Christchurch City Council

Agenda

 

 

Notice of Meeting:

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

 

Date:                                     Wednesday 19 December 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

 

 

14 December 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

19 December 2018

 

 


Council

19 December 2018

 

TABLE OF CONTENTS

 

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

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

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

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

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

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

Regulatory Performance Committee

5.       Proposed Plan Change 1 Woolston Risk Management Area................................................ 5

Infrastructure, Transport and Environment Committee

6.       Proposal to widen Strand Lane............................................................................................. 19

Innovation and Sustainable Development Committee

7.       Development Contributions - Small Residential Unit Rebate............................................. 45

Staff Reports

8.       Fees and Charges for Tūranga Facilties................................................................................. 57

9.       Fees and Charges for Nga Puna Wai Facilities...................................................................... 63

10.     Draft submission on Health (Drinking Water) Amendment Bill.......................................... 69

11.     Draft comments on the draft Ōtākaro Avon River Corridor Regeneration Plan.............. 75

12.     Botanic Gardens Old Information Centre - Lease to Jenny Gillies...................................... 79

13.     Christchurch Town Hall.......................................................................................................... 89

14.     Water Supply Improvement Programme - update.............................................................. 93

15.     Resolution to Exclude the Public......................................................................................... 103  

 

 

 


Council

19 December 2018

 

 

1.   Apologies

 

2.   Declarations of Interest

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

3.   Public Participation

3.1  Public Forum

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

3.2  Deputations by Appointment

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

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

4.   Presentation of Petitions

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

 


Council

19 December 2018

 

Report from Regulatory Performance Committee  – 12 December 2018

 

5.        Proposed Plan Change 1 Woolston Risk Management Area

Reference:

18/1323824

Presenter(s):

Paul Waiting, Team Leader City Planning
Marie Pollisco, Policy Planner

 

 

 

1.  Regulatory Performance Committee Recommendation to Council

 

Staff recommendations were accepted without change.

 

That the Council:

1.         Note the report on the Proposed Plan Change 1 Woolston Risk Management Area as being the first proposed plan change under the Council’s operative District Plan (due to the expiry of Rule 4.1.4.1.5 NC2 on 31 March 2019). 

2.         Note that staff will progress preparation for the proposed plan change, and seek Council agreement to notify the plan change immediately once the Order in Council is revoked.  

 

 

Attachments

No.

Report Title

Page

1

Proposed Plan Change 1 Woolston Risk Management Area

6

 

No.

Title

Page

a

Operative Planning Map 47A

12

b

Plan Change 1 WRMA - Alternative Process Options Diagram

14

c

Streamlined Planning Process Flowchart

15

d

Schedule 1 RMA Process Diagram

16

e

Section 71 GCRA Process Diagram

17

 

 


Council

19 December 2018

 

 

Proposed Plan Change 1 Woolston Risk Management Area

Reference:

18/848167

Presenter(s):

Paul Waiting, Team Leader City Planning
Marie Pollisco, Policy Planner

 

 

1.   Purpose and Origin of Report

Purpose of Report

1.1       The purpose of this report is to provide the Regulatory Performance Committee and Council with information about the process, timing and issues surrounding the upcoming Proposed Plan Change 1 Woolston Risk Management Area.  This will be the Council’s first plan change under the operative District Plan.

Origin of Report

1.2       This report is staff generated because of a rule in the District Plan that expires on 31 March 2019. The subject rule requires consent for sensitive activities in close proximity to the bulk fuel storage terminals at Woolston. A plan change is needed to avoid a lacuna or gap in the District Plan provisions but the Order in Council (Canterbury Earthquake Order 2014) does not presently allow for plan changes.

1.3       Council is aware of the Government’s progress in revoking the Order in Council, however, a firm date for this to occur is not presently known. 

2.   Significance

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

2.1.1   The level of significance was determined by the possible environmental, economic and social benefits, and Council’s limited ability to control sensitive activities that may impact on strategic infrastructure after 31 March 2019. The level of impact on those people affected is expected to be medium. However, the decision only impacts on a limited group of people and there is low risk involved.

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

2.1.3   The Linwood/Central/Heathcote Community Board have been briefed of this issue and the proposed approach to resolution.

 

3.   Staff Recommendations 

That the Regulatory Performance Committee recommend that:

1.         The Council note the report on the Proposed Plan Change 1 Woolston Risk Management Area as being the first proposed plan change under the Council’s operative District Plan (due to the expiry of Rule 4.1.4.1.5 NC2 on 31 March 2019).

2.         The Council note that staff will progress preparation for the proposed plan change, and seek Council agreement to notify the plan change immediately once the Order in Council is revoked.

 

 

4.   Key Points

4.1       This report supports the Council's Long Term Plan (2018 - 2028):

4.1.1   Activity: Strategic Planning and Policy

·     Level of Service: 9.5.1.1 Guidance on where and how the city grows through the District Plan - Ensure Christchurch District Plan is operative.

4.2       The District Plan Rule 4.1.4.1.5 NC2 classifies ‘sensitive activities’[1] as non-complying within the Risk Management Areas shown on Planning Map 47A (see Attachment A).  This rule protects the bulk fuel storage terminals in Woolston from reverse sensitivity effects. The non-complying rule states that it “shall cease to have effect by 31 March 2019” (the ‘sunset clause’), the intent being that by this date, the relevant bulk fuel storage terminal operators would have completed the Quantitative Risk Assessments (QRAs) required by the Independent Hearings Panel (IHP) on the Christchurch Replacement District Plan and update the geographic extent of the Risk Management Areas based on the outcome of the QRAs for these sites.

4.3       The required QRAs have now been prepared for the two bulk fuel storage terminals associated with these Risk Management Areas (the ‘overlay’). The resultant proposed new overlay will be marginally modified from the current overlay by combining the two Risk Management Areas into one, which will affect a total of 248 properties broken down as follows:

·   Newly affected – 54

·   No longer affected – 136

·   No change – 58

4.4       A plan change is needed to amend the geographic extent of the Risk Management Areas shown on Planning Map 47A based on the updated QRA, the District Plan provisions in Chapter 4 (Hazardous Substances and Contaminated Land) relating to Risk Management Areas, and consequential amendments to Chapter 16 (Industrial). The Canterbury Earthquake Order 2014 (or Order-in-Council, referred to as the ‘OIC’) however does not allow for plan changes.

4.5       However, giving the pressing urgency of this proposal, and having very carefully reviewed the language of the OIC with the Council’s legal team, it is staff’s view that a Council-initiated plan change can be progressed up to a Council decision to publicly notify but not to the public notification itself.  Doing this allows Council to be as prepared as possible for when the OIC is revoked. Pre-notification consultation with the affected properties has not yet been undertaken. As the revocation of the OIC is uncertain and not ultimately a Council-controlled decision it could be viewed as pre-emptive for the Council to engage the public in the current legislative environment.  However, this will be necessary to minimise any gap in the District Plan protections.

4.6       To ensure a plan change process is expedited once the OIC is revoked, Council staff and representatives of Mobil Oil NZ and Liquigas Limited, who own the two bulk fuel storage terminals in Woolston, started working together on drafting the plan change documents, including the evaluation report required under Section 32 of the Resource Management Act 1991 (the RMA).  Considering the existence of the OIC and uncertainty as to when the OIC may be revoked, a gap or lacuna in the District Plan is most likely to eventuate when the sunset clause expires on 31 March 2019.

4.7       In practical terms, a lacuna is unlikely to lead to issues. As sensitive activities in the surrounding Industrial Heavy and Industrial General Zones are either discretionary or non-complying they will trigger a resource consent even after the expiration of the non-complying rule on 31 March 2019. However, it would for example be possible for a preschool to be established in the Industrial General Zone as a permitted activity once the sunset clause has expired. Whilst the preschool scenario has to be considered unlikely, Council’s ability to control such a use that may impact on strategic infrastructure becomes extremely limited after 31 March 2019.

4.8       In the event of the scenario above, a complying preschool proposal will not trigger the need for any form of resource consent. The Council’s ability to assess the use would be limited to the more procedural Building Act 2004 legislation, which does not include any ability to decline a proposal on reverse sensitivity grounds. Subsequently, any additions or modifications to the bulk fuel storage terminals would be subject to an assessment of their environmental effects on the preschool (‘reverse sensitivity’).

4.9       The proposed plan change will be processed under Schedule 1 of the RMA. The RMA calendar is closed between December 20 and January 10 so pre-notification consultation on the draft plan change could start at the earliest from 11 January 2019 or at a later date if the OIC is revoked after 10 January 2019. Proposed Plan Change 1 Woolston Risk Management Area is aimed to be brought before Council through a seminar-workshop in the New Year to seek input on the draft plan change before being finalised.

 

5.   Context

Background

5.1       Christchurch City has two bulk fuel storage terminals in Woolston, which are both identified in the District Plan as ‘strategic infrastructure’. One terminal is owned by Mobil Oil New Zealand (Mobil) located at 79 Chapmans Road, and the other by Liquigas Limited (Liquigas) located at 50 Chapmans Road.

5.2       The bulk fuel terminals are also important infrastructure in the fuel supply chain for the Canterbury region and Christchurch City. Under the Civil Defence and Emergency Management Act 2002, the operators of the terminals are also identified as “lifeline utilities”, i.e., entities that produce, supply, or distribute manufactured gas or natural gas. Lifeline utilities must be able to function to the fullest possible extent during and after an emergency. Any disruption to the petroleum and/or liquefied petroleum gas (LPG) supply chains would have a major impact on the availability of fuel supplies and therefore on people’s ability to meet their social and economic needs. It is important that the terminal operators are not unduly constrained in the way they use their land resource in order to operate successfully and remain viable.

5.3       While the existing surrounding Industrial Heavy and Industrial General Zones restrict most sensitive activities through activity status rules (i.e., discretionary and non-complying), specific District Plan provisions (in the form of an ‘overlay’ and corresponding policies and rules) in Chapter 4 (Hazardous Substances and Contaminated Land) protect these terminals from reverse sensitivity effects.

5.4       District Plan Rule 4.1.4.1.5 NC2, which provides for sensitive activities located within a Risk Management Area as non-complying, however applies only until 31 March 2019. This timeframe was inserted by the IHP in recognition of the need at the time of the District Plan review for Liquigas and Mobil to update their respective QRAs.

5.5       The required QRAs have now been prepared and the resultant proposed new overlay will be marginally modified from the current overlay.

5.6       Planning Map 47A will need to be amended through a plan change to show the updated geographic extent of the Risk Management Areas. Similarly, provisions in Chapter 4 (Hazardous Substances and Contaminated Land) need to be updated, including consequential amendments to Chapter 16 (Industrial). Investigations on proposing new provisions to manage risks to life are also being considered as part of the draft plan change. The current legislative environment with the existing OIC does not however allow for plan changes.

5.7       A monitoring regime for the District Plan has already been established and this process will be separately reported to the Regulatory and Performance Committee.  This process will be used to identify issues for monitoring, gather necessary evidence, and then arrange and prioritise any necessary plan changes in due course. 

The OIC

5.8       In January 2018, Council formally requested the Minister for Greater Christchurch Regeneration to revoke the OIC. This request made specific reference to the need to avoid a gap in the planning provisions arising from time-sensitive matters such as that for the Woolston Risk Management Areas.

5.9       The Minister has been consulting with Strategic partners as is required by the Act.  Staff understand that a Cabinet decision on removing the OiC is imminent, however staff at DPMC are unable to confirm if it will occur prior to the Christmas recess. 

5.10    Staff at DPMC are aware of the difficulty that this situation is placing on Council, and the risk of unintended consequences, albeit, low, which exists. 

Other Procedural Options considered

5.11    Council staff and the Mobil/Liquigas representatives have concurrently been investigating alternative process options (refer to Process Options Diagram in Attachment B) available under alternative legislation should the OIC not be revoked; and options for utilising the Environment Court to expedite a plan change should the OIC be revoked in such proximity to the sunset clause date as to make the completion of a standard plan change unlikely to take effect in time.

Under the RMA

5.11.1    Once the Order in Council is revoked, the Council can initiate a plan change by either going through the Standard Process under Schedule 1 (see Attachment C) or by applying to the Minister for the Environment for a direction to use the Streamlined Planning Process under s80C (see Attachment D). The streamlined process involves lodging an application with the Minister for Environment to direct Council to use the Streamlined Planning Process. This scenario is considered likely to meet one of the tests, hence is potentially available, but requires the OIC to be revoked to be utilised. The streamlined process would be faster than the standard Schedule 1 process as there is no requirement for hearings and no appeals on the merits of the Minister’s decision once it is made. This plan change process is not ideal, particularly with 54 newly affected properties.

5.11.2    A combination of utilising s86D(2) and the Schedule 1 process - This process involves lodging an application with the Environment Court for a rule to have immediate legal effect from a date other than the standard date – this requires the OIC to be revoked and the proposed plan change approved by Council for public notification. An application to be lodged with the Environment Court would be for the amendment to Rule 4.1.4.1.5 NC2 to have immediate legal effect from the date of notification. This means that the proposed rule still needs to be decided on through the standard RMA process of submissions and hearings for a plan change, but in the meantime, consent is required for any breach of that rule. The proposed rule with legal effect will be weighted accordingly alongside the operative rule for any consent applications in breach of that rule. This combined process is viewed by staff to be the most efficient and effective way to avoid a lacuna in the District Plan provisions.

Under the Greater Christchurch Regeneration Act 2016 (GCRA)

5.11.3    Under this process, the Council would prepare a draft proposal (under section 65 of the GCRA), asking the Minister for Greater Christchurch Regeneration to exercise her powers (under section 71) to amend the District Plan. The section 71 process is outlined in Attachment E. The OIC does not have to be revoked in utilising this process.

5.11.4    Two different ways in utilising the GCRA were considered: (1) propose the entire draft plan change; or (2) propose to change the date only in the sunset clause and then revert to utilising Schedule 1 RMA process. In both cases, discussions with the DPMC indicate they do not consider the changes meet the regeneration purpose of the Act. Discussions are ongoing in the event the OIC is not revoked before the sunset clause expires.

5.12    The following process options were also considered but not found to be viable:

5.12.1    Use of s292 of the RMA – This involves lodging an application with the Environment Court to direct Council under this clause to change the expiry date of the risk management provisions so that there is sufficient time for a plan change. Section 292 however only refers to remedying any mistake, defect, or uncertainty in the regional plan or district plan, and it is not considered that the sunset clause was added in error or is unclear.

5.12.2    Use of s293 of the RMA – As with s292 above, this involves lodging an application with the Environment Court but under s293 (which allows the Environment Court to change the district plans if the Court has heard an appeal or inquiry into a plan) but the Environment Court does not have jurisdiction to change the District Plan.

5.13    All potential options for addressing the lapsing of the protective overlay around the Woolston oil terminals have procedural limitations.

5.14    On balance staff consider that the approach of undertaking a standard plan change provides for the greatest assurance that parties affected by the changes have the optimal opportunity for engagement in the process. Simultaneously the value of protecting strategic infrastructure and preventing or minimising the lacuna is recognised as vital, hence the recommendation that relevant elements of the plan change related to the removal of the sunset clause is expedited through an application to the Environment Court. As this approach requires the public notification of the plan change (which is prohibited under the OIC) staff have framed this report as an update for the Committee and Council noting that a decision to approve (or not) the notification of a plan change cannot be sought at this time.  However, this will be sought from Council at the earliest opportunity once the OiC is removed, and the recommended procedure outlined in this report will then be expedited (subject to Council agreement).

 

Attachments

No.

Title

Page

a 

Operative Planning Map 47A

 

b 

Plan Change 1 WRMA - Alternative Process Options Diagram

 

c 

Streamlined Planning Process Flowchart

 

d 

Schedule 1 RMA Process Diagram

 

e 

Section 71 GCRA Process Diagram

 

 

 

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

Marie Pollisco - Policy Planner

Paul Waiting - Team Leader City Planning

Approved By

David Griffiths - Head of Planning & Strategic Transport

Brendan Anstiss - General Manager Strategy and Transformation

 


Council

19 December 2018

 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


Council

19 December 2018

 

PDF Creator


Council

19 December 2018

 

PDF Creator


Council

19 December 2018

 

PDF Creator


Council

19 December 2018

 

PDF Creator


Council

19 December 2018

 

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

 

6.        Proposal to widen Strand Lane

Reference:

18/1331197

Presenter(s):

Stuart McLeod, Property Consultant

 

 

 

1.  Infrastructure, Transport and Environment Committee Consideration

 

The Committee did not make a recommendation to Council on this Item. It was resolved by Councillor Pauline Cotter, seconded by Councillor Mike Davidson that Item 8 be referred to the Council for consideration and decision at its meeting on 19 December 2018 due to the element of risk in the staff recommendations. The Committee noted its support for the Strand Lane project.

 

2.   Staff Recommendations

 

That the Infrastructure, Transport and Environment Committee recommends to Council that it resolves as follows:

1.         Having received a unique and unsolicited proposal for the sale by the Council of 109m² being part of Lot 1 DP 9669 shown on the plan attached to this report as Section 4 (“Section 4”) as outlined in section 5.15 of this report that:

a.         Would provide benefit to the people of Christchurch by improving pedestrian movement through Strand Lane to Cathedral Square from Hereford Street and adjoining laneways; and

b.         Is consistent with the aspirations of the Central City Action Plan;

c.         Aligns with the objectives of the Christchurch Lanes Design Guide 2007;and

d.         Aligns with the objectives of the Safer Christchurch Strategy 2015 – 2021;

2.         Declares Section 4 surplus to operational requirements.

3.         To depart from the Council’s policy to “publicly tender properties for sale unless there is a clear reason for doing otherwise” to authorise (subject to first fulfilling the Council’s offer-back obligations under section 40 of the Public Works Act 1981) the sale of Section 4 to Hilburn Holdings Limited at market value as determined by a registered valuer (plus or minus 10%), noting as follows:

a.         The decision is inconsistent with the policy to “publicly tender properties for sale unless there is a clear reason for doing otherwise”;

b.         The reason for the inconsistency with the policy is that the policy requires the Council to “publicly tender properties for sale unless there is a clear reason for doing otherwise”;

c.         There is no intention to amend the policy to accommodate this decision as this decision involves unique ‘one-off’ circumstances that are unlikely to be repeated.

4.         Purchases 29m² or thereabouts being a part of Lot 2 DP 9669 as is shown as Section 2 on the attached plan at market value as determined by a registered valuer (plus or minus 10%.)

5.         Purchases 51m² or thereabouts being a part of Lot 1 DP 61143 shown on the attached plan as Section 3 at market value as determined by a registered valuer (plus or minus 10%).

6.         Approves as landowner the granting of rights of way easements on foot over Sections 1, 2 and 3 shown on the attached plan in favour of Section 4 and the balance of Lot 2 DP 9669 and the balance of Lot 1 DP 61143.

7.         Approve as land owner the granting of a right of way easement on foot in gross in favour of the Christchurch City Council over all of Strand Lane being the new Sections 1, 2 and 3 on the attached plan and the existing land (legally described as Part Town Section 732 and Lot 1 DP 10358).

8.         Delegates to the Manager Property Consultancy the authority to take all necessary steps to negotiate, agree and enter into all necessary documentation on behalf of the Council as he shall consider necessary or desirable to give effect to the above resolutions. 

 

3.  Infrastructure, Transport and Environment Committee Decisions Under Delegation

 

Part C

It was resolved on the motion of Councillor Pauline Cotter, seconded by Councillor Mike Davidson that Item 8 be referred to the Council for consideration and decision at its meeting on 19 December 2018 due to the element of risk in the staff recommendations. The Committee noted its support for the Strand Lane project.

Councillor Cotter/Councillor Davidson                                                                                                   Carried

Councillors Keown and Templeton requested that their vote against the above decision be recorded.

 

4.  Infrastructure, Transport and Environment Committee Recommendation to Council

 

Staff Recommendations to Council

Part A

That the Council resolves as follows:

1.         Having received a unique and unsolicited proposal for the sale by the Council of 109m² being part of Lot 1 DP 9669 shown on the plan attached to this report as Section 4 (“Section 4”) as outlined in section 5.15 of this report that:

a.         Would provide benefit to the people of Christchurch by improving pedestrian movement through Strand Lane to Cathedral Square from Hereford Street and adjoining laneways; and

b.         Is consistent with the aspirations of the Central City Action Plan;

c.         Aligns with the objectives of the Christchurch Lanes Design Guide 2007;and

d.         Aligns with the objectives of the Safer Christchurch Strategy 2015 – 2021;

2.         Declares Section 4 surplus to operational requirements.

3.         To depart from the Council’s policy to “publicly tender properties for sale unless there is a clear reason for doing otherwise” to authorise (subject to first fulfilling the Council’s offer-back obligations under section 40 of the Public Works Act 1981) the sale of Section 4 to Hilburn Holdings Limited at market value as determined by a registered valuer (plus or minus 10%), noting as follows:

a.         The decision is inconsistent with the policy to “publicly tender properties for sale unless there is a clear reason for doing otherwise”;

b.         The reason for the inconsistency with the policy is that the policy requires the Council to “publicly tender properties for sale unless there is a clear reason for doing otherwise”;

c.         There is no intention to amend the policy to accommodate this decision as this decision involves unique ‘one-off’ circumstances that are unlikely to be repeated.

4.         Purchases 29m² or thereabouts being a part of Lot 2 DP 9669 as is shown as Section 2 on the attached plan at market value as determined by a registered valuer (plus or minus 10%.)

5.         Purchases 51m² or thereabouts being a part of Lot 1 DP 61143 shown on the attached plan as Section 3 at market value as determined by a registered valuer (plus or minus 10%).

6.         Approves as landowner the granting of rights of way easements on foot over Sections 1, 2 and 3 shown on the attached plan in favour of Section 4 and the balance of Lot 2 DP 9669 and the balance of Lot 1 DP 61143.

7.         Approve as land owner the granting of a right of way easement on foot in gross in favour of the Christchurch City Council over all of Strand Lane being the new Sections 1, 2 and 3 on the attached plan and the existing land (legally described as Part Town Section 732 and Lot 1 DP 10358).

8.         Delegates to the Manager Property Consultancy the authority to take all necessary steps to negotiate, agree and enter into all necessary documentation on behalf of the Council as he shall consider necessary or desirable to give effect to the above resolutions. 

 

 

Attachments

No.

Report Title

Page

1

Proposal to widen Strand Lane

22

 

No.

Title

Page

a

304/5861 diagram of proposed land parcels

35

b

Table of Submissions

36

c  

Public Excluded Information (Under Separate Cover)

 

 

 


Council

19 December 2018

 

 

Proposal to widen Strand Lane

Reference:

18/523917

Presenter(s):

Stuart McLeod, Property Consultant

 

 

1.   Purpose and Origin of Report

Purpose of Report

1.1       The purpose of this report is to provide sufficient information for the Infrastructure, Transport and Environment Committee  to consider and recommend to Council to purchase a 1.7 metre wide strip either side of the existing Strand Lane so its total width is 6 metres; and

1.2       Recommend to the Council that it declares the balance of former public restroom site at 13 Cathedral Square (being Section 4 of the plan attached to this report) (“Section 4”) surplus to operational requirements and depart from Council policy and sell it to Hilburn Holdings Limited (“Hilburn”) (subject to the Council first fulfilling its obligations under Section 40 of the Public Works Act 1981); and

1.3       Assuming the recommendations in this report are adopted, approve the granting of rights of way easements over Strand Lane. 

Origin of Report

1.4       This report is staff generated. Council has a desire to widen Strand Lane to achieve an interactive space and improving line of site and pedestrian connectivity to Cathedral Square.  Improving accessibility and connectivity to and from Cathedral Square has been a long-term goal for Council. 

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 assessing the expected improvements to visibility and pedestrian movement through Strand Lane coupled with the provision of a new public toilet facility in a superior location.

2.1.2   The community engagement and consultation outlined in this report is a statutory requirement and exceed the level of significance.

2.1.3   The level of significance has been categorised as low using the Council’s assessment matrix primarily due to the fact that the decision is substantially a minor local issue, with no changes to current levels of service/amenity, limited affected parties and no detrimental impacts.

 

3.   Staff Recommendations 

That the Infrastructure, Transport and Environment Committee recommends to Council that it resolves as follows:

1.         Having received a unique and unsolicited proposal for the sale by the Council of 109m² being part of Lot 1 DP 9669 shown on the plan attached to this report as Section 4 (“Section 4”) as outlined in section 5.15 of this report that:

a.         Would provide benefit to the people of Christchurch by improving pedestrian movement through Strand Lane to Cathedral Square from Hereford Street and adjoining laneways; and

b.         Is consistent with the aspirations of the Central City Action Plan;

c.         Aligns with the objectives of the Christchurch Lanes Design Guide 2007;and

d.         Aligns with the objectives of the Safer Christchurch Strategy 2015 – 2021;

2.         Declares Section 4 surplus to operational requirements.

3.         To depart from the Council’s policy to “publicly tender properties for sale unless there is a clear reason for doing otherwise” to authorise (subject to first fulfilling the Council’s offer-back obligations under section 40 of the Public Works Act 1981) the sale of Section 4 to Hilburn Holdings Limited at market value as determined by a registered valuer (plus or minus 10%), noting as follows:

a.         The decision is inconsistent with the policy to “publicly tender properties for sale unless there is a clear reason for doing otherwise”;

b.         The reason for the inconsistency with the policy is that the policy requires the Council to “publicly tender properties for sale unless there is a clear reason for doing otherwise”;

c.         There is no intention to amend the policy to accommodate this decision as this decision involves unique ‘one-off’ circumstances that are unlikely to be repeated.

4.         Purchases 29m² or thereabouts being a part of Lot 2 DP 9669 as is shown as Section 2 on the attached plan at market value as determined by a registered valuer (plus or minus 10%.)

5.         Purchases 51m² or thereabouts being a part of Lot 1 DP 61143 shown on the attached plan as Section 3 at market value as determined by a registered valuer (plus or minus 10%).

6.         Approves as landowner the granting of rights of way easements on foot over Sections 1, 2 and 3 shown on the attached plan in favour of Section 4 and the balance of Lot 2 DP 9669 and the balance of Lot 1 DP 61143.

7.         Approve as land owner the granting of a right of way easement on foot in gross in favour of the Christchurch City Council over all of Strand Lane being the new Sections 1, 2 and 3 on the attached plan and the existing land (legally described as Part Town Section 732 and Lot 1 DP 10358).

8.         Delegates to the Manager Property Consultancy the authority to take all necessary steps to negotiate, agree and enter into all necessary documentation on behalf of the Council as he shall consider necessary or desirable to give effect to the above resolutions. 

 

4.   Key Points

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

4.1.1   Activity: Roads and Footpaths

·     Level of Service: 16.0.10 Maintain the perception that Christchurch is a walking friendly city

4.2       The following feasible options have been considered:

·     Option 1 – Purchase Sections 2 and 3 and sell Section 4 (preferred option).

·     Option 2 – Acquire right of way easements overs sections 1, 2 and 3 as shown on the attached plan.

·     Option 3 – Do nothing.

4.3       Option Summary - Advantages and Disadvantages (Preferred Option)

4.3.1   The advantages of this option include:

·     A wider Strand Lane will cater for better pedestrian movement.

·     Provides visibility through to Cathedral Square.

·     Provides an interactive space.

·     Provides recognition through line of site to a point of interest i.e. Old Post Office Site.

·     Preserves one of eight lanes in the Cathedral lanes network.

·     Provides greater connectivity to Hereford Lane and through to the BNZ Centre.

·     Balance of funds from the sale can be put towards other projects.

4.3.2   The disadvantages of this option include:

·     Loss of 109m² of land adjoining Cathedral Square.

·     An alternative site would need to be identified for a restroom facility.

4.4       Option Analysis

4.4.1   Option 1 is preferred because it supports the Councils Long Term Plan in meeting its level of service i.e. that Christchurch is a walking friendly city and opens up the lane site lines providing visibility to Cathedral Square, provides an interactive space and preserves the lanes network.

4.4.2   Option 2 is not preferred because an easement is a “lesser” property right than outright ownership (Option 1) and Option 3 is not preferred because it is not proactive and changes nothing in the long term.

 

 

5.   Context/Background

Strand Lane

5.1       Strand Lane (Refer to Attachment A) is one of eight lanes in the Cathedral Lanes network. It is owned by the Christchurch City Council, is not a legal road and is held in two fee simple titles. At 2.6 meters wide it is narrow and although it does provide some level of pedestrian connectivity between Hereford Street and Cathedral Square, once the adjoining lots on either side are developed it will recreate the narrow lane it was prior to the earthquakes.

5.2       The buildings that were on the adjoining sites were constructed right up to the boundary of Strand Lane creating a narrow lane that did not meet the Christchurch Lanes Design Guide 2007, which in turn forms part of the Safer Christchurch Strategy 2015 – 2021. If the lane remains at 2.6 metres wide it would not be in keeping with some other lane redevelopments occurring within the City since the earthquakes, i.e. south and east frames.

5.3       The eastern side of Strand Lane is bounded by Lot 1 DP 61143 and is owned by Redson Corporation Holdings Limited (“Redson”). Historically this was the United Services Hotel site and latterly the ANZ Bank prior to the earthquakes.

5.4       Two properties adjoin the western boundary of the lane, one is owned by the Council and was the old restrooms facility and the other is owned by Hilburn and had a retail store on the ground floor. All adjoining buildings have been demolished.

5.5       The northern and southern boundaries of the lane are bounded by legal road, the part to the north forming part of Cathedral Square and to the south is Hereford Street.

5.6       Improving accessibility and connectivity to and from Cathedral Square has been a long-term goal for the Council.  The Council developed a Lane Design Guide in 2007 which remains relevant today.  Widening the lane and improving the public space is also consistent with the Safer Christchurch Strategy 2015-2021.

5.7       Strand Lane is but one small part of the lane network in this part of the city, but it does form an important connection between Cathedral Square, Hereford Street, the BNZ Centre and into Cashel Mall.   To achieve the best outcome it will be necessary to widen it to 6 metres. The most practical approach to achieve this is to acquire a 1.7 metre wide strip of land from the adjoining properties on either side of the existing lane.

5.8       Redson has made application for a resource consent to develop its site with the architect being Shigeru Ban who designed the Cardboard Cathedral.

5.9       The application at the time of writing was under consideration and allows for the building to be set back 1.7 metres from the legal boundary that adjoins Strand Lane, potentially the Council could acquire this strip or obtain a right of way easement over it. 

5.10    Whilst any purchase of this part is some way off, this is an opportune time to make the most of this potential opportunity and advance negotiations. The proposed purchase would be based on an independent market valuation completed by a registered valuer plus or minus 10%.

5.11    However, Redson still needs to finalise its building plans, at the time of writing Redson is considering its options on how to achieve the placement of columns within Cathedral Square, if that is not possible they may have to consider a redesign whereby the columns are placed within their property boundary

5.12    Both the Hilburn site and the Council site are relatively small which limits development opportunities, development could be further restricted if additional land is taken for widening Strand Lane. 

5.13    The Council site is particularly disadvantaged, there is access on foot only over Strand Lane and via that part of Cathedral Square that is legal road. If the lane is widened by 1.7 metres to the west the remaining access from Cathedral Square is restricted to a width of approximately 1.6 metres.

5.14    Hilburn is receptive to the idea of a wider lane on the proviso that Council is willing to sell the balance of its site directly to them, whilst this is contrary to the Council policy of tendering property for sale on the open market, due to the limitations of the site and preferred outcome of achieving a wider lane, departure from policy is seen as justifiable.

5.15    Independent valuations have been obtained and Hilburn and Council have reached agreement in principal for the sale and purchase of the relevant parcels of land, the valuation details and proposed sale amounts can be found in the public excluded cover report and attachments. They are publically excluded because of their commercial nature. Section 7 (2) (h) of the Local Government Official Information Act 1987 enables any local authority holding the information to carry on, without prejudice or disadvantage, negotiations (including commercial and industrial negotiations).

5.16    The matters raised in paragraph 5.15 raise procedural matters that need to be addressed to ensure that the Council have complied with its statutory obligations and policies and if departing from policy is fully justified in doing so. These matters are addressed below under the headings of “Section 40 of the Public Works Act 1981”, “Section 138 of the Local Government Act 2002” and “Departure from Policy

5.17    The Council’s land is located in the south west corner of Cathedral Square and because it does not have particularly good access or visibility the Greenspace Unit is receptive to its sale, providing public restrooms are provided on an alternative site. Whilst such a site has not yet been identified such a facility will need to be provided in Cathedral Square.

6.   Section 40 of the Public Works Act 1981

6.1       Council originally acquired its site from George Sevicke Jones in 1931. Section 40 of the Public Works Act 1981 requires that if the Council no longer requires land held for a public work and the land is not required for another public work and is not required for exchange, then it shall endeavour to sell the land in accordance with subsection 2 of section 40 of the Public Works Act 1981. 

6.2       Subsection 2 of section 40 of the Public Works Act 1981 requires the Council to offer to sell the property to the person from whom it was acquired or their successor unless.

6.2.1   It would be impractical, unreasonable or unfair to do so; or

6.2.2   There has been a significant change in the character of the land for the purposes of or in connection with the public work for which it was acquired.

6.3       The application of section 40 of the Public Works Act 1981 has been discussed with the Council’s Legal Services Unit and it has advised that section 40 applies in this instance and the land must be first offered-back to the former owner or their successors before it can be sold to Hilburn .

6.4       The successors of Mr Jones have been found and will be offered the land should Council declare it surplus to operational requirements. In all there are eight successors named in Mr Jones will, namely Nazareth House, Mount Magdala Home, The Presbyterian Orphanage, The Society for Crippled Children, The Mary Potter Hospice, The Home of Compassion and The Clothes Shop. All are charitable organisations that continue in to this day in some shape or form possibly exempting The Clothes Shop which is still under enquiry at the time of writing. If these parties wish to purchase Section 4 at market value then they will be entitled to do so, and the proposed sale transaction with Hilburn will not be able to proceed.  Staff believe that this is an unlikely outcome.

7.   Section 138 of the Local Government Act 2002

7.1       Section 138 of the Local Government Act 2002 requires a local authority to consult on a proposal to sell or otherwise dispose of a “park”. “Park” is defined as meaning land acquired for or used principally for community, recreational, environmental, cultural or spiritual purposes.

7.2       The writer has discussed this section of the Local Government Act with the Legal Services Unit which has advised that section 138 applies to the land.

7.3       The consultation required under Section 138 has been completed. The consultation on the sale of the former restrooms site located in Strand Lane commenced on 17 July and closed on 14 August 2018 and was an appendage to the community consultation on the Hereford Street design between Oxford Terrace and Manchester Street. The responses to this consultation are outlined in “Community Views and Preferences” under Option 1 paragraph 10.5 below.            

 

8.   Departing from Policy - Dealing Unilaterally with Hilburn

8.1       The Council’s standard process to dispose of land is to adopt a transparent disposal process, usually by open tender. The Council does this to meet the requirements of section 14(1)(f) of the Local Government Act 2002 to undertake its business activities in accordance with sound business practice and to comply with Council policy. Adopting a transparent disposal process would also meet the requirements of the Auditors Generals ‘Procurement Guidelines’, which, while not mandatory, are Guidelines that the Council endeavours to comply with.

8.2       Section 80 of the Local Government Act 2002 specifically allows the Council to depart from policy, if it complies with the requirements of that section and clearly identifies

8.2.1   the inconsistency with the policy,

8.2.2   the reasons for the inconsistency; and

8.2.3   any intention to amend the policy to accommodate the decision.

8.3       In this instance these matters can be satisfactorily addressed and the Council can be comfortable with departure form policy.

8.3.1   The inconsistency with the Policy is the proposal to deal unilaterally with Hilburn.

8.3.2   The reason for dealing unilaterally with Hilburn is that this is a one off opportunity to widen Strand Lane that will not present itself again for many years if at all.

8.3.3   Because this is a one off opportunity i.e. an isolated occurrence, there is no intention to amend the policy.

8.4       If Council departs from the policy to publically tender properties for disposal it should consider   the

8.4.1   Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment “unsolicited Unique Proposals – How to deal with uninvited bids; guidance for government entities dated May 2013 (the guide) to prove guidance and a structured approach for considering unsolicited proposals and

8.4.2   Auditor General’s –

·     Procurement Guidelines

·     Principals to underpin management by public entities of funding to non-government organisations and

·     Public sector purchases, grants and gifts: managing funding arrangements with external parties.

 

8.5       MBIE’s guidance is to provide a proposed methodology for considering unsolicited proposals in a way that is transparent and fair, encourages the supplier community to put forward good ideas, promotes objectivity and support decisions based on sound fact and evidence. The proposal that has been proposed and discussed with Hiburn is an unsolicited unique proposal, should Council proceed with the proposal it should ensure it considers and records:

 

·     How the proposal meets current or future need such as an opportunity for economic development or general wellbeing of New Zealanders’;

·     What level of due diligence it has undertaken in relation to the supplier; and

·     How it has satisfied itself that the proposal represents best value for money over whole of life.

8.6       Council should consider the Auditor-General’s Guidelines listed above, while not mandatory these Guidelines provide ‘best practice’ when procuring goods or services and dealing with non- government organisations.

8.7       The Procurement Guidelines state that in principal “advertising an open request for tender for all proposals should be the preferred method for higher valuer and/or higher risk procurement”. However, the Guidelines acknowledge that a conventional market model may not fit because of strategic importance of the relationship with the provider and that in some situations “it may be more useful to give greater weight to the relationship or strategic dimensions of the contract and to develop other systems to manage the dimensions usually managed by competitive market mechanisms”

8.8       The effective procurement of services by the Council from Hilburn (i.e. the land becoming available to widen Strand Lane conditional upon sale of the restrooms site to Hilburn) would appear to be in the nature of a “strategic or relational purchase” due to the nature of the proposal to widen Strand Lane for the benefit of Christchurch citizens and visitors and the need for Hilburn’s co-operation to be secured to enable this to happen.

9.   Right of Way Easements

9.1       While practically the public cross Strand Lane, as it is held in fee simple title there are no corresponding legal rights allowing this access.  Should Council approve the recommended proposal in this report, there would also not be an automatic legal right for the public or adjacent land owners to cross the land.  Legal rights can be conferred through right of way easements.

9.2       Granting of easements over fee simple land is delegated to staff. Because the land transactions to achieve the widening of Strand Lane must be reported to Council and for completeness, it was decided to include the necessary resolutions in this report to grant right of way on foot easements.

9.3       Notwithstanding it is intended Council will pass resolutions approving the granting of the rights of way on foot easements rather than staff exercising a delegation, any right of way on foot easements granted will be negotiated by the Councils Property Consultancy Team and will follow usual operational procedures, i.e. compensation payable (if any) being supported by registered valuation and documentation being prepared by the Legal Services Unit.

9.4       Other mechanisms, such as declaring the land “road”, have been considered, however, the right of way easement was determined to the best mechanism to balance access, legal rights and protection of street scape values.

 

 

 


 

10. Option 1 – Purchase Sections 2 and 3 and Sell Section 4 (preferred)

Option Description

10.1    This option involves purchasing Sections 2 and 3 to give effect to the proposal to widen Strand Lane and sell Section 4 being the former restrooms site in favour of a new restroom facility in a superior location.

Significance

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

10.3    Engagement requirements for the proposed purchase transactions are minimal, nevertheless Section 138 of the Local Government Act 2002 requires consultation on the sale of Section 4 as discussed in Section 7 above and detailed in Section 10.5 below.

Impact on Mana Whenua

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

Community Views and Preferences

10.5    Consultation on the Strand Lane land partial sale and the related but separate Hereford Street upgrade project took place from 17 July to 14 August 2018.

10.6    A question was asked about the sale of the balance of the old Council restrooms site. The consultation included information on the proposal to acquire a 1.7 metre strip of land in Strand Lane to potentially enable the lane to be widened. (The Hereford Street project will be the subject of a separate report to Council).

10.7    Of the total 180 responses, 160 submitters answered the question about Strand Lane.  One hundred and twenty five (78%) supported the sale of the old restroom site, 32 (20%) were opposed and four (2%) did not indicate a view.

10.8    Consultation booklets were delivered to 700 businesses and residences between Gloucester and Lichfield Street. They were also sent to owners of 216 properties, as well as libraries and service centres. In addition, 250 key stakeholders received emails about the project and the consultation was publicised through radio and print advertising, and social media.

10.9    Submitters were generally supportive of the partial sale to allow the lane to be widened. One respondent wrote: “This lane needs opening up and making brighter - a better connection between The Square and Hereford Street, than the dark, rather 'creepy alley' it used to be.”   Another said the strategic approach to laneways in the new CBD was ‘fantastic’.

10.10  Of the 32 submitters who did not support the Strand Lane proposal, eight said the sale was unnecessary. One noted that pedestrians had used the lane for more than 100 years, and others said no changes were needed.

10.11  Several submitters asked questions about the sale process. They were advised that as this is a commercial transaction this information will remain confidential until after settlement of the purchase, if it proceeds.  This is in accordance with Section 7(2)(b)(ii) of the Local Government Official Information and Meetings Act 1987 which permits Council to withhold commercially sensitive information.

10.12  Two submitters asked about the replacement of the public toilets that had been accessed off Strand Lane before the earthquakes. They were informed that the Council is planning to construct new public toilets but a site and design have not yet been decided.

Alignment with Council Plans and Policies

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

 

Financial Implications

10.14  Cost of Implementation – Budgeted for in the LTP 2015 – 2025 City Lanes / Blocks Land Purchases (CPMS 1030).

Legal Implications

10.15  There is a legal context, issue or implication relevant to this decision.  These issues are discussed in paragraphs 6, 7 and 8 of this report above.

10.16  Paragraphs 6,7 and 8 been reviewed and approved by the Legal Services Unit.

Risks and Mitigations  

10.17  There is a risk that in the event the Council does approve the sale of 4 on RPS2137-01 that an alternative site for a public rest rooms may not be readily identified.

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

10.17.2  It is planned that alternative site will be identified for a public restrooms in the detailed design of Cathedral Square.

Implementation

10.18  Implementation dependencies  - Subdivision requirements.

10.19  Implementation timeframe – 1 year.

Option Summary - Advantages and Disadvantages

10.20  The advantages of this option include:

·     A wider Strand Lane will cater for better pedestrian movement.

·     Provides visibility through to Cathedral Square.

·     Provides an interactive space.

·     Provides recognition through line of site to a point of interest i.e. Old Post Office Site.

·     Preserves one of eight lanes in the Cathedral lanes network.

·     Provides greater connectivity to Hereford Lane way through to the BNZ Centre.

·     Frees up capital to construct restrooms on an alternative site.

10.21  The disadvantages of this option include:

·     Loss of 109m² of land adjoining Cathedral Square.

·     An alternative site would need to be identified for a restroom facility.


 

11. Option 2 - Acquire right of way easements overs sections 1, 2 and 3

Option Description

11.1    This option involves acquiring easements over sections 1, 2 and 3 shown on the attached plan as opposed to purchase of the land itself.

Significance

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

11.3    There are no engagement requirements for this level of significance for this option.

Impact on Mana Whenua

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

Community Views and Preferences

11.5    Whilst there was no specific consultation on the granting of easements in general submitters on the Strand Lane partial sale were supportive of the widening of Strand lane, this is referred to in paragraph 10.9 above. 

11.6    Consultation on the Strand Lane land partial sale and the related but separate Hereford Street upgrade project took place from 17 July to 14 August 2018. Refer to paragraphs 10.5 – 10.12 above.

Alignment with Council Plans and Policies

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

Financial Implications

11.8    Cost of Implementation - Cost of compensation, usually 30 – 50% of land value plus cost of forming right of way.

11.9    Maintenance / Ongoing Costs – Minimal.

11.10  Funding source - Budgeted for in the LTP 2015 – 2025 City Lanes / Blocks Land Purchases (CPMS 1030).

Legal Implications

11.11  Any easements acquired will be negotiated and registered with the assistance of the Council’s Legal Services Unit.

Risks and Mitigations  

11.12  Because the adjoining owners have focused on a sale of land there is a risk that in the event of this option being pursued the adjoining owner’s loose interest in the project. This may result in Council not being able to secure easements.

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

11.12.2  Planned or current treatment(s) include treatment increase of compensation or perhaps only being able to widen part of the land.

Implementation

11.13  Implementation dependencies  - survey identifying easement areas.

11.14  Implementation timeframe – 1 year.

Option Summary - Advantages and Disadvantages

11.15  The advantages of this option include:

·   Balance land (Section 4 retained).

11.16  The disadvantages of this option include:

·   Uncooperative land owner or owners.

·   Potential to having to revert to original lane width.

·   Easements are subservient to full ownership.

12. Option 3 – Do nothing

Option Description

12.1    This option leaves the status quo.

Significance

12.2    The level of significance of this option is low.

12.3    There are no engagement requirements for this level of significance.

Impact on Mana Whenua

12.4    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

12.5    It is assumed most people would not be supportive of the status quo because the majority of submitters under Option 1 were supportive of the sale of the former restrooms site.

Alignment with Council Plans and Policies

12.6    This option is inconsistent with Council’s Plans and Policies.

12.6.1 Inconsistency – Does not support the aspirations of the Central City Action Plan.

12.6.2 Reason for inconsistency – No improvements to Central City.

12.6.3 Amendment necessary – None.

Financial Implications

12.7    Cost of Implementation – None.

12.8    Maintenance / Ongoing Costs – Resealing of existing lane.

12.9    Funding source – Street Maintenance.

Legal Implications

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

Risks and Mitigations  

12.11  There is a risk the return of a narrow lane.  This may result in overcrowding of pedestrians

12.11.1  Residual risk rating: The residual rating of the risk after the below treatment(s) <is/are> implemented will be low.

12.11.2  If this option is adopted there are not planned treatments.

Implementation

12.12  Implementation dependencies  - None.

12.13  Implementation timeframe – None.

Option Summary - Advantages and Disadvantages

12.14  The advantages of this option include:

·   None.

12.15  The disadvantages of this option include:

·   Narrow lane.

·   Lost opportunity to widen the lane.

·   Restricted pedestrian movement due to greater numbers of pedestrians in future.

 

Attachments

No.

Title

Page

a 

304/5861 diagram of proposed land parcels

 

b 

Table of Submissions

 

c 

Public Excluded Information (Under Separate Cover) - Confidential

 

 

 

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

Stuart McLeod - Property Consultant

Approved By

Angus Smith - Manager Property Consultancy

Bruce Rendall - Head of Facilities, Property & Planning

Carolyn Ingles - Head of Urban Regeneration, Design and Heritage

Richard Holland - Team Leader Asset Planning

Richard Osborne - Head of Transport

David Adamson - General Manager City Services

 


Council

19 December 2018

 

PDF Creator


Council

19 December 2018

 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


Council

19 December 2018

 

Report from Innovation and Sustainable Development Committee  – 10 December 2018

 

7.        Development Contributions - Small Residential Unit Rebate

Reference:

18/1312859

Presenter(s):

Gavin Thomas - Principal Advisor Economic Policy

 

 

 

1.  Innovation and Sustainable Development Committee Recommendation to Council

 

Original Staff Recommendations Accepted without Change

Part A

That the Council:

1.         Agrees to the small residential unit development contributions rebate being extended to the earlier of any of:

·    A reviewed Development Contributions Policy being adopted by the Council, or

·    The fund is fully allocated, or

·    31 December 2019.

2.         Adopts the revised small residential unit development contributions rebate scheme criteria (Attachment 1 to the report)

 

 

Attachments

No.

Report Title

Page

1

Development Contributions - Small Residential Unit Rebate

46

 

No.

Title

Page

a

Proposed Small Residential Unit Rebate Scheme Criteria - Tracked Changes

52

b

Proposed Small Residential Unit Rebate Scheme Criteria - Clean Version

55

 

 


Council

19 December 2018

 

 

Development Contributions - Small Residential Unit Rebate

Reference:

18/1174665

Contact:

Gavin Thomas

gavin.thomas@ccc.govt.nz

941 8834

 

 

1.   Purpose and Origin of Report

Purpose of Report

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

1.2       This also provides an opportunity to update the rebate scheme criteria by aligning to the Council’s revised community outcomes and new strategic priorities and to review the text of the criteria to enhance clarity.

Origin of Report

1.3       This report is staff generated and is in response to the current Small Residential Unit Development Contributions Rebate scheme expiring on 31 December 2018.

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 there being a low cost to the Council, the risk to the Council and the impact on the community is also regarded as low. Analysis shows a low level of significance.

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

 

3.   Staff Recommendations

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

1.         Agrees to the small residential unit development contributions rebate being extended to the earlier of any of:

·    A reviewed Development Contributions Policy being adopted by the Council, or

·    The fund is fully allocated, or

·    31 December 2019.

2.         Adopts the revised small residential unit development contributions rebate scheme criteria (Attachment 1)

 

4.   Key Points

4.1       This report supports the Council's Long Term Plan (2018 - 2028):

4.1.1   Activity: Strategic Planning and  Policy

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


 

4.2       The following feasible options have been considered:

·  Option 1 – Extend the time limit of the current small residential unit rebate scheme and adopt a revised scheme criteria (preferred option)

·  Option 2 – Do nothing

4.3       Option Summary - Advantages and Disadvantages (Preferred Option)

4.3.1   The advantages of this option include:

·     Provides developers of small standalone residential units (mostly what are termed a family flat or a minor residential unit) with development contributions that reflect the likely lower demand on Council infrastructure.

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

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

4.3.2   The disadvantages of this option include:

·     The cost of funding the rebate will come from rates over time.

 

5.   Context/Background

Development Contributions Policy

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

5.2       The adjustment provided in the Development Contributions Policy stops at 60 per cent of the development contribution charge. Residential units with a gross floor area of less than 60 square metres pay 60 per cent of the full charge.

5.3       The small residential unit rebate extends the reduction in development contribution to a minimum of 50 per cent of the full charge for qualifying units.

5.4       The Council’s development contributions policy is currently being reviewed. The review will include a proposal to extend the small residential unit adjustment to 35 square metres. If the Council adopts this proposal as part of a new development contributions policy this will render the current small residential unit rebate redundant. If the Council decides not to make any changes in this part of the Policy it can consider options for alternative approaches at that time.

5.5       The review of the development contributions policy will be completed in 2019. Continuing the current rebate will provide continuity in the Council’s policy approach. 

Rationale for the small residential unit rebate

5.6       The small residential unit rebate scheme was introduced specifically to cater to development of family flats or small residential units.

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


 

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

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

5.10    The rebate scheme includes limits on duration and funding. It will currently run until 31 December 2018 or until the funding of $80,000 is allocated. The available funds are currently sitting at $49,759.22 (excl GST).

 

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

Option Description

6.1       The Council agrees to extend the time limit of the rebate scheme to the earliest of either:

·     when a reviewed Development Contributions Policy is adopted that provides for a small residential unit adjustment commensurate with the rebate provisions, or;

·     when the rebate fund is fully allocated, or;

·     31 December 2019.

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

6.3       While the take-up of the rebate is not large, the impact for developers is likely to be extremely positive. All developments that have qualified for the rebate are family flat or small residential unit developments. By their nature these developments are often price-sensitive and the Development Contributions team who deal with the developers have had positive feedback from appreciative rebate recipients.

6.4       This option also provides the opportunity to update the scheme criteria.

Significance

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

6.6       Engagement requirements for this level of significance are nil.

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

Alignment with Council Plans and Policies

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


 

Financial Implications

6.10    Cost of Implementation – No additional costs to implement the rebate.

6.11    Maintenance / Ongoing Costs - Nil

6.12    Funding source – existing operational budget.

6.13    Cost of funding the rebate – up to a further $49,759.22 funded from rates over up to 30 years.

Legal Implications

6.14    Not applicable.

Risks and Mitigations   

6.15    None identified.

Implementation

6.16    Implementation dependencies - not applicable.

6.17    Implementation timeframe – not applicable.

Option Summary - Advantages and Disadvantages

6.18    The advantages of this option include:

·     Provides developers of small standalone residential units (mostly what are termed family flats or minor residential units) with a reduction in the cost of development contributions.

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

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

6.19    The disadvantages of this option include:

·     The cost of funding the rebate will come from rates.

7.   Option 2 – Do nothing

Option Description

7.1       The rebate scheme funds will not be available for developments that haven’t qualified by 31 December 2018.

Significance

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

7.3       Engagement requirements for this level of significance - nil.

Impact on Mana Whenua

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

Community Views and Preferences

7.5       Developers of qualifying residential homes are specifically affected by this option due to their ability to receive a rebate adjustment.  Developers have been clear about their support for the rebate when dealing with staff from Council’s development contributions team.


 

Alignment with Council Plans and Policies

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

7.6.1   Inconsistency – District Plan.

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

7.6.3   Amendment necessary – adoption of preferred option.

Financial Implications

7.7       Cost of Implementation - Nil

7.8       Maintenance / Ongoing Costs - Nil

7.9       Funding source – Not applicable.

Legal Implications

7.10    Not applicable.

Risks and Mitigations    

7.11    If the rebate is not extended then some developments of the type that currently qualify may not proceed although the rebate per affected property is low and unlikely to be material to the overall cost.

Implementation

7.12    Implementation dependencies - nil.

7.13    Implementation timeframe – not applicable.

Option Summary - Advantages and Disadvantages

7.14    The advantages of this option include:

·     No cost to the Council.

7.15    The disadvantages of this option include:

·     Lack of policy continuity

·     May result in some developments not proceeding.

 

Attachments

No.

Title

Page

a 

Proposed Small Residential Unit Rebate Scheme Criteria - Tracked Changes

 

b 

Proposed Small Residential Unit Rebate Scheme Criteria - Clean Version

 

 

 

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 - Principal Advisor Economic Policy

Approved By

Emma Davis - Acting Head of Strategic Policy

Diane Brandish - Head of Financial Management

Brendan Anstiss - General Manager Strategy and Transformation

 


Council

19 December 2018

 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


Council

19 December 2018

 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


Council

19 December 2018

 

 

8.        Fees and Charges for Tūranga Facilties

Reference:

18/1255892

Presenter(s):

Carolyn Robertson, Head of Libraries and Information

 

 

1.   Purpose and Origin of Report

Purpose of Report

1.1       The purpose of this report is to seek approval from the Council for the recommended fees and charges for hire of facilities at Tūranga Central Library in FY2018-19. 

Origin of Report

1.2       This report is provided to explain the pricing structure for Tūranga facilities, and to fulfil Council expectations that all fees and charges are approved by the Council.

2.   Significance

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

2.1.1   The level of significance was determined by assessing the impact of each decision against a standard set of Council criteria. These include the social, environment and cultural impacts, the impact on Maori, the number of people affected, possible costs/risks to council ratepayers and possible benefits/opportunities for council ratepayers.

3.   Staff Recommendations

That the Council:

1.         Adopts the schedule of fees for Tūranga for the 2018/19 Financial Year as set out in Attachment A of this report.

2.         Notes that the rationale used for setting these fees is aligned with the rationale used to set price schedules for other Christchurch City Council bookable facilities.

 

4.   Key Points

4.1       This report relates to the setting of fees and charges as set out in the Council's Long Term Plan (2018 - 2028):

4.1.1   Activity: Libraries

·     Level of Service: 3.1.2 Community Spaces

4.2       The table below outlines the proposed changes to City Council fees and charges for Tūranga for the 2018-19 financial year.

Hire of Meeting Rooms and Public Spaces - hourly rate

Fees for 2018/19

Proposed Fees and charges set under section 12 Local Government Act 2002

GST Inclusive (15%)

 

 

 

 

Community group

 

Turanga - TSB Space

$30.00

Turanga - Activity Room

$15.00

Turanga - TSB Space plus Activity room

$45.00

Turanga - Spark Place

$15.00

Computer Room

No charge

Computer Room block bookings, negotiated on time and set up

No charge

VC Facilities - Negotiated at time of setup

No charge

Resource Production

Cost recovery

Admin Support indicative hourly rate for tasks e.g. Marketing and Communications

Cost recovery

Staffing Hourly charge

$65.00

 

 

Self-employed tutors & franchised programmes - entrance fee charged

 

Turanga - TSB Space

$50.00

Turanga - Activity Room

$30.00

Turanga - TSB Space plus Activity room

$80.00

Turanga - Spark Place

$30.00

Computer Room

$55.00

Computer Room block bookings, negotiated on time and set up

$0.00

VC Facilities - Negotiated at time of setup

$30.00

Resource Production

Cost plus $25.00

Admin Support indicative hourly rate for tasks e.g. Marketing and Communications

Cost recovery

Staffing Hourly charge

$65.00

 

 

Commercial events, seminars and corporate events

 

Turanga - TSB Space

$200.00

Turanga - Activity Room

$95.00

Turanga - TSB Space plus Activity room

$295.00

Turanga - Spark Place

$95.00

Computer Room

$80.00

Computer Room block bookings

$55.00

VC Facilities - Negotiated at time of setup

Negotiated at time of set up

Resource Production

cost plus 10%

Admin Support indicative hourly rate for tasks e.g. Marketing and Communications

Cost plus $50

Staffing Hourly charge

$120.00

 

 

Community events and fundraisers

 

Turanga - TSB Space

$100.00

Turanga - Activity Room

$50.00

Turanga - TSB Space plus Activity room

$150.00

Turanga - Spark Place

$50.00

Computer Room

No charge

Computer Room block bookings, negotiated on time and set up

No charge

VC Facilities - Negotiated at time of setup

No charge

Resource Production

Cost plus $25.00

Admin Support indicative hourly rate for tasks e.g. Marketing and Communications

Cost recovery

Staffing Hourly charge

$65.00

 

 

Private social  functions

 

Turanga - TSB Space

N/A

Turanga - Activity Room *

$50.00

Turanga - TSB Space plus Activity room

$120.00

Turanga - Spark Place *

$50.00

Staffing Hourly charge

$65.00

Turanga - TSB Space plus Activity Room after hours Fri-Sat flat rate from 5pm

$1,500.00 plus security charges

 

 

 

4.3       The rationale followed in the development of this pricing structure aims to ensure consistency with other Council-owned facilities, whilst recognising that Tūranga also has premium spaces (eg. The TSB Space) that are in demand.  The prices are tiered according to customer type or event, with hourly rates varying according to customer type and/or event type; specifically:

·   community group

·   self-employed tutor

·   private social functions

·   commercial events, seminars and corporate events, or

·   community events and fundraisers

4.4       This is consistent with the approach taken with fees and charges for City Council managed community halls for 2018/2019 ( https://ccc.govt.nz/the-council/plans-strategies-policies-and-bylaws/plans/long-term-plan-and-annual-plans/fees-and-charges/fees-community-support/ ).  The Council divides these into three categories (A, B and C), with Category A facilities being described as “large facilities with capacity for more than 150 people”.  The Category A facilities include the Templeton Community Centre, Ōrauwhata Bishopdale Community Centre, Te Hāpua Halswell Community Centre and other sites.  These facilities are comparable in size and quality to the rooms found at Tūranga, hence this library’s prices are consistent with Category A sites.

4.5       The TSB Space / Activity Room and Spark Place are highly popular spaces for a number of reasons.  These include the central city location, the outlook (in the case of TSB Space) over Cathedral Square and the access to a high-quality environment (eg lighting, audio-visual resources, furnishings etc).  As our more ‘premiere’ spaces, there is a degree of staff intervention required, and the prices also reflect this input.

 

5.   Context/Background

Tūranga project

5.1       Earlier this year, a Library team established a draft set of usage fees for the range of facilities at Tūranga.  These were consistent with Christchurch City Council-wide fee structures for other facilities, with the exception of Tūranga’s larger, higher-quality meeting rooms: i.e. the TSB Space / Activity Room and Spark Place.  As noted above, the prices for Tūranga were tiered according to customer type or event.

5.2       In the urgency to set up systems and processed ahead of opening Tūranga, staff were not able to incorporate this report into the scheduled LTP process this year.

5.3       It has been customary practise for fees and charges to be listed in the Fees and Charges Schedule of the Annual Plan.  However, there is no legislative requirement that these charges are set though the Annual Plan process.  It is possible that the Chief Executive could set these fees and charges

5.4       Christchurch City Council protocol is for new user fees and charges to be formally approved by Council.  Accordingly, we are bringing to Councillors the following proposed pricing structure for consideration.

Principles behind the fees structure

5.5       Principles applied for other Christchurch City Council facility fees have been applied in this instance.  Specifically, we have set prices based on: the size, quality and range of resources available in the space; the type of event (eg. free events versus those where the customer will charge an entry fee) and the likely ability for the customer to pay (eg. a community group event versus a commercial corporate event).  In the case of activities such as resource production (eg 3D printer sessions) in the library, customers are charged a fee for the cost of the materials

 

 

Attachments

No.

Title

Page

a

Proposed Schedule of fees and charges for Tūranga for the 2018/19 financial year

61

 

 

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

Chris Hay - Manager Central Library

Approved By

Carolyn Robertson - Head of Libraries and Information

Michael Down - Finance Business Partner

Mary Richardson - General Manager Citizen and Community

  


Council

19 December 2018

 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


Council

19 December 2018

 

 

9.        Fees and Charges for Nga Puna Wai Facilities

Reference:

18/1302068

Presenter(s):

David Bailey, Manager Recreation Sport Services

 

 

1.   Purpose and Origin of Report

Purpose of Report

1.1       The purpose of this report is to seek approval from the Council for the recommended fees and charges for hire of facilities at Nga Puna Wai Sports Hub in Financial Year 2018/19.

Origin of Report

1.2       This report is provided to explain the pricing structure for the Nga Puna Wai Sports Hub facilities, and to fulfil Council expectations that all fees and charges are approved by Council elected members.

2.   Significance

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

2.1.1   The level of significance was determined by assessing the impact of each decision against a standard set of Council criteria. These include the social, environment and cultural impacts, the impact on Maori, the number of people affected, possible costs/risks to council ratepayers and possible benefits/opportunities for council ratepayers.

 

 

3.   Staff Recommendations

That the Council:

1.         Adopts the schedule of fees and charges for Nga Puna Wai Sports Hub facilities for the 2018/19 Financial Year as set out in Attachment A of this report.

 

4.   Key Points

4.1       This report supports the Council's Long Term Plan (2018 - 2028):

4.1.1   Activity: Recreation, Sport, Community Arts & Events.  Level of Service:

·     7.0.1.3      Provide citizens access to fit-for-purpose recreation and sporting facilities - 5 stadia (Nga Puna Wai Sports Hub added) are available for use 364 days p.a.

·     7.0.2.2      Provide well utilised facility based recreational and sporting programmes and activities

·     7.0.3          Support citizen and partner organisations to develop, promote and deliver recreation and sport in Christchurch

4.2       The attached fees and charges schedule (Attachment A) sets out the proposed fees and charges for Nga Puna Wai Sports Hub for the 2018-19 financial year.

4.3       The considerations and rationale followed in the development of this pricing structure include:

4.3.1   Being consistent with other Council facilities (recreation & sport plus community facilities)

4.3.2   Benchmarking with other providers in Christchurch and New Zealand

4.3.3   Supporting equity between sports

4.3.4   Encouraging and rewarding increasing levels of participation

4.3.5   Improve and strengthen sports leadership framework and sustainability within Christchurch

4.4       The considerations and rationale are based on Christchurch’s Community Outcomes, the Recreation & Sport Service Delivery plan and Council’s priority focus on active citizenship.  Charging users of the facility is also consistent with the report to Council in December in 2015 that identified this approach would be used along with Council contribution to achieve a sustainable OPEX budget.

4.5       The prices are tiered according to customer type or activity and recognise the sports partner’s capital contribution to the project; specifically:

·   sports partner rate

·   community rate

·   corporate rate

 

5.   Context/Background

Nga Puna Wai Sports Hub project

5.1       Earlier this year, a Sports Partnership team established a draft set of usage fees for the range of facilities at Nga Puna Wai Sports Hub in line with the considerations and rationale detailed in 4.3 above.

5.2       The proposed schedule of fees & charges were developed by a partnership team of CEO’s from Athletics Canterbury, Canterbury Hockey, Tennis Canterbury and Canterbury Rugby League plus Sport Canterbury and Council staff.  The proposed structure has been endorsed by every sporting partner governance structure and enables the OPEX budget to be achieved.

5.3       With the priority focus to complete the project build successfully within capital budget and in the urgency to set up systems and processed ahead of the staged opening Nga Puna Wai Sports Hub, staff were not able to incorporate this report into the scheduled LTP process this year.

5.4       It has been customary practise for fees and charges to be listed in the Fees and Charges Schedule of the LTP / Annual Plan.  However, there is no legislative requirement that these charges are set though the LTP / Annual Plan process.  It is possible that the Chief Executive could set these fees and charges

5.5       Christchurch City Council protocol is for new user fees and charges to be formally approved by Council.  Accordingly, we are bringing to Councillors the following proposed pricing structure for consideration.


 

 

Attachments

No.

Title

Page

a

Nga Puna Wai Sports Hub Fees and Charges 2018/19 - Schedule A

66

 

 

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

Michael Down - Finance Business Partner

David Bailey - Manager Recreation & Sports Services

Approved By

Nigel Cox - Acting Head of Recreation & Sports

Mary Richardson - General Manager Citizen and Community

  


Council

19 December 2018

 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


Council

19 December 2018

 

 

10.    Draft submission on Health (Drinking Water) Amendment Bill

Reference:

18/1271722

Presenter(s):

John Mackie, Head of Three Waters and Waste

 

 

1.   Purpose and Origin of Report

Purpose of Report

1.1       The purpose of this report is for the Council to approve the draft submission on the Health (Drinking Water) Amendment Bill.

Origin of Report

1.2       This report is staff generated.

 

2.   Staff Recommendations 

That the Council:

1.         Approve the draft Council submission on the Health (Drinking Water) Amendment Bill (Attachment A).

2.         [If the Council decides it wishes to appear it should also make this resolution] Delegate [the Mayor] to appear on behalf of the Council to be heard by the Select Committee.

 

 

3.   Context/Background

Health (Drinking Water) Amendment Bill

3.1       Public submissions are being called for on the Health (Drinking Water) Amendment Bill (the Bill) (https://www.parliament.nz/en/pb/sc/make-a-submission/document/52SCHE_SCF_BILL_78676/health-drinking-water-amendment-bill).

3.2       The policy objectives of the Bill are to improve the effectiveness and efficiency of Part 2A (drinking water) of the Health Act 1956 (the Act).

3.3       Following the Government Inquiry into Havelock North Drinking Water, Cabinet agreed to a range of measures to address the Inquiry’s recommendations, including some immediate amendments to Part 2A of the Act.

3.4       The main provisions in the Bill—

3.4.1   remove requirements for the Ministry of Health to consult for three years and to gazette changes for two years prior to making any changes to the drinking-water standards:

3.4.2   clarify that water safety plans must include timetables to implement measures that mitigate risks to drinking water:

3.4.3   streamline processes for the appointment of drinking-water assessors:

3.4.4   remove unnecessary references to designated ports and airports.

3.5       The closing date for submissions is 21 December 2018.

Key submission points

3.6       There are a few issues which staff have concerns about in relation to the Bill, but in general the draft submission supports the intent of the Bill. The draft submission makes recommendations on the following:

·   The justification for removing ports and airports from inclusion in Part 2A (section 69C) of the Health Act is “because ports and airports generally receive water from networked suppliers who are subject to Part 2A”. That justification does not apply to Christchurch International Airport Limited (CIAL) which has its own community water. However, CIAL is also registered as a water supplier as it meets the definition in the Drinking Water Standards, and must comply with those standards. It is suggested that the Bill makes it clear, to avoid any doubt, that the removal of this wording from section 69C does not apply to the operator of any port or airport that is separately registered as a water supplier.

·   Adopting a more efficient process for issuing, adopting or amending drinking water standards (sections 69P and 69R) should still consider retaining a minimum period for consultation (such as 60 calendar days), to ensure the affected parties have the opportunity to respond to proposed changes and the financial impacts on the suppliers and their ability to implement changes to the drinking water standards. The submission also highlights that the proposed amendment, from “at least two years” to “at least 28 days” for changes to come into force after publication in the Gazette, could be insufficient.  It may not allow enough time for compliance, without appropriate consideration of the nature of the changes being made to the standards.

·   Providing examples of reasonable steps that contribute to the protection of the source of drinking water through guidelines (repealing section 69U(4)) requires guidelines to be released in a timely manner to provide certainty and clarity around the expectations for local authorities.

·   The proposal to remove the requirement for international accreditation of drinking water assessors (section 69ZK) requires consideration in order to streamline the appointment process without impacting on the technical knowledge, experience and accountability of drinking water assessors.

 

 

Attachments

No.

Title

Page

a

Draft submission Health (Drinking Water) Amendment Bill

72

 

 

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

Sarah Hemmingsen - Senior Advisor

Diane Shelander - Senior Policy Analyst

Judith Cheyne - Associate General Counsel

Approved By

John Mackie - Head of Three Waters and Waste

Adela Kardos - Head of Legal Services

David Adamson - General Manager City Services

  


Council

19 December 2018

 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


Council

19 December 2018

 

 

11.    Draft comments on the draft Ōtākaro Avon River Corridor Regeneration Plan

Reference:

18/1283135

Presenter(s):

Brendan Anstiss, General Manager Strategy and Transformation
David Griffiths, Head of Planning and Strategic Transport

 

 

1.      Purpose Report

Purpose of Report

1.1       The purpose of this report is for the Council to approve the draft comments to Regenerate Christchurch on the draft Ōtākaro Avon River Corridor Regeneration Plan. 

The draft comment and attachment to this report will be circulated under separate cover prior to the meeting.

 

2.      Staff Recommendations 

That the Council:

1.         Approve the draft comments to Regenerate Christchurch on the Draft Ōtākaro Avon River Corridor Regeneration Plan.

 

3.      Key Points

3.1       This report supports the Council's Long Term Plan (2018 - 2028):

3.1.1   Activity: Strategic Planning and Policy

·     Level of Service: 9.5.7.3 Plan for a focused and expedited regeneration of the residential red zone and earthquake affected areas of the city - Comments on Regeneration Plans produced by partners are provided within statutory timeframes.

Background and current process

3.2       The draft Ōtākaro Avon River Corridor Regeneration Plan (the draft plan) covers the 602ha Avon River Corridor (formerly known as the residential red zone) and provides a framework for land use, ecological restoration, improved water quality, enhanced community connectivity, and improved natural hazard mitigation within a new river park. It also sets out the principles, roles, and responsibilities for achieving regeneration.

3.3       The draft plan is being developed under the legislative process set out in the Greater Christchurch Regeneration Act 2016. This process includes seeking the views of the public in section 34 of the Act prior to the draft plan being finalised for ministerial approval.

3.4       Regenerate Christchurch released the draft plan to the public on 14 November 2018 to enable input into the development of the draft plan. The draft plan is open for comments until Wednesday 19 December 2018.

Council involvement so far to date

3.5       Regenerate Christchurch released an early draft of the plan to section 29 parties to enable their input into the development of the draft plan. The Council provided feedback as part of that process, and a summary of all section 29 parties views can be found here.

3.6       Staff have continued to work collaboratively within Regenerate Christchurch and other parties to ensure all operational and technical matters are accurately addressed in the draft plan.

 

 

Key points of the draft submission to Regenerate Christchurch

3.7       The key points of the Council’s draft comments (Attachment A) on the Draft Ōtākaro Avon River Corridor Regeneration Plan are:

·     Overall support for the general direction and long term vision on the draft plan.

·     Recognise the inclusive and comprehensive community consultation process undertaken to shape and develop the draft plan.

·     Generally support the land uses proposed for the Three Reaches and the Green Spine, and acknowledge that redeveloping the land for business and residential purposes is both challenging and in many areas not likely feasible. It should be noted that the Plan is largely at a concept level and further policy direction is required to enable assessment of future land uses.

·     Acknowledge the reflection of the Council’s strategic priorities and inclusion of opportunities for the Council to give effect to its flood management and water quality improvement plans, the major cycle network, and the city to sea linear park within the draft plan.

·     Acknowledge that the extent of funding required to deliver the plan has been considered and expressed well, and that it will take time and likely occur over three consecutive Long Term Plan periods (i.e. 30yrs or more) which will be integral to setting the pace for the plans future implementation.

·     Specific matters in the frontend chapters of the draft Regeneration Plan that are potentially misaligned with the proposed District Plan provisions in the Regeneration Plan, and other specific matters that should be amended to those chapters and/or the District Plan provisions (Attachment B). Particularly:

·     Further clarification is needed of the outcomes and policy directions intended by the draft plan, particularly those for the different parts of the Corridor, to ensure future activities are appropriate. 

·     There should be greater recognition in the frontend chapters that not all activities will be appropriate in the Corridor or all areas of the Corridor.

·     There needs to be some strengthening of the proposed District Plan provisions to ensure that the specific existing indigenous species and habitat is protected or replaced, as well as an overall net gain in biodiversity as is required by the proposed provisions.

·     Lack of clarity and potential difficulties for the implementation of some parts of the proposed District Plan provisions.

 

 


 

 

 

Attachments

No.

Title

Page

a  

OARC - Comments on Draft Regeneration Plan - DRAFT -  19 December 2018 (Under Separate Cover)

 

b  

Draft comments on the proposed District Plan changes (Under Separate Cover)

 

 

 

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

Clare Piper - Senior Policy Planner

Peter Eman - Principal Advisor Planning

Libby Elvidge - Policy Analyst

Sarah Oliver - Principal Advisor Planning

Approved By

David Griffiths - Head of Planning & Strategic Transport

Brendan Anstiss - General Manager Strategy and Transformation

  


Council

19 December 2018

 

 

12.    Botanic Gardens Old Information Centre - Lease to Jenny Gillies

Reference:

18/1298995

Presenter(s):

Luke Rees-Thomas – Property Consultant
Wolfgang Bopp – Director Botanic Gardens & Garden Parks
Andrew Rutledge – Head of Parks

 

 

1.   Purpose and Origin of Report

Purpose of Report

1.1       The purpose of this report is for the Council to receive options for a lease over the Botanic Gardens Old Information Centre building to ‘The Jenny Gillies Exhibition’.

1.2       The Jenny Gillies Exhibition has occupied the Botanic Gardens Tea Kiosk building since December 2016. The company was unsuccessful within the recent RFP process to award a new lease over the premises. As a result, the Exhibition must depart the space on or before 28 February 2019.

1.3       Councillors have expressed a desire for the Exhibition to remain accommodated within the Botanic Gardens, until the directors achieve a more permanent arrangement externally. On 6 December 2018, the Council requested further advice with lease options over the neighbouring ‘Old Information Centre’ building.

Origin of Report

1.4       This report is being provided to fulfil item 5 within Council resolution CNCL/2018/00312:

“Request staff to report back to the 19 December 2018 Council meeting on the potential for a transitional lease for Jenny Gillies in the old information centre.”

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.

2.1.1   The level of significance was determined by the project being low cost and affecting a limited group of residents (being the lessee and visitors to the Botanic Gardens). While the decision is not easily reversible, this is not significant enough to change the overall significance value.

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

 

3.   Staff Recommendations 

That the Council:

1.         Resolve to grant a lease to ‘The Jenny Gillies Exhibition’ (or nominated company) over premises contained within the Botanic Gardens Old Information Centre building, for a period of up to one year, pursuant to Section 61(2) of the Reserves Act 1977.

2.         Note, that in resolving to grant a lease to ‘The Jenny Gillies Exhibition’ (or nominated company) it is departing from Council’s leasing policy, however the departure and its consequences is not considered significant, given the one-off nature, the short-term of the lease, and other particular circumstances.

3.         Delegate authority to the Manager Property Consultancy to draft and conclude all necessary lease documentation with regards to resolution 1.

 

4.   Key Points

4.1       This report supports the Council's Long Term Plan (2018 - 2028):

4.1.1   Activity: Parks & Foreshore

·     Level of Service: 6.2.2.0 Overall customer satisfaction with the presentation of the City’s Parks - Botanic Gardens & Mona Vale presentation: resident satisfaction =95%.

4.2       The following feasible options have been considered:

·     Option 1 – Grant a 1 year lease (preferred option)

·     Option 2 – Do not grant a lease

4.3       Option Summary - Advantages and Disadvantages (Preferred Option)

4.3.1   The advantages of this option include:

·     The Exhibition will be able to continue within the Botanic Gardens until the company sources a more permanent home.

·     A maximum term of 1 year will not significantly impede the Science and Research Centre (Master Plan objective 47) development capital programme for the Botanic Gardens.

4.3.2   The disadvantages of this option include:

·     The Council will bypass standard policy and elect to deal unilaterally with one particular entity.

·     Other community groups will be unable to use the Old Information Centre building until the Lessee departs.

·     The Exhibition will incur a minor period of downtime to relocate.

·     It is expected the Council will discount the Lessee’s rental.

 

5.   Context/Background

Botanic Gardens Old Information Centre

5.1       The land encompassing the Botanic Gardens is classified as Local Purpose (Botanic Gardens) Reserve and administered under the Reserves Act 1977. The grounds receive approximately 1.2 million visitors per year and are a major draw card for tourists and locals alike.

5.2       The Christchurch Botanic Gardens historically housed its visitor information desk and a small shop in what we now refer to as the Old Information Building. The building is located adjacent to the Tea Kiosk building and shown on the image below.

5.3       The internal floor area totals approximately 120m2, with the layout including a number of smaller rooms suitable for offices and storage, along with one larger open space (being approx. 80m2) – refer Attachment A. By comparison, the floor area of the Tea Kiosk premises recently offered under an RFI/RFP totals approximately 250m2.

Current Usage

5.4       The new Visitor Centre was completed in 2014 and incorporated park visitor information, a retail shop, café and the horticultural facilities. Since this time, the Old Information Centre building has been utilised by staff as a flexible space to augment the events space in the Visitor Centre (a space shared for community use and commercial events) and used on average approximately 3 days per week. Users have included the Friends of the Gardens, Biodiversity Events, exhibitions and CCC staff meetings. The NZ Botanical Art Society have recently approached the Gardens to ask if they could use it while their usual venue is not available during 2019.

5.5       In addition we have regular enquires for casual use for events such as biodiversity days, Kidsfest as well as a Nature Play conference due to be run in autumn 2019. In addition the facility is regularly used by CCC staff for workshops.

Future Plans

5.6       Council has committed to development and enhancement of its Botanic Gardens and Garden Parks to strengthen the image of Christchurch as the Garden City. One of a number of aspects to enhance the Botanic Gardens is the development of a science and research facility with a public interface, aimed at showcasing Plant Biodiversity and Research being done in the city and Canterbury engaging with some of the 1.4 million visitors about the value and importance of this work. Such engagement works is a key attribute of internationally recognised Botanic Gardens.

5.7       Part IV, Chapter 30 provides substantive information in regard to the role and importance of Science and Research for a Botanic Gardens. Within the Botanic Gardens world, the associated science and research programmes are considered the defining factor that identifies the difference between a Botanic Gardens and a garden park.

5.8       This programme and the associated facility is seen as a key opportunity to form alliances with relevant partner organisations such as Landcare, Canterbury and Lincoln Universities to demonstrate to visitors the significant role Canterbury plays in the botanic and horticultural world.

5.9       The key components of the centre would be a seed bank, working space for active research, meeting/educational space, and display space.

5.10    Possibly the most immediate and important component is the Seed bank. Many of the unique exotic plant species propagated and maintained within the gardens are at risk as the material is no longer able to be imported or is no longer commercially available. This means that the material currently held within the gardens is the only available source.  A relevant seed bank is therefore a critical facility to avoid irreversible loss of unique plant material.

5.11    Development of a Science and Research Centre is identified as a project in the Botanic Gardens Master plan, Objective 47, and the recently adopted 2017 Spatial Plan with funding ($574K) allocated in FY19 (current) and FY20.

5.12    Whilst not the only option potentially available, the Old Information Centre has been identified in the Spatial Plan as a potential Science Hub.

5.13    The Director of the Botanic Gardens is currently in the process of meeting with potential partner organisations, such as the University of Canterbury, Landcare, and Lincoln University, to explore how the Botanic Gardens could best meet these aspirations with a partnership approach. If the building was available it would give the Botanic Gardens the ability to respond to opportunities arising from these discussions and building on these relationships.

5.14    While a precise time table for the development of the Science and Research Centre is not yet established, the staff preference is to have the building available to use without an exclusive term lease in place which would hinder progression of the Botanic Gardens Master Plan objectives. With this in mind the Botanic Gardens is currently only committing to short term bookings of this space.

Jenny Gillies Exhibition

5.15    The Jenny Gillies ‘Enchanted Garden’ Exhibition has occupied the Botanic Gardens Tea Kiosk building since December 2016. The company applied for a further lease of this space within an open RFI and subsequent closed RFP processes, however was not successful.

5.16    For background information, please refer the submitted RFP response as Attachment B.

5.17    The new Lessee of the Tea Kiosk space has agreed to delay their occupancy commencement, which will allow the Enchanted Garden exhibition to remain in the building until the end of February 2019. To assist both parties with this transition, the Botanic Gardens are able to accommodate the new Lessee’s office requirements with a small office of the Old Information Centre, until 1 March 2019.

5.18    The process of awarding a lease over the Tea Kiosk space received a medium level of interest from the public and media. The Old Information building was not included in that offering and no consultation has been undertaken following the Council meeting of 6 December.

New Lease Options

5.19    Two options are included for Elected Members to consider:

Option 1 - 1 year lease

A lease is granted for a period of 12 months from 1 March 2019. This will allow a continuation of the Exhibition within the Botanic Gardens. From 28 February 2020 a month to month holding over period will provide further extensions and flexibility for the Botanic Gardens to implement future aspirations for the building and surrounding area.

This option is the preference of the Botanic Gardens. A one year lease option until the end of February 2020 would allow the Botanic Gardens to develop the Science Hub concept and be ready to repurpose the building.

At the moment the Botanic Gardens have not committed to any bookings more than six months out from present. Should the Council elect to grant a one year lease to the Exhibition, staff should be able to clear the diary from 1 March 2019 to allow lease commencement.

 

 

Option 2 - No lease is granted

5.20    The Exhibition will not be granted any lease tenure beyond 28 February 2019 when it vacates the Tea Kiosk Building to make way for the new Lessee. The Exhibition would need to source accommodation outside of the Botanic Gardens.

Delegations, Legal and Policy

5.21    The land upon which the grounds are located is classified as Local Purpose (Botanic Gardens) Reserve. The governing legislation (Reserves Act 1977) requires any use of the building to be in keeping and exist to serve patrons of the surrounding grounds. Therefore this rules out a portion of the general leasing market i.e. a shop could not operate which sold items that had no obvious link or benefit to the gardens and visitors. The proposed use of a floral exhibition could be considered as appropriate within the reserves Act definitions.

5.22    Section 61(2) of the Reserves Act 1977 determines the administering body of a local purpose reserve (that is vested in the administering body) to be a ‘leasing authority’ of that reserve for the purposes of the Public Bodies Leases Act. Under Sections 7(c) and 8(6) of the Public Bodies Leasing Act, the ‘leasing authority’ may grant a lease of up to five years at will without necessarily running a public tender. Granting a lease pursuant to Section 61(2) of the Reserves Act does not require a public notification process.

5.23    The Council’s leasing policy states:

“Where the Council recognises there is only one logical lessee for a public property, the Council will unilaterally deal with that lessee. However, when seeking to lease premises where there is an obvious and potentially broader market and public interest, the Council shall not deal unilaterally, but shall seek tenants through an open transparent and public process e.g. by tender, by request for proposal or by using a sound public advertised marketing process to attract tenants.”

In this instance, while there is a broader market, it is recommend that Council consider a departure from policy on the basis that this is one-off departure in specific circumstances, there is demonstrated public interest in the exhibition continuing, there are alternative spaces available for the existing uses of the old information centre, there are no known other groups proposing to use the space, and  for administrative efficiency reasons (the short availability period (one year), which would be further constrained if Council ran a public process, significantly limits the potential pool of tenants, and it will not be efficient to invest time and money in running a public process).  The departure is considered not considered significant given these circumstances, particularly as the policy allows for unilateral dealings for other types of leases.  

5.24    The Botanic Gardens as a whole is considered a metropolitan asset, i.e. a local asset with city-wide recognition.  Therefore the recommendations contained within this report require the resolution of the Council.

6.   Option 1 – Grant a one year Lease (preferred)

Option Description

6.1       The Council elects to grant a lease to the ‘The Jenny Gillies Exhibition’ for one year. No fixed renewal options are included, however a standard ‘holding over’ period could allow the Lessee to remain in occupancy following expiry on a month to month basis, should the state of Council’s plans for a Science Hub allow.

6.2       Once the Botanic Gardens requires the space for their current or future operations, the Lessee would be served notice to vacate.

6.3       A lease of 12 months will allow flexibility for the Botanic Gardens to engage partners within their objective of developing the building a Science/Research centre.

Significance

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

6.5       Engagement requirements for this level of significance have been met. The Council, as territorial authority, holds powers to grant leases over Local Purpose Reserves to any person or body, under Section 61 (2A) of the Reserves Act 1977. No public consultation is required under the Reserves Act for a lease of 5 years or less.

Impact on Mana Whenua

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

Community Views and Preferences

6.7       Patrons of the Botanic Gardens are affected as the Old Information Centre building is located in a prime location within the park. The community’s views with regards to this lease appointment have not been considered. The Botanic Gardens Management Plan does not contemplate a lease over these premises.

Alignment with Council Plans and Policies

6.8       This option is inconsistent with Council’s Plans and Policies:

6.8.1   Inconsistency – Policy requires staff to publically advertise and tender a new lease before appointing a Lessee.

6.8.2   Reason for inconsistency – There is political desire to provide temporary accommodation for the exhibition within the Botanic Gardens.

6.8.3   Amendment necessary – The decision not to comply with policy is recorded within the recommended report resolution.

Financial Implications

6.9       Cost of Implementation – The costs to relocate the exhibition.

6.10    Maintenance / Ongoing Costs - Nil

6.11    Funding source – It is expected the Lessee shall meet any costs required to relocate the exhibition between venues.

Legal Implications

6.12    There is a legal context, issue or implication relevant to this decision

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

6.14    The legal consideration is the legal documentation required to install the lease.

Risks and Mitigations  

6.15    There is a risk that a third party may present themselves and claim an unfair inability to apply for a lease of the space. This may result in Council’s decision making process being challenged.

6.16    The likelihood of this is considered low, as existing users can be relocated into other facilities, and there are no known future users.

Implementation

6.17    Implementation dependencies  - Subject to lease documentation.

6.18    Implementation timeframe – Drafted and signed by mid-January 2019.

Option Summary - Advantages and Disadvantages

6.19    The advantages of this option include:

·   The Exhibition will be able to continue within the Botanic Gardens until the company sources a more permanent home.

·   A more consistent use of the Old Information Centre will be established for the period of a fixed term lease.

·   A term of one year will not greatly affect aspirations of the Botanic Gardens team to develop the site as a Science/Research centre. 

6.20    The disadvantages of this option include:

·   The Council will bypass standard policy and elect to deal unilaterally with one particular entity.

·   Other community groups will be unable to use the Old Information Centre building until the Lessee departs.

·   The Exhibition will incur a minor period of downtime to relocate.

7.   Option 2 – Do not grant a lease

Option Description

7.1       The Council elects not to grant a lease to ‘The Jenny Gillies Exhibition’. Instead, staff are instructed to either:

7.1.1   Follow standard policy and run an open market process to source a Lessee or

7.1.2   Retain the status quo (informal booking of space by various groups)

Significance

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

7.3       Engagement requirements for this level of significance are met as no new lease is being granted.

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       Patrons of the Botanic Gardens are affected as the Old Information Centre building is located in a prime location within the park. The community’s views with regards to future options for this building have not been requested.

Alignment with Council Plans and Policies

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

Financial Implications

7.7       Cost of Implementation – Nil, no new actions being taken.

Legal Implications

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

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

Risks and Mitigations  

7.10    There is a risk that the Enchanted Garden will not be able to source alternative accommodation from an external landlord. It is not the Council’s role to facilitate leases on behalf of private companies, however it is noted this eventuality may occur as a result of this option being chosen.

Implementation

7.11    Implementation dependencies - Depending on the instruction, a further tenant sourcing process is run.

7.12    Implementation timeframe – six months.

Option Summary - Advantages and Disadvantages

7.13    The advantages of this option include:

·   The various group’s that utilise the Old Information Centre building will be able to continue on an informal basis.

·   The Botanic Gardens team will not be restricted in terms of applying the building towards the goal of developing a Science/Research Centre.

7.14    The disadvantages of this option include:

·   The Enchanted Garden Exhibition will not have a permanent space allocated within the Botanic Gardens. The Company will need to source accommodation externally.

 

Attachments

No.

Title

Page

a

Old Information Centre - Floor Plan 1986

88

b  

Jenny Gillies - RFP Response (Under Separate Cover) - Confidential

 

 

 

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

Luke Rees-Thomas - Property Consultant

Approved By

Angus Smith - Manager Property Consultancy

Bruce Rendall - Head of Facilities, Property & Planning

Andrew Rutledge - Head of Parks

Mary Richardson - General Manager Citizen and Community

  


Council

19 December 2018

 

 

 



Council

19 December 2018

 

 

13.    Christchurch Town Hall

Reference:

18/1309788

Presenter(s):

Alistair Pearson and John Rossetter

 

 

1.   Purpose and Origin of Report

Purpose of Report

1.1       The purpose of this report is to provide advice to the Council on the Town Hall project budget and programme.  The report seeks Council approval for an increase in the project budget.

Origin of Report

1.2       This report was requested by the Finance and Performance Committee.

 

2.   Staff Recommendations

That the Council:

1.         Approves an increase of up to $15 million to the Town Hall Project budget.

2.         Notes that the exact cost of the Town Hall project will not be known until project completion and close out of the Financial Accounts.

3.         Agrees that the additional budget funding be allocated from within the existing capital programme and will not impact on rates.

4.         Requests a report to Finance and Performance Committee detailing the savings identified across the multi-year capital programme that will enable the additional funds to be reallocated to the project.  Noting that no approval is given to delay or re-scope projects beyond the current delegations.

5.         Notes the Christchurch Town Hall completion programme, including a staged reopening and public opening day at the end of February.

6.         Notes the changes made to the Project’s governance and management.

7.         Requests that the project provides a monthly status report to Finance and Performance Committee.

 

3.   Key Points

3.1       In May 2018, Council approved an increase to the Town Hall project budget.   Council also demanded more stringent processes and controls on the project.

3.2       Issues concerning project finances and programme were subsequently exposed as a result of these new controls.

3.3       A full review of the project costs has been completed and this estimates a total project cost in excess of the approved budget.


 

3.4       A revised programme reconfirming a staged completion has been developed and has been accepted under the NEC3 contract conditions as follows:

·     Auditorium, Foyer, Function and Limes rooms – 20th February 2019

·     James Hay Theatre – 5th April 2019

·     Christchurch Symphony Orchestra (CSO) – Certificate of Public Use  (CPU) 7th May 2019 and Project Completion 15th August 2019

·     Public opening end of February, including access to Auditorium, Foyer, Function and Limes rooms and James Hay Theatre

3.5       This programme allows all booked events to proceed.

3.6       There have been significant changes to the project management and governance structure and processes, with closer controls on finances, programme and risks. 

 

4.   Context/Background

4.1       The Christchurch Town Hall is a unique building and a significant part of Christchurch’s heritage.

4.2       The Council agreed to restore the Town Hall after it was severely damaged in the 2010–2011 earthquakes. The project includes significant seismic strengthening, improvements to bring the facility up to modern day standards and a purpose-built home for the CSO.

4.3       The Town Hall project has had a number of budget pressures driven by the natural complexities around the repair and strengthening of a heritage building. The challenges around the land damage and proximity to the river were factored into the contract price.  However, some of the construction challenges were underestimated in the original project reports, for example the roof replacements ($2.4 million) and rebuild of the Ferrier Fountain ponds, plant and equipment ($1.23 million).

4.4       A number of significant improvements have been made to the Town Hall during construction which have added to the cost of the project. These improvements have ensured that within the reinstatement project we have delivered a world class venue and this is reflected in the current bookings.  For example,

4.4.1      James Hay Theatre - Conversion to Full Theatre Services - $5.7 million, including

·   Strengthening Work, New Fly Rig, Access Stairs, Mechanical and Electrical Services

·   Retractable Seating

·   Constellation System

·   Under Stage Storage

·   Theatre Services Infrastructure, AV/ICT, Lighting
Rigging System

4.4.2      Additional earthquake strengthening work to James Hay Theatre following 2016 EQ Events - $963,000

4.4.3      Auditorium Area Improved Functionality - $1.5 million

·   Additional Stage Lifts for increased stage size

·   Additional rigging hoists

·   Theatre Services Infrastructure Improvements (Electrical, AV/ICT and Lighting)

4.4.4      Kitchen and Function Room Refurbishment - $1.5 million

·   Complete new Kitchens on both floors and change of use for the Function Room for additional flexibility and events

4.5       In July 2017, Council approved a major extension of the scope of the project to accommodate Christchurch Symphony Orchestra’s rehearsal and administration facility requirements.  This has enormous benefits to the CSO and to the accessibility to the public.  This has turned out to be far more complex than first envisaged with the connection to the Town Hall structure being a challenge. The current estimated cost of the CSO is $11.1m.  It is important to note this money would have been spent in the Performance Arts Precinct as required by the blueprint.

4.6       At times the project has suffered from inadequate project governance and management structures and financial reporting. Up until March 2018, the external commercial manager (QS) consistently advised that the estimated final cost would be $140.6M.  In April 2018 the QS advised that the estimated final cost would be $152.23M.   In May 2018 a report was presented to Council requesting an additional $11.6m of project budget. In calculating this number, the project team at the time placed reliance on the advice provided by the commercial manager (QS) regarding the forecasted financial exposure that remained on the project.

Project Management 

4.7       As a result of the May 2018 report to Council, more stringent processes and controls were applied to the project. These included the addition of executive level membership of the Project Steering Group, peer review of contingency spend, director oversight of commercial management and regular reporting to the Finance and Performance Committee.

4.8       These new controls identified further issues concerning project finances and programme and as a result further changes were then made to the unit structure and to project governance and management:

4.8.1      Chief Executive made changes to the vertical capital unit structure;

4.8.2      A new Project Director was assigned to the project;

4.8.3      The project structure and resourcing was revised to ensure a structured approach to project control for both the main contract and the establishment;

4.8.4      Additional specialist advice was allocated to the project.

4.9       These changes have resulted in demonstrable improvements:

4.9.1      A comprehensive review of the financial status of the project has been undertaken;

4.9.2      A programme that reinstates staged completion has been developed;

4.9.3      A draft Establishment Programme has been developed;

4.9.4      The quantity of unresolved items of contract administration is reducing as is the quantity of incoming items;

4.9.5      Improved risk management processes are facilitating the effective prioritisation of resources.

The Programme

4.10    The current status of the work is as follows:

4.10.1    Auditorium - Main construction works are approximately 95% completed

4.10.2    Foyer and conference room - Main construction works are approximately 95% completed

4.10.3    James Hay Theatre - Main construction works are approximately 80% completed

4.10.4    Function and Limes Rooms - Main construction works are approximately 85% completed

4.10.5    Kitchen block - Main construction works are approximately 75% completed

4.10.6    CSO - Main construction works are approximately 60% completed


 

4.11    The accepted completion programme for the project is as follows:

4.11.1    Auditorium, Foyer, Function and Limes rooms – 20th February 2019

4.11.2    James Hay Theatre – Certificate of Public Use (CPU) 5th April 2019

4.11.3    CSO – CPU 7th May 2019 and project completion 15th August 2019

4.12    Public opening end of February, including access to Auditorium, Foyer, Function and Limes rooms and James Hay Theatre.

Finances

4.13    A full review of the project costs has been completed, including analysis of following: construction sums; provisional sums; compensation events; risk allowance; client direct costs; professional fees and actual expenditure.

4.14    This review identified that the cost of the project is estimated to be $12-$15million higher than budgeted. The financial estimates are now being assessed by a second independent QS team.

4.15    The exact cost will not be known until project completion and close out of the financial accounts.

4.16    An equity injection (equal to the increased project cost) will be required to be made by Council into Vbase to enable the payment of the increased construction costs. It is proposed that this equity injection be funded from within the existing capital programme. It should be noted that the increased cost of the Town Hall will have implications on Vbase’s depreciation of the asset.

4.17    Operational funds will be required to offset the costs of temporary works to attain a certificate of public use (necessary to enable the foyer and auditorium to open prior to the completion of the rest of the facility). These costs are estimated as amounting to $0.1m. These will be absorbed through cost savings and additional revenue forecasted for FY19 within the Citizens and Community Group.

 

 

 

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

Mary Richardson - General Manager Citizen and Community

Alistair Pearson - Manager Capital Delivery Major Facilities

John Rossetter - Project Director

Approved By

Michael Down - Finance Business Partner

Mary Richardson - General Manager Citizen and Community

  


Council

19 December 2018

 

 

14.    Water Supply Improvement Programme - update

Reference:

18/1323858

Presenter(s):

Helen Beaumont

 

 

1.   Purpose and Origin of Report

Purpose of Report

1.1       The purpose of this report is to update Council on the progress of the well head remediation programme and to endorse the approach taken to further reduce the chlorine levels in the city water supply.

1.2       This report is being provided to update Council on progress with respect to the Council resolution on 25 January 2018 approving the installation of temporary chlorination for up to 12 months within the Christchurch City Water and Brooklands/Kainga water supplies and the Council resolutions CNCL/2018/00073 on 26 April 2018:

That the Council:

1.         Reinforces the Council’s previous resolution that states: “Requests staff continue best endeavours to complete this additional work within the 12 month timeframe”.

2.         Resolves that the preferred approach to improving well head security is to raise well heads above ground wherever practicable, affordable and timely and requests staff to examine the options of installing UV treatment, including leasing and/or purchasing, as an alternative to wellhead improvements on a pump station by pump station basis where finance, timing and/or long term advantages have been considered.

3.         Approves staff to proceed with the delivery of works required to improve wellheads or install UV treatment when the solution is obvious due to its economic timing and practicality.

4.         Resolves to implement temporary chlorination in Wainui until its well is made secure.

5.         Requests staff identify funding sources to undertake the well head security improvements when the preferred approach and programme has been confirmed.

6.         Requests staff to bring back to a May ITE Committee or Council meeting, a report outlining progress to date and a draft programme of improvements proposed which takes into account the optimum solutions, timing, funding and interdependencies of the water network and future proofing.

7.         Request staff look at all other options to regain secure status or equivalent including renewal, remediating and/or the possibility of abandoning a wellhead.

 

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.

 

3.   Staff Recommendations

That the Council:

1.         Note the progress with the well head remediation programme and endorse the approach being taken to further reduce the chlorine levels in the water supply network while managing the risk of potential contamination.

4.   Key Points

4.1       Temporary chlorination of the city’s water supply was rolled out across 50 pump stations between March and May 2018.

4.2       A programme to accelerate the upgrade of the well heads across the city commenced in February 2018. To date 38 out of 140 wells have been upgraded and signed off as secure.

4.3       Chlorine is discontinued at a pump station when the upgrade works are completed on the associated wells. To date 9 pump stations are fed by secure wells and do not require chlorine treatment, and 2 pump stations operate without chlorine at times of low demand.

4.4       The chlorine dose has been reduced at 21 pump stations where the contact time to the first customer is more than two minutes.

4.5       A further city wide reduction in the chlorine dose, with additional risk management at sites vulnerable to surface flooding, is proposed.

4.6       The indicative timetable for the upgrade of the well heads, and consequential dates for the removal of chlorine from each pump station, will be reported in February 2019.

4.7       The Canterbury District Health Board has issued a statement reinforcing the importance of drinking water safety.

 

5.   Context/Background

Well head remediation

5.1       The Christchurch water supply network has 140 operating wells and 53 pump stations. In January 2018 the Council decided to temporarily chlorinate the water supply while work was done to improve the security of our wells. Only three of these pump stations were considered to be secure and did not require disinfection treatment under the current Drinking Water Standards for New Zealand.

5.2       Prioritising work to ensure that the drinking water supply is safe and secure was addressed in the Council’s Long Term Plan 2018-2028. Capital expenditure of $25 million has been brought forward into the first three years of the Long Term Plan to fund this programme.

5.3       At the beginning of the dedicated water supply improvement programme seven wells had been signed off as secure. As at 7 December 2018, 38 wells have been signed off as secure – these wells provide at least 24% of the water for the city. Progress with the remediation of the well heads is summarised in the chart at Attachment A.

Reducing the chlorine dose

5.4       The water supply improvement programme seeks to return the Christchurch water supply to secure status and remove the temporary chlorination.  The progress on removing and reducing the level of chlorine in the water supply network since the rollout of temporary chlorination in May 2018 is summarised in the chart at Attachment B.

5.5       In line with independent expert advice to Council the initial chlorine dose was set at 1 part per million (ppm). With a contact time of one minute, this dose provides adequate disinfection to protect against potential contamination where the well heads are not deemed secure.

5.6       A reduction in the chlorine dose, from 1 ppm to at least 0.5 ppm, was then agreed with the Drinking Water Assessor where we have at least two minutes’ contact time before the first consumer on the network. At the end of November the chlorine dose had been lowered at 21 pump stations across the city.

5.7       Further discussions with the Drinking Water Assessor have explored the opportunity to reduce the initial chlorine dose to 0.5 ppm at all pump stations across the city. To manage the risk to consumers within two minutes contact time an additional risk management protocol has been proposed for any well heads that are vulnerable to surface contamination. Vulnerability to surface contamination is identified based on:

·   Potential for surface flooding at the well site

·   Whether or not the well taps into a shallow aquifer.

5.8       For any pump station supplied by vulnerable wells the proposed risk management protocol would be implemented if the weather forecast indicated a serious rainfall event. The City Services Group subscribes to a weather alert service that provides the following trigger levels for rainfall in the city:

·   Category 1 BAU <40mm rainfall in 24 hours

·   Category 2 moderate 40-60mm in 24 hours

·   Category 3 major 60-100mm in 24 hours

·   Category 4 severe >100mm in 24 hours.

5.9       The risk management plan would be to go on alert if a major weather event is forecast; and to increase the chlorine dose, or isolate the vulnerable wells, if a severe event is forecast or eventuates from the alert status. If a well is isolated it would not come back into service until the water has proved to be clear of total coliforms.

Canterbury District Health Board statement on chlorine disinfection

5.10    This month the Medical Officer of Health released a detailed statement on its position with respect to chlorine treatment of community water supplies – Attachment C.

5.11    The statement reinforces the importance of drinking water safety and supports and encourages the use of chlorine as an additional barrier to ensure safety.  It goes on to say:

If a water supply is not chlorinated, the management of the reticulation network and condition of the infrastructure needs to demonstrate a low risk of recontamination and that there are other effective measures in place to protect the public.  

5.12    The reference to the management of the reticulation network and condition of the infrastructure echoes statements made by the Ministry of Health that any exemption from residual disinfection, such as chlorine, would require very high standards of network infrastructure, maintenance and operating regimes. It would also require comprehensive and timely monitoring information to demonstrate the integrity of the system and the quality of the water supply.

5.13    As reported to Council in October 2018 staff are continuing to explore the options for developing a smarter water supply network and opportunities to trial new technologies to support improvements to the management and security of our water supply infrastructure. The results of the research and the trials will be incorporated into the Water Supply Strategic Plan and the Water Supply Asset Management Plan, and inform the next Long Term Plan.

5.14    Further work is also underway to identify the investment required to demonstrate a low risk of recontamination within the water supply network and other effective measures that can be put in place to protect the public.


 

Next steps

5.15    As agreed by the Mayor, Deputy Mayor and the Chair of the Infrastructure Transport and Environment Committee, the February report to Council will address the Council resolution  CNCL/2018/00248

Request that staff report back before the end of 2018 on the implications of terminating the temporary chlorination programme at the end of the twelve month timeframe previously agreed by Council.

5.16    The programme for the remediation of the well heads is being managed through 6 discrete work packages:

5.16.1 Two work packages have been completed – the first to complete minor remedial works on 25 above ground well heads and the second to raise and upgrade six below ground well heads.

5.16.2 The third work package – to raise and upgrade a further 13 well heads – is in construction with the work on each well planned to be completed from January through to June 2019.

5.16.3 The design approach has been confirmed and tenders are being sought for a further 10 wells, plus ultraviolet disinfection at Main Pumps, as part of work package 4.

5.16.4 Work packages 5 and 6 will go to tender in 2019.

5.17    The ongoing works over the summer will require continuing communications on the importance of water conservation across the whole city. Works are continuing in the Brooklands and Northwest supply zones. Nine well heads are to be raised at Denton and Dunbars pump stations in the south west between December 2018 and May 2019.  Temporary remediation of below ground well heads will commence in February – most of these are in the Parklands and Central supply zones.

5.18    The exact timing for the future programme cannot be confirmed until the tenders have been evaluated and the contractors confirmed. However, by February 2019, we expect to have a proposed work programme based on the anticipated demand for water, the modelled supply and the estimated number of wells that can be taken out of service in each zone.

 

 

Attachments

No.

Title

Page

a

Status of wells

98

b

Chlorination by pump station

99

c

CDHB Chlorination Statement

100

 

 

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

Helen Beaumont - Programme Manager - Water Supply

Approved By

Karleen Edwards - Chief Executive

  


Council

19 December 2018

 

PDF Creator


Council

19 December 2018

 

PDF Creator


Council

19 December 2018

 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator

 

 


Council

19 December 2018

 

 

15.  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

19 December 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

6

Strand Lane

 

 

 

 

 

Attachment 3 - Public Excluded Information

s7(2)(i)

Conduct Negotiations

Staff are conducting negotiations for the sale and purchase various parcels of land required to widen Stand Lane

Registration confirmation from Land Information New Zealand

12

Botanic Gardens Old Information Centre - Lease to Jenny Gillies

 

 

 

 

 

Attachment 2 - Jenny Gillies - RFP Response

s7(2)(i)

Conduct Negotiations

Personal and company financial information is included

6 years post lease expiry

16

Update on Central City Reduced Fee Parking

s7(2)(g), s7(2)(h), s7(2)(i)

Maintain Legal Professional Privilege, Commercial Activities, Conduct Negotiations

The Report and its attachments contain legally privileged information.  In addition, options within the Report may require the Council to need to enter in and agree commercially confidential agreements with individual parking building owners and operators.  Aspects of individual agreements may contain commercially sensitive information.

Report and its attachments can be released when the Chief Executive considers that there are no longer grounds under the Act to withhold it.

 

 



[1] Sensitive activities are defined in the District Plan as including residential activities, care facilities, education activities and preschools, and health care facilities.