this option include:

·   Loss of revenue to Council of approximately $30,000 up until the end of June 2018 and another $400,000 per annum thereafter.

·   Only effective at encouraging people into the city on the weekend however this may be sufficient to help familiarise people with the central city and change habits.

·   Not as many businesses open on Sundays to take advantage of this option.

 

Attachments

No.

Title

Page

a

Attachment 1 Central City Parking Dashboard December 2017

295

 

 

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

Janis Peterson - Business Administrator

Steffan Thomas - Manager Operations (Transport)

Approved By

Richard Osborne - Head of Transport

Peter Langbein - Finance Business Partner

David Adamson - General Manager City Services

  


Council

22 March 2018

 

PDF Creator


Council

22 March 2018

 

 

27.    Hearings Panel Report on the Proposed Summit Road (Rapaki Road - Gebbies Pass Road) and Worsleys Road (Summit Road - start of the Track) Prohibited Times on Road Restrictions

Reference:

18/247706

Presenter(s):

Councillor David East - Chairman of the Hearings Panel

 

 

1.   Purpose of Report

1.1       The purpose of this report is to present the Hearings Panel’s recommendations following the consultation and hearings process on the Proposal to restrict night-time road access to Summit Road (between Rapaki Road and Gebbies Pass Road) and Worsleys Road (from Summit Road to the start of the Track) under the Cruising and Prohibited Times on Roads Bylaw 2014 as depicted in Attachment A (“the Proposal”).

1.2       The purpose of consulting on the Proposal was to investigate and consider it as a possible solution to concerns raised regarding safety on, and damage to, Summit Road relating to anti-social road use, vandalism, fire, and littering. Summit Road is a popular recreational area with ecological significance that is vulnerable to fire and evidently frequented by anti-social road users.

1.3       The Summit Road runs through the districts of both Christchurch City Council (“the Council”) and the Selwyn District Council. Staff have been working with the Selwyn District Council, the Police, and the Summit Road Protection Authority to investigate and consider possible solutions to the concerns for the safety and protection of Summit Road as a significant recreational and ecological asset of the greater Christchurch area.

1.4       The Proposal was staff generated in response to requests to address concerns for Summit Road from residents, the community and other interest groups, particularly the Summit Road Protection Authority, which exists by virtue of the Summit Road (Canterbury) Protection Act 2001.[1] The Police were also supportive of the Proposal progressing to consultation.

2.   Key Points

2.1       The Proposal is for time restrictions prohibiting vehicles under 3500kg from being on Summit Road (between Rapaki Road and Gebbies Pass Road) and Worsleys Road (from Summit Road to the start of the Track) from 10pm to 5am on Thursday through Monday every week and also on public holidays.[2] Overnight access would be unrestricted on Mondays, Tuesdays and Wednesdays, and car parking opposite the Sign of the Kiwi would be unaffected.

2.2       After receiving and considering the written submissions through the consultation process on the Proposal, staff came to recommend that the Proposal not be approved. Staff assessed that the submitting public and intervening investigations and discussions, particularly with the Police, had demonstrated that the Proposal is not the right solution for addressing the concerns for the safety and protection of Summit Road.

2.3       The Hearings Panel, after considering the written and heard submissions received during the consultation and hearings process, has come to agree with the staff recommendation, and so is recommending that the Council, among other things, not approve the Proposal. The Panel, however, did not doubt that the concerns underlying the Proposal are valid and serious; the Panel has other reasons for not supporting the Proposal as discussed in this report. The Panel’s other recommendations set out and discussed reflect its desire to prompt other, better solutions to be developed to address the concerns for the protection of Summit Road.

2.4       The Council can accept or reject the Hearings Panel’s recommendations, bearing in mind that the Panel has heard and considered the submissions received concerning the Proposal to assist the Council in fulfilling its consultation obligations. Noting that the Local Government Act 2002 requires, as one of the principles of consultation, that “the views presented to the local authority should be received by the local authority with an open mind and should be given by the local authority, in making a decision, due consideration” (section 82(1)(e)).

2.5       The Council, as the final decision-maker, should put itself in as good a position as the Hearings Panel having considered all the submissions. The written submissions received by the Panel can be found here: http://christchurch.infocouncil.biz/ (within the agenda for the meeting of the Hearings Panel on 15 February 2018). The heard submissions that were presented to the Panel and the Panel’s consideration of all submissions and its deliberations are discussed below to assist the Council in understanding how and why the Panel has come to its recommendations.

3.   Hearings Panel Recommendations

That the Council:

1.         Does not approve the installation of a Prohibited Times on Road Restriction on Summit Road (Rapaki Road - Gebbies Pass Road) and Worsleys Road (Summit Road - start of the Track).

2.         Requests that the Port Hills Management Plan be advanced as soon as possible recognising that the outcomes and objectives of that Plan may assist in achieving positive outcomes for the Summit Road and other affected roads in the area covered by that Plan.

3.         Requests that a joint briefing on these matters be provided as soon as possible to the affected Community Boards.

4.         Considers a lowering of the speed limit on the Summit Road.

5.         Considers a mechanism that would potentially identify users of the Summit Road for crime prevention purposes.

6.         Notes that the Police are agreeable to assisting with measures to curb anti-social behaviour on the Summit Road.

4.   Context/Background

4.1       On 25 January 2018 the Council resolved to appoint a Hearings Panel to receive deputations, consider public submissions, and make a recommendation to the Council on the Proposal.

4.2       The Hearings Panel came to be comprised of Councillor David East (as Chairperson), Deputy Mayor Andrew Turner, and Community Board members from the four Community Boards that Summit Road runs into: Tim Lindley (Central-Heathcote-Linwood), Karolin Potter (Spreydon-Cashmere), Tori Peden (Banks Peninsula) and Ross McFarlane (Halswell-Hornby-Riccarton).

4.3       The Hearings Panel convened on 15 February 2018 to hear submitters wishing to be heard in person, consider all the submissions received on the Proposal along with the staff report and answers offered by the Police to the Panel’s questions, and ultimately to deliberate on the Proposal with a view to deciding upon recommendations to the Council.

4.4       Staff, after receiving and considering the written submissions through the consultation process, came to recommend in their report to the Hearings Panel that it recommend to the Council that the Proposal not be approved. Staff regarding that the submitting public and intervening investigations and discussions, particularly with the Police, had demonstrated that the Proposal is not the right solution for addressing the concerns for the safety and protection of Summit Road.

4.5       As noted in the staff report to the Hearings Panel, Summit Road is a popular recreation area with ecological and city-wide significance. It is utilised by pedestrians, cyclists and motor vehicles, primarily for leisure activities. These leisure activities are reported to occur mainly during day-time, but there is known to be some demand for night-time access to Summit Road.

4.6       The majority of Summit Road between Rapaki Road and Gebbies Pass Road is within the Christchurch City Council territorial boundary, but it also crosses that boundary with Selwyn District Council. On the Christchurch City Council side of the boundary, the stretches of Summit Road and Worsleys Road included in the Proposal cross through, or are close to, the boundaries of four Community Boards: Banks Peninsula, Halswell-Hornby-Riccarton, Spreydon-Cashmere, and Central-Heathcote-Linwood. Though Summit Road could be said to be of significance to the wider area it overlooks encompassing the whole city and its visitors as a prime vantage point and scenic landscape.

4.7       The concerns raised regarding safety on, and damage to, the Summit Road relating to anti-social road use, vandalism, fire, and littering/rubbish were demonstrated in the consultation leaflet for the Proposal with reference to the following photographs of examples of anti-social road use and damage:

4.8       Staff reported that such anti-social road use and damage as that here depicted occurs primarily at night-time.

4.9       Staff further reported that as a result of ongoing concerns regarding such anti-social road use on, and damage to, Summit Road, they have been working with the Police, the Summit Road Protection Authority, and the Selwyn District Council to investigate possible solutions. These are in addition to existing enforcement tools that the Police have at present. Possible solutions include:

·     Prohibited Times on Road Restrictions under the Cruising and Prohibited Times on Roads Bylaw 2014

This being the Proposal that has been consulted on and is the subject of this report.

·     Locked Gates to support Prohibited Times on Road Restrictions

Staff reported that this possible solution was not progressed due to:

-      the cost of installing the barriers

-      the ongoing costs of operating the gates in terms of a contractor locking and unlocking them each day

-      the cost of maintaining the gates

-      safety concerns

-      the inconvenience for owners, occupiers and their bona fide visitors

-      the risk of the key or code being shared with others.

·     No Cruising Restrictions

Staff reported that this possible solution was not progressed due to anti-social road users not being considered to be cruising by the definition within the Cruising and Prohibited Times on Roads Bylaw 2014.

·     Speed Humps

Staff reported that this possible solution was not progressed due to:

-      Summit Road being a collector road

-      its effect on the cycling and driving experience for road users

-      it would not necessarily address issues occurring in roadside layby areas

-      it would require speed humps to be installed at approximately 100m intervals to be effective

-      the visual appearance of the permanent warning signage as two combination signs and posts would be required for each speed hump

-      the cost of implementation.

·     Crime Prevention or Traffic Cameras at the Sign of the Kiwi

Staff reported that this possible solution was not progressed at this stage because:

-      the location is not a priority location for either a crime prevention camera or a traffic camera

-      the cost of installation

-      the limited benefits to enforcement from the type of information obtained from cameras.

·     Night-Time Parking Restrictions

Staff reported that this possible solution was not progressed because:

-      parking is not considered to be a significant issue along Summit Road

-      there are many opportunities to park in different locations along it

-      the cost and visual effects of no-parking signage.

·     Night-Time Parking Restrictions at the Sign of the Kiwi

Staff reported that this possible solution was not progressed because this location is important both to Sign of the Kiwi patrons and also as a sightseeing location and place to stop a vehicle along the Dyers Pass Road route.

4.10    Staff reported that the Police have been involved in discussing these possible solutions, and also noted that if traffic treatments were implemented along Summit Road, Selwyn District Council would need to also resolve and implement these for their section of Summit Road. Though staff conveyed that Selwyn District Council traffic staff are agreeable to Christchurch City Council leading the investigations.

5.   Consultation Process and Submissions

5.1       Community consultation on the Proposal to restrict night-time road access to Summit Road (between Rapaki Road and Gebbies Pass Road) and Worsleys Road (from Summit Road to the start of the Track) under the Cruising and Prohibited Times on Roads Bylaw 2014 was undertaken from Monday 10 July to Friday 25 August 2017.

5.2       A total of 70 consultation leaflets were hand-delivered to properties on Summit Road, sections of Hoon Hay Valley Road, Huntsbury Avenue and Worsleys Road. An additional 90 leaflets were delivered in late July 2017 to Gebbies Pass Road, Millers Road, McQueens Valley Road and Christchurch Akaroa Road. 

5.3       The consultation leaflet was also sent to 239 key stakeholders and 110 absentee owners.

5.4       Additional consultation leaflets were made available at the Council’s Civic Offices, Akaroa Service Centre, Beckenham Service Centre, Linwood Service Centre, Little River Service Centre, Lyttelton Service Centre, Riccarton Service Centre, Hornby Service Centre, Te Hapua: Halswell Centre, Aranui Library, Bishopdale Community Library, Central Library (Peterborough), Central Library (Manchester Street), Diamond Harbour Library, Lyttelton Library, New Brighton Community Library, Parklands Community Library, Redwood Community Library, South Library, Spreydon Library,  Upper Riccarton Community and School Library, Pioneer Recreation and Sport Centre, Graham Condon Recreation and Sport Centre, Jellie Park Recreation and Sport Centre, QEII Fitness at Parklands, Lyttelton Recreation and Sports Centre and Cowles Stadium.

5.5       The content of the consultation leaflet was also displayed on the Council’s ‘Have Your Say’ website.

5.6       During the course of the engagement, the Council received 865 written submissions in response to the Proposal.

5.7       Of the 865 submitters, 221 submitters were in support, 99 were in support but had some concerns, and 545 did not support the Proposal.

Consultation Analysis

5.8       Staff provided the following analysis in respect of the consultation results:

Interest groups

5.9       Of the 865 submitters, 16 identified as being affiliated with an organisation.

Environmental/advocacy

5.9.1   Submissions were received from the Summit Road Protection Authority, Summit Road Society, Port Hills Park Trust Board, Mt Vernon Management Committee, and Friends of the Bellbird. Three were in support of the Proposal, one was in support with concerns, and one did not support the Proposal.

Societal concerns

5.9.2   One submission was affiliated with the Governors Bay Road Safety Working Group, and another was affiliated with the Governors Bay Anti-Social Behaviour Group. Both were in support with concerns.

Recreation

5.9.3   Four submissions were affiliated with the following recreational groups: Valley of Peace Cricket Club, Port Hills Athletic Club, Christchurch Adventure Park, and a walking group. All were in support of the Proposal.

5.9.4   Three were affiliated with photography groups; all of those did not support the Proposal.

5.9.5   One was affiliated with Chch Dwnunda, which is a car enthusiast group; this did not support the Proposal.

Residents Association

5.9.6   Of all of the affected ward areas, only one submission was received from a Residents Association (the Cashmere Residents Association). They were in support with concerns.

Ward Area

5.10    Of the 865 submissions, 521 submitters recorded their address within one of the four ward areas that Summit Road runs through. Of these, three submitters reside on Summit Road and three live on Worsleys Track, which are within the area of the Proposal. Submissions were received from 11 Gebbies Pass residents, three of which own land around the intersection with Summit Road. And submissions were received from 35 submitters with addresses in Governors Bay.

5.11    337 submitters live outside the four wards areas. Of these 215 live in other areas of Christchurch. The remaining 122 submitters are from a range of places: 53 from Selwyn District, 35 from Waimakariri District, 22 from other areas in the South Island, eight from the North Island, two did not supply their addresses but stated they were from Christchurch, one was from Australia, and one was from the United States of America.

5.12    Of the remaining seven submitters, five were anonymous and two supplied PO Boxes so it is unclear whether they fall into one of the four ward areas or not.

Breakdown of support by ward areas

5.13    Of the 221 submitters in support of the Proposal, 170 live in one of the four ward areas that Summit Road runs through, 48 submitters live outside the ward area, and of the remaining three supporters, two provided a PO Box address and one did not supply their address.

5.14    Of the 99 submitters in support with concerns, 68 live in one of the four ward areas and 31 live outside the ward area.

5.15    Of the 545 submitters against the Proposal, 283 live in one of the four ward areas that Summit Road runs through, 258 submitters live outside the ward areas, and the remaining four submitters provided false details.

 

 

Local communities

Worsleys/Summit Road residents

5.16    Of the 12 submitters with a Worsleys Road/Summit Road address, eight were in support, two were in support with concerns and two did not support the Proposal.

5.17    Of these 12 submitters, six had a property within the area of the Proposal. Four were in support, one was in support with concerns and one did not support the Proposal.

Gebbies Pass residents

5.18    Of the 11 submitters with a Gebbies Pass Road address, five were in support, four were in support with concerns and two were against the Proposal. Of these, three owned land around the junction with Summit Road (one in support and two in support with concerns).

Governors Bay

5.19    Of the 35 submitters from Governors Bay, ten were in support, six were in support with concerns and 19 did not support the Proposal.

Selwyn District

5.20    Of the 53 submitters from the Selwyn District, eight were in support, three were in support with concerns and 41 did not support the Proposal.

Feedback Themes

5.21    Staff reported that the main themes of the feedback received in the written submissions were:

Concerns about the Proposal

·     Restricting freedom of movement

·     A minority ruining it for the majority

·     Restricts photographers, in particular astronomy and landscape photographers

·     Restricts visitors to the city seeing the view

·     That it could drive the problem elsewhere

·     That it would not be enforced by the Police.

 

Safety

·     Restricted access would make it safer for cyclists

·     It is a safer place for boy racers to use rather than in the city where it is more heavily populated

·     Concerns about the Police not enforcing against anti-social behaviour.

 

Access

·     Comments on bona fide users and visitors

·     Access for enjoyment of the view

·     Access for stargazing

·     It is a recreation space.

 

Environment

·     Need to keep the hills beautiful

·     It is a precious environment

·     The Port Hills belong to the people.

 

 

Alternative solutions

·     Add cameras

·     Increase policing

·     Install gates/speed bumps/barriers

·     Increase the restricted hours

·     Adjust the hours of restricted access by season

·     Provide permits for bona fide visitors

·     Add more roads to the restriction, including Gebbies Pass Road and Dyers Pass Road

·     Educate on safe driving

·     Provide an alternative space for car enthusiasts.

 

5.22    Noting their recommendation to the Hearings Panel that it recommend that the Council does not approve the Proposal, staff advised that their recommendation is consistent with the majority of community feedback received during the consultation process, and that the Police and Selwyn District Council staff are agreeable to the Proposal not being advanced.

5.23    Staff also advised that their recommendation is consistent with the Council’s Prohibited Times on Road Policy. The process set out by the Policy, they advised, does not support night-time access restrictions on collector or arterial roads, noting that Summit Road is a collector road. Staff did, however, acknowledge that the traffic volumes utilising Summit Road are low, and are consistent with that of a local road.

5.24    In summary, staff listed the advantages and disadvantages of the Proposal as follows:

5.25    The advantages include:

·     Provides access to Summit Road and Worsleys Road owners, occupiers and bona fide visitors.

·     Retains the Sign of the Kiwi parking area for ongoing usage by Sign of the Kiwi patrons, sightseers, cyclists and runners/walkers who may wish to park their vehicle before accessing the area.

·     Removes the option for a short circuit to be undertaken by anti-social road users on Summit Road between Dyers Pass Road and Gebbies Pass Road.

·     May result in the general area being less attractive to anti-social road users.

·     Assists with the protection (from fire, for example) of the natural environment, amenities and facilities, and with reducing rubbish.

·     Possible benefits to road safety by reducing night-time traffic and conflict situations.

·     Provides Police with an additional tool to address anti-social road user activity on these roads.

5.26    The disadvantages include:

·     May result in displacement of anti-social road user issues elsewhere on the road network – some concerns have been raised regarding a possible displacement to Governors Bay.

·     Restricts access at night to the general public to only walking, cycling, and vehicles over 3500kg.

·     Further distance for some motorists to travel.

·     Costs of signage and ongoing maintenance to enable enforcement.

·     Summit Road is classified as a collector road in the roading hierarchy and on that basis the Council’s Prohibited Times on Road Policy does not support night-time access restrictions on it, however usage of Summit Road is low and consistent with that of a local road.

6.   The Hearing

6.1       At the hearing, ahead of the presentations from submitters wishing to be heard, staff presented their report containing the advice summarised above to the Hearings Panel. Additional photographs of examples of anti-social road use and damage to the road presented by staff are copied here:

 

 

 

 

 

6.2       Staff noted that their investigations of the concerns raised for the protection of Summit Road from anti-social road use and damage have included:

·    Meetings with the Summit Road Protection Authority

·    Working with Police, including a night-time site visit

·    Elected Member workshops

·    Discussions with Selwyn District Council

·    Discussions with Christchurch City Council staff

·    Site visits

·    Traffic volume counts

6.3       Staff also noted the long list of stakeholders with an interest in the Proposal, which reflects the large number of written submissions received. The list of stakeholders presented to the Panel is copied here as giving some appreciation in itself of the balance of concerns and considerations relevant to the Proposal:

·    General Public

·    Selwyn District Council

·    Community Boards, Councillors, Mayor

·    Summit Road Protection Authority

·    Summit Road Society

·    Police

·    Adjoining Property Owners and Occupiers  

·    Cashmere Residents Association

·    Governors Bay Residents Association

·    Westmorland Residents Association

·    Kennedys Bush Residents Association

·    Rural Fire Service

·    Park Rangers

·    Car enthusiast groups

·    Recreational Users

·    Walking groups

·    Cyclist groups

·    Mountain bike groups/clubs/networks

·    Christchurch Adventure Park

·    Sign of the Kiwi Café                    

·    Photographic Societies

·    Astronomer Groups

·    Christchurch & Canterbury Tourism

·    Transport stakeholder groups

6.4       Staff also answered questions directed to them by the Hearings Panel, including regarding traffic volumes; the traffic data presented is set out here in its detail along with some crash data:

Eastern Section (Dyers Pass - Rapaki Road Closure)

 

9 - 16 March 2016[3]

·    Approximately 3500 vehicle movements per week[4]

·    338 vehicle movements during proposed restricted time period

 

20 May - 2 June 2016

·    2384 vehicle movements per week

·    237 vehicle movements during the proposed restricted time

 

Southern Section (Dyers Pass Road - Gebbies Pass Rd)

 

9 - 16 March 2016[5]

·    Approximately 2300 vehicle movements per week.

·    230 vehicle movements during the proposed restricted time

 

20 May 2016 - 2 June 2016

·    1544 vehicle movements per week

·    125 vehicle movements during the proposed restricted time

 

6.5       Following the staff presentation, four submitters were heard in person by the Hearing Panel:

·    Summit Road Protection Authority

·    Mark Jarrett

·    Lawrence Hill

·    Summit Road Society (Inc.)

 

6.6       The Summit Road Protection Authority (“the Authority”) made its written submission in support of the Proposal.

6.7       At the hearing, the Authority’s representative pointed to the Port Hills Fires of last year as a reminder of the need to protect the Summit Road area, and noted that the interest of groups and governing bodies, like the Authority, in investing in enhancing the Summit Road through the addition of improvements, such as heritage signage, is undermined by their expectation of vandalism. He also noted the amount of Park Ranger time regularly lost to picking up rubbish in the area.

6.8       The Authority’s representative floated suggestions that, if the Proposal was implemented, law-abiding night-time users of the Summit Road, such as astro-photographers, could be exempted from the restrictions on occasions they apply for through a permit system for night-time access at the prohibited times, and that the Proposal could in the first instance be trialled for 12 months, with Park Rangers tasked with measuring any improvements.

6.9       The Authority’s representative concluded with the observation that the Summit Road could be a heritage pathway, and in reply to a question about whether the Proposal could simply displace the anti-social behaviour, he indicated that he had not investigated the possibility but other areas are not as isolated and it is the isolation of the Summit Road that supports the anti-social behaviour.

6.10    The Summit Road Society (Inc.) (“the Society”) made its written submission in support of the Proposal but with some concerns.

6.11    At the hearing, the Society’s representative usefully confirmed as another organisation centrally concerned with the protection of the Summit Road and Port Hills, that there are issues in the area with rubbish, burnt-out cars, vandalism, graffiti, fire, and other such risks.

6.12    The Society’s key message coming through at the hearing was that if the Council decides to not proceed with the Proposal, something still needs to be done about the situation, and suggestions were floated in respect of a visitor pass system that may be a mere online registration for access system, even if it was just one tool, that might be complemented by preventative environmental design, a speed limit review, and working with the Police.

6.13    In reply to a question from the Panel, the Society’s representative indicated that the Society has 341 members including individuals and groups, with each group registered counted only as a single member as part of that number.

6.14    The Society’s representative also suggested that there should be a promotion of the aspiration that the Summit Road become a heritage pathway. She further added to this in conclusion that there is need for an integrated Port Hills Management Plan.

6.15    The individual submitters heard in person by the Hearings Panel helpfully presented some of the perspectives of the majority of written submissions that did not support the Proposal and focused on important themes arising from the consultation.

6.16    One of the individual submitters heard who made their written submission not in support of the Proposal was an astro-/landscape photographer essentially defending the freedom to enjoy the night sky from Summit Road when and as astrological events arise, with variable viewing conditions making flexibility of viewing time desirable.[6]

6.17    The other individual submitter heard who made their written submission not in support of the Proposal added, among other things, a perspective related to the concern for nearby areas that might suffer from displaced anti-social behaviour as a result of the Proposal and concern at the limitations of the Proposal in its response to the anti-social behaviour that is problematic in the wider area. In reply to a question from the Panel about alternative solutions, the submitter suggested video surveillance, street lighting, and developing good public areas.

6.18    After hearing from submitters, the Hearings Panel had an opportunity to clarify the issues with a representative of the New Zealand Police, Inspector Al Stewart, as the agency that would enforce the Proposed Prohibited Times on Road Restrictions. Inspector Stewart discussed the dedicated team the Police have for dealing with anti-social road users and their work and prioritisation rationale. He disclosed that in the past twelve months 253 notices have been issued by Police for anti-social road user (colloquially referred to as ‘boy racer’) offences, 232 anti-social road user jobs had been attended by Police, and 1953 vehicles had been impounded.[7]

6.19    Inspector Stewart also discussed the challenges there would be to enforcing the Proposal, leaving the Hearings Panel with some impression that additional Police resourcing would be necessary for the Proposal to be effective, but clear that the implementation of the Proposal would not in itself lead to additional resources being dedicated to the area.

6.20    As the Hearings Panel started to deliberate on the Proposal, staff, in order to assist the Panel to form well-informed recommendations to the Council, offered further advice as below around the issues with possible alternative solutions to the anti-social road user activity and damage Summit Road is suffering:

Camera

·   Best possible location considered to be Dyers Pass Rd / Summit Rd intersection.

·   Little value as a traffic camera due to this location being of low overall significance to the network.

·   The Council has a budget for crime prevention cameras with the Police prioritising sites, and the Police have advised that there are other sites of priority from a crime prevention perspective.

·   The cost of cameras would be approximately $15,000 for camera, pole, transmission/internet connection, installation. This is unbudgeted.

·   Transmissions could be monitored by Christchurch Traffic Operations Centre (CTOC) or the Police.

·   Limited use for enforcement purposes as it just shows a vehicle or vehicles passing a point, or an illegal activity at the intersection.

 

Speed Humps

·   Summit Rd – approximate length in this case: 18.4km.

·   Usually spaced between 80 -120 metres to provide an effective traffic restraint (operating speed circa 50km/h).

·   Would also need speed limit reduced to 50km/h to support this.

·   Estimate of number speed humps at 100m intervals equates to 180.

·   Cost per speed hump (excluding possible additional costs of road construction, design, traffic management, etc.) would be approximately $2,500.

·   Cost of line marking each speed hump would be approximately $100.

·   Cost of permanent warning signage per speed hump would be approximately $900.

·   180 speed humps at $3500 each would equate to $630,000.

·   No budget at present for traffic calming in this situation.

·   Unsuitable location for the installation of speed humps.

·   Doesn’t deal with situation of parking/layby areas, which would also require treatment.

·   Some may see speed bumps as a challenge to negotiate.

·   Noise from braking and accelerating over the speed humps.

·   Speed humps not recommended on a collector due to the mix of traffic it carriers including heavy vehicles.

·   Effect on cyclists, motorcyclists, and general driving experience.

·   Visual impact of speed humps, markings and permanent warning signage.

 

Vehicle Barriers / Locked Gates

·   Would need a prohibited times on road restriction.

·   Cost to install, operate, maintain, repair.

·   Issues of keys/codes getting into wrong hands.

·   Inconvenient for owners, occupiers and bona-fide visitors.

·   Safety concerns with people having to get out of cars to lock and unlock.

·   Gates could be left open and others enter behind them.

 

Speed Limits

·   Currently 70km/h and 100km/h.

·   Actual operating speeds are currently 40-44km/h (based on bluetooth data).

·   Unlikely to have a significant impact on anti-social road user activity.

 

No Overtaking Lines

·   Unlikely to have a significant impact on anti-social road user activity.

·   Cost of line-marking.

·   Covered by existing road rules.

 

No-Parking

·   Sign of the Kiwi and Summit Rd/Gebbies Pass Rd areas are useful as parking or layby areas. No-parking, stopping, standing restrictions not desirable.

·   No obvious congregation places which would benefit from No-Parking.

·   Enforcement needed to be effective.

 

Increase Hours/Days of Operation of Proposed Prohibited Times on Road

·   Hours have been targeted to cover the largest period of when issues occur, while still maintaining access on other occasions.

 

Visitor Permit

·   This was considered, but discontinued due to likely administration costs and time taken, including vetting who was an appropriate visitor.

 

Add Roads to Restricted Roads List

·   Dyers Pass Road and Gebbies Pass Road are not suitable for addition given the arterial function of these roads.

7.   Consideration and Deliberation of Submissions

7.1       The Hearings Panel considered all the information and written and heard submissions received during the consultation and hearings process and proceeded to deliberate on what its recommendations to the Council would be in regard to the Proposal. 

7.2       Through its consideration of the submissions and information received, the Hearings Panel decided to recommend that the Council does not approve the Proposal, i.e. that it:

Does not approve the installation of a Prohibited Times on Road Restriction on Summit Road (Rapaki Road - Gebbies Pass Road) and Worsleys Road (Summit Road - start of the Track).

7.3       The Hearings Panel’s reasons for not supporting the Proposal (and in so doing, accepting the staff recommendation) may in accordance with their deliberations be summarised as follows:

7.3.1   The indication is that the installation of the Proposed Prohibited Times on Road Restrictions would not be accompanied by increased enforcement contributing to the first of the Panel’s reasons for not supporting the Proposal, being that Panel considered it would be effectively unenforceable and ineffective.

7.3.2   The Panel’s second reason for not supporting the Proposal related to the concern that the Proposal would simply displace the anti-social road use to other areas, and, worse than that, displace it to nearby roads with more bona fide users where anti-social road use would be a greater risk to the safety and property of the local community and law-abiding road users. The Panel were concerned at the lack of assurance the Proposal would not increase the risk to the public in this way.

7.3.3   The Panel’s third reason for not supporting the Proposal related to its consideration for respectful, law-abiding visiting night-time users of the stretches of Summit Road and Worsleys Road that the Proposal would exclude them from. The Panel regarded that the interests of the likes of the more regular visitors such as astro-photographers, and the freedom of all residents of, and visitors to, the greater Christchurch area (the majority being law-abiding) to spontaneously enjoy the night-time scenic (sometimes romantic) views and isolation of the Summit Road, should not be undermined because of the actions of the anti-social minority.

7.4       The Hearings Panel, however, regarded that not supporting the Proposal cannot be the end of the road for seeking to protect the Summit Road from anti-social road use and damage. They also regarded that local residents and their right to the quiet and safe enjoyment of their properties in the area are deserving of protection, and felt a duty of care to make recommendations that would require and expedite addressing the concerns underlying the Proposal though other means.

7.5       Though they disagreed with the Proposal as a solution, the Panel regarded that they and the public have a strong interest in something being done to protect the Summit Road and so they proceeded to agree to recommend that the Council:

Requests that the Port Hills Management Plan be advanced as soon as possible recognising that the outcomes and objectives of that Plan may assist in achieving positive outcomes for the Summit Road and other affected roads in the area covered by that Plan.

The Panel noted the costs and consequences of the anti-social road use and damage occurring on the Summit Road, regarding that even just the economic cost to the Council justifies the expeditious advancement of the Port Hills Management Plan.

7.6       The Hearings Panel recognised that staff had carefully considered the possible alternatives to the Proposal and had acted reasonably and diligently in putting the Proposal out to consultation, having done so with the support of the Police, Summit Road Protection Authority and other concerned groups and residents, and having done so after conducting elected member workshops, discussions with Selwyn District Council, and a sensible range of investigations.

7.7       Being satisfied that the concerns underlying the Proposal are real and justified, and that the solution to them will not be simple or singular, but will require a comprehensive, integrated plan, the Hearings Panel conceived to advocate the expeditious advancement of the Port Hills Management Plan in their hope that it may assist in addressing the relevant concerns for the Summit Road.

7.8       The concern expressed in some submissions on the Proposal that it would simply displace the anti-social road use to other areas, and that the Proposal is too limited in not addressing road safety on nearby roads, could be taken to reflect a fear in the wider Port Hills area in regard to unsafe and damaging behaviour on their roads, and the advancement of the more comprehensive Port Hills Management Plan was expected to be more satisfactory to submitters not supportive of what some considered a limited focus on the Summit Road.

7.9       To further prompt and expedite the advancement of alternative solutions to the concerns underlying the Proposal, particularly the advancement of the Port Hills Management Plan, the Hearings Panel recommended that the Council:

Requests that a joint briefing on these matters be provided as soon as possible to the affected Community Boards.

Given the city-wide significance of Summit Road and the Port Hills Management Plan, the Chairman of the Hearings Panel supports the interpretation of this recommendation that all Community Boards are affected by these matters and accordingly should all be invited to the joint briefing, which should focus on the advancement of the Port Hills Management Plan, particularly in respect of how it may assist in addressing the concerns for Summit Road discussed in this report. The Chairman also supports the interpretation that the matters to be covered at the joint briefing should include the Panel’s further recommendations (discussed below) if accepted by the Council as matters for consideration.

7.10    The Hearings Panel were keen to see that other tools and options for the Summit Road continue to be considered. Perceiving that a safe driving speed on the Summit Road would be less than the current speed limit, though recognising the possible limits to enforceability and that lowering the speed limit on the Summit Road might not do much to solve the concerns underlying the Proposal, the Hearing Panel recommended that the Council:

Considers a lowering of the speed limit on the Summit Road.

7.11    Conceiving that being able to identify those committing criminal acts on Summit Road and gather evidence sufficient for prosecution would be ideal, as would discouraging criminal acts before they occur through video surveillance, the Hearings Panel had an inclination from that perspective to advocate for an alternative to the Proposal involving some form of crime prevention cameras. However, anticipating that straightforward cameras may perform meagrely at a realistic cost point, the Hearing Panel offered a more open-ended recommendation that the Council:

Considers a mechanism that would potentially identify users of the Summit Road for crime prevention purposes.

The discussion on this point included reference to the possibility that the relevant mechanism could be a form of number plate recognition technology, even if this was primarily useful for statistical purposes with only a limited usefulness for evidential purposes.

7.12    Whether the mechanism might be cameras of some sort or some other mechanism that would potentially identify users for crime prevention purposes is deliberately not specified by the Hearings Panel to encourage broad investigation of the options, contemplating that an identification mechanism might not itself solve the concerns, but may nonetheless be a useful tool that combined with other tools (including those discussed and others that might be investigated such as interventions to the road surface) might start to appropriately reflect the desire to better enable the Police to assist with the protection of the Summit Road, and in this connection the Hearings Panel recommended that the Council:

Notes that the Police are agreeable to assisting with measures to curb anti-social behaviour on the Summit Road.

7.13    Staff had noted that lowering the speed limit or implementing crime prevention technologies would require working with the Police. The Hearings Panel thus gratefully noted the agreeableness of the Police to assist with the anti-social behaviour and hoped to see further engagement with the Police, Selwyn District Council and the Community Boards in respect of the concerns for the Summit Road. The Panel also raised whether the local community could be involved and assist; this being a possibility that could be entertained in the context of the advancement of the Port Hills Management Plan.

7.14    The Hearings Panel concluded there after delegating authority to the Chairman of the Hearings Panel to approve this Hearings Panel Report.

Signatories

Author                        Mark Saunders - Hearings Advisor

Approved By            Councillor David East - Chairman of the Hearings Panel

 

 

 

Attachments

No.

Title

Page

a

Proposed Prohibited Times of Summit Rd (Rapaki Rd - Gebbies Pass Rd) & Worsleys Rd (Summit Rd - start of the Track)

314

 

 


Council

22 March 2018

 

PDF Creator


Council

22 March 2018

 

 

28.    Christchurch City Holdings Ltd - Unaudited Interim Report for the half-year ending 31 December 2017

Reference:

18/222721

Presenter(s):

Linda Gibb, Performance Advisor

 

 

1.   Purpose and Origin of Report

Purpose of Report

1.1       The purpose of this report is for the Council to note Christchurch City Holdings Ltd’s (CCHL) unaudited Interim Report (financial statements) for the half-year ending 31 December 2017.

Origin of Report

1.2       This report is staff generated as a result of CCHL’s unaudited financial statements being released to the Stock Exchange on 1 March 2018. 

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.  The level of significance was determined by assessing the likely impact of the noting decisions in this paper on the community.

 

3.   Staff Recommendations

That the Council:

1.         Receives this report and the attached Christchurch City Holdings Ltd unaudited Interim Report for the half-year ending 31 December 2017.

 

4.   Key Points

4.1       At its meeting on 28 February, the Finance and Performance Committee reviewed CCHL’s unaudited Interim Report (half year financial statements to 31 December 2017), and performance report in a public excluded session.  This was because CCHL had not, at that time released its unaudited Interim Report to the market, as required by the Financial Markets Conduct Act 2013 and the NZX Debt market listing rules.  That being the case, the results could not be discussed in the public arena.

4.2       CCHL’s unaudited Interim Report has now been released to the market and accordingly, it is appropriate that it be reviewed by the Council in the public session of its meeting.  The unaudited Interim Report is at Attachment A.

4.3       CCHL’s Performance Report, and the accompanying Council staff report remain on the Council’s public excluded agenda.  They contain commercially sensitive information that would potentially prejudice the CCHL group’s performance if it was revealed to the market (e.g. competitors).

 

Financial result for the CCHL group for the half year ending 31 December 2017

4.4       For the half-year to 31 December 2017, CCHL’s net profit after tax (NPAT) is $50.7 million, compared with $48.7 million for the same period in 2016.  CCHL advises that it is on target to achieve its 2017/18 Statement of Intent full-year forecast of $80.4 million and to meet the commitment it has made to distribute ordinary dividends to the Council of $55.3 million by 30 June 2018 and special dividends of $140 million. 

4.5       The main contributions to the half-year result are Orion New Zealand ($30.7 million) and Christchurch International Airport Ltd ($19.3 million). Lyttelton Port’s half-year net profit after tax is $8.7 million, against a full year SOI forecast of $9 million.

 

 

Attachments

No.

Title

Page

a

Christchurch City Holdings Ltd Interim Report for the half-year ending 31 December 2017

317

 

 

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

Mushe Shoko - Manager External Reporting & Governance

Diane Brandish - Head of Financial Management

Carol Bellette - General Manager Finance and Commercial (CFO)

  


Council

22 March 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


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

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 March 2018

 

 

29.  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 March 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

30

Public Excluded Council Minutes - 22 February 2018

 

 

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

 

31

Public Excluded Council Minutes - 8 March 2018

 

 

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

 

32

Road Stopping Application

s7(2)(a), s7(2)(g)

Protection of Privacy of Natural Persons, Maintain Legal Professional Privilege

To protect the applicant's privacy and because the report contains sensitive legal advice on the Council's position

Should never be released

33

Christchurch City Holdings Ltd - Half year performance report to 31 December 2017

s7(2)(h), s7(2)(j)

Commercial Activities, Prevention of Improper Advantage

Information contained in this report and its attachments is subject to CCHL's continuous disclosure obligations under the Financial Markets Conduct Act 2013 and the NZX Debt Market Listing Rules.  It is provided to shareholders in confidence until released to the market by 1 March, and until that time is insider information.  It is illegal for any person who has insider information to trade CCHL's bonds, advice or encourage others to trade or hold the bonds, or pass on or disclose the insider information to others.

When the information is publicly available.

34

Development Christchurch Ltd - Status Report December 2017 - February 2018

s7(2)(h)

Commercial Activities

THe activities discussed in this report, if revealed could prejudice DCL's ability to successfully achieve the activities/projects.

When approved by the Chief Executive

35

Riccarton Bush Trust - Appointment of Council trustee

s7(2)(a), s7(2)(f)(ii)

Protection of Privacy of Natural Persons, Protection from Improper Pressure or Harassment

The reputation of a private individual is put at risk if final Council decisions differ from those contained in this report.  Interested third parties could put undue pressure on the Council with respect to its decision-making on such a matter.

After final decisions have been taken and a public announcement made (if any).

36

Public Excluded Finance and Performance Committee Minutes - 28 February 2018

 

 

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

 


 

37

RFP responses and options

s7(2)(h), s7(2)(i), s7(2)(j)

Commercial Activities, Conduct Negotiations, Prevention of Improper Advantage

Seeking approval to enter into negotiations with vendor

30 June 2018

38

Community Resilience Partnership

s7(2)(b)(ii)

Prejudice Commercial Position

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

Once any required negotiations are complete and a communication plan has been signed off.

 

 



[1] The Act states that the Summit Road Protection Authority is a joint committee of the Selwyn District Council, Christchurch City Council, and Banks Peninsula District Council (the latter two councils having since been amalgamated).

[2] The Bylaw would allow for exceptions to the prohibition, including:

·      Maintaining access to Summit Road properties for owners, occupiers and their bona fide visitors.

·      Continued access for vehicles over 3500kg, cyclists and pedestrians.

[3] This is tube count data, and it is to be noted that there was an error on 1 weekday in this period so it is an estimated figure used for this day. Tube count data is vehicle movements, and it is to be noted that 1 vehicle may have multiple movements, and each vehicle may have multiple occupants.

[4] As the road is closed, this is vehicles entering and exiting and likely to be the same vehicle being counted twice. This note applies to all figures given here.

[5] This again is tube count data, and it is to be noted that there was an error on 2 weekdays in this period so it is an estimated figure used for this day.

[6] A number of submitters submitted scenic photographs of the night sky as seen from Summit Road with their written submissions, which demonstrated their interest in night-time vehicular access and Summit Road’s night-time amenity. The below example (copied from page 94 of the Hearings Panel agenda) from submitter, James Williamson, who was not in support of the Proposal, usefully shows astro-photographers utilising the currently unrestricted night-time vehicular access:

 

[7] These figures relating to the whole Police District (from Timaru up to the Hurunui), though the majority would relate to Christchurch, and the figure for vehicles impounded includes those taken from disqualified and suspended drivers also (who may or may not have been engaged in anti-social road user behaviour leading up to disqualification or suspension, since other transgressions such as drink driving convictions or excess demerit points could have led them to that point).