Christchurch City Council

Agenda

 

 

Notice of Meeting:

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

 

Date:                                     Thursday 23 June 2016

Time:                                    9.30am

Venue:                                 Council Chambers, Civic Offices,
53 Hereford Street, Christchurch

 

 

Membership

Chairperson

Deputy Chairperson

Members

Mayor Lianne Dalziel

Deputy Mayor Vicki Buck

Councillor Jimmy Chen

Councillor Phil Clearwater

Councillor Pauline Cotter

Councillor David East

Councillor Jamie Gough

Councillor Yani Johanson

Councillor Ali Jones

Councillor Paul Lonsdale

Councillor Glenn Livingstone

Councillor Raf Manji

Councillor Tim Scandrett

Councillor Andrew Turner

 

 

16 June 2016

 

 

 

Principal Advisor

Dr Karleen Edwards

Chief Executive

Tel: 941 8554

 

Jo Daly

Council Secretary

941 8581

Jo.Daly@ccc.govt.nz

www.ccc.govt.nz

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

 


Council

23 June 2016

 

Council - Terms of Reference

 

 

Chair

The Mayor

Membership

The Mayor and all Councillors are members of Council

Quorum

Half of the members if the number of members (including vacancies) is even, or a majority of members if the number of members (including vacancies) is odd.

Meeting Cycle

To be separately considered

 

 

The Council has the power to: (these powers cannot legally be delegated)

·         Make a rate

·         Make a bylaw

·         Borrow money, or purchase or dispose of assets, other than in accordance with the long-term plan

·         Adopt a long-term plan, annual plan or annual report

·         Appoint a Chief Executive

·         Adopt policies required to be adopted and consulted on under the Local Government Act 2002 in association with the long term plan or the preparation of the local governance statement

·         Adopt a remuneration and employment policy

 

The Council is also responsible for:

·         Reviewing and making decisions, when required, on the District Plan

·         Approving all Council strategy and policy, except that specifically delegated to a committee or subcommittee

·         Adoption of, and amendment to, Committee Terms of Reference, Standing Orders and Code of Conduct

·         Approving or amending the Triennial Agreement  and Local Governance Statement

·         Reviewing and making decisions on representation reviews

·         Appointing and discharging trustees, directors or office holders to Council’s Council-Controlled Organisations  and Council Organisations, except where specifically delegated to a committee or officer, and determining the remuneration for trustees, directors or office holders

·         Dealing with issues of significant community importance

·         Monitoring progress on earthquake recovery

Considering recommendations from Council committees, subcommittees, Community Boards, the public, stakeholders and others, and making Council decisions with regard for the requirements of Sections 76 – 81 of the Local Government Act 2002

 

 


Council

23 June 2016

 

TABLE OF CONTENTS

 

1.       Apologies................................................................................................................................... 5

2.       Declarations of Interest............................................................................................................ 5

3.       Confirmation of Previous Minutes.......................................................................................... 5

4.       Public Participation.................................................................................................................. 5

4.1       Public Forum....................................................................................................................... 5

4.2       Deputations by Appointment............................................................................................... 5

5.       Presentation of Petitions......................................................................................................... 5

6.       Chief Executive's Report......................................................................................................... 17

Audit and Risk Management Committee

7.       Audit New Zealand Management Report for the 2015 year end audit............................. 29

8.       Health and Safety Management Update.............................................................................. 63

9.       Annual Review of ARMC Terms of Reference....................................................................... 73

10.     Audit and Risk Management Committee Minutes - 24 May 2016...................................... 89

Chief Executive and Employment Matters Subcommittee

11.     Chief Executive and Employment Matters Committee Minutes - 27 January 2016.......... 95

12.     Chief Executive and Employment Matters Committee Minutes - 24 May 2016................ 99

Communities, Housing and Economic Development Committee

13.     Proposed Draft Housing Policy............................................................................................ 103

14.     Communities, Housing and Economic Development Committee Minutes - 2 June 2016 121

Infrastructure, Transport and Environment Committee

15.     Christchurch City Council Freight Management Action Plan........................................... 129

16.     Shared Fleet Report.............................................................................................................. 145

17.     Estuary Drain Concept Design.............................................................................................. 165

18.     No. 1 Drain Earthquake Damage Repair Options............................................................... 183

19.     Construction site Hoardings - Temporary Use of Legal Road Fee Rebate Programme... 197

20.     Infrastructure, Transport and Environment Committee Minutes - 2 June 2016............. 213

21.     Hearings Panel Report to the Council on the Proposed Changes to the Jellie Park Management Plan................................................................................................................. 223

22.     Hearings Panel Report to the Council on the Proposed Revocation of the Pedestrian Mall in Poplar Street......................................................................................................................... 305

23.     Hearings Panel Report to the Council on the Proposed Changes to the Dog Control Policy and Dog Control Bylaw 2016................................................................................................ 315

24.     Te Waihora Co-Governance Group membership............................................................... 391

25.     Community Organisation Loan Scheme ............................................................................. 423

26.     Proposed Road Names - South Precinct............................................................................. 427

27.     Christchurch Earthquake Mayoral Relief Fund ................................................................. 435

28.     Resolution to Exclude the Public......................................................................................... 440  

 

 

 


Council

23 June 2016

 

 

1.   Apologies

At the close of the agenda no apologies had been received.

 

There were no apologies at the time the agenda was prepared.

2.   Declarations of Interest

Members are reminded of the need to be vigilant 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.   Confirmation of Previous Minutes

That the minutes of the Council meeting held on Thursday, 9 June 2016 be confirmed (refer page 6).

4.   Public Participation

4.1  Public Forum

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

4.2  Deputations by Appointment

A period of up to 30 minutes for deputations that have made application and been approved by the Chairperson.

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

5.   Presentation of Petitions

There were no petitions received at the time the agenda was prepared.  


Council

23 June 2016

 

 

 

Christchurch City Council

Minutes

 

 

Date:                                     Thursday 9 June 2016

Time:                                    9.35am

Venue:                                 Council Chambers, Civic Offices,
53 Hereford Street, Christchurch

 

 

Present

Chairperson

Deputy Chairperson

Members

Mayor Lianne Dalziel

Deputy Mayor Vicki Buck

Councillor Jimmy Chen

Councillor Phil Clearwater

Councillor Pauline Cotter

Councillor David East

Councillor Jamie Gough

Councillor Yani Johanson

Councillor Ali Jones

Councillor Paul Lonsdale

Councillor Glenn Livingstone

Councillor Raf Manji

Councillor Tim Scandrett

Councillor Andrew Turner

 

 

9 June 2016

 

 

 

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

Watch Council meetings live on the web:
http://councillive.ccc.govt.nz/live-stream

 

  

The agenda was dealt with in the following order.

1.   Apologies

There were no apologies.

2.   Declarations of Interest

Councillors Gough and Lonsdale declared an interest in item 48 to be considered in Public Excluded.

3.   Confirmation of Previous Minutes

Council Resolved CNCL/2016/00277

That the minutes of the Council meeting held on Thursday, 26 May 2016 be confirmed.

AND

That the Council receives the Minutes from the Regulation and Consents Committee meeting held 19 May 2016.

AND

That the Council receives the Minutes from the Strategy and Finance Committee meeting held 19 May 2016.

Councillor Turner/Deputy Mayor                                                                                                                         Carried

4.   Public Participation

4.1  Public Forum

 

4.1.1      Bromley School

Cathy Baker and Bromley School students, Eti, Stella, Bailey, Bailey and Lexis addressed the Council regarding traffic safety.

4.2.2      One Voice Te Reo Kotahi (OVTRK)

Katherine Peet and Rex Gibson addressed the Council on behalf of One Voice Te Reo Kotahi (OVTRK).

4.2  Deputations by Appointment

 

4.2.1      Multicultural Working Group

                Councillor Jimmy Chen and members of the Multicultural Working Group:  Zhiyan Basharat, Josiah Tualamali’I, Patrick O’Connor, Mastua Rahman, Weng Kei Chen, Lana Hart and Katherine Peat, presented a deputation to the Council regarding item 42 Chair’s Report of the Multicultural Working Party.


 

41. Resolution to Include Supplementary Reports

 

Council Resolved CNCL/2016/00278

That the following reports be received and considered at the Council meeting on Thursday, 9 June 2016:

42.       Chair’s Report of the Multicultural Working Party.

43.       Sumner Road Reopening Project – Geotechnical Risk Mitigation Solutions for Zone 3B.

44.       Development Christchurch Limited – Future Funding.

45.       District Plan Review McCulloch & Associates Report.

46.       Asia Pacific Cycling Congress September 2017.

48.       Chair’s Report of the Provisional Local Alcohol Appeals Working Party.

Councillor Livingstone/Councillor Clearwater                                                                                                  Carried

 

5.   Presentation of Petitions

There was no presentation of petitions.

6.   Akaroa/Wairewa Community Board Minutes - 13 April 2016

 

Council Resolved CNCL/2016/00279

That the Council receives the Minutes from the Akaroa/Wairewa Community Board meeting held 13 April 2016.

Councillor Turner/Councillor Scandrett                                                                                                              Carried

 

7.   Lyttelton/Mt Herbert Community Board Minutes

 

Paula Smith, Chairperson joined the table for this item.

Council Resolved CNCL/2016/00280

That the Council receives the Minutes from the Lyttelton/Mt Herbert Community Board meetings held 4 May 2016 and 18 May 2016.

Councillor Turner/Councillor Livingstone                                                                                                           Carried

 

8.   Lyttelton/Mt Herbert Community Board Minutes - 18 May 2016

 

Council Decision

Refer to item 7.

 

9.   Fendalton/Waimairi Community Board Minutes

 

Val Carter, Chairperson joined the table for this item.

Council Resolved CNCL/2016/00281

That the Council receives the Minutes from the Fendalton/Waimairi Community Board meetings held 2 May 2016 and 16 May 2016.

Councillor Gough/Councillor Manji                                                                                                                      Carried

 

10. Fendalton/Waimairi Community Board Minutes - 16 May 2016

 

Council Decision

Refer to item 9.

 

11. Hagley/Ferrymead Community Board Minutes

 

Sara Templeton, Chairperson joined the table for this item.

Council Resolved CNCL/2016/00282

That the Council receives the Minutes from the Hagley/Ferrymead Community Board meetings held 3 May 2016 and 18 May 2016.

Councillor Johanson/Councillor Lonsdale                                                                                                          Carried

 

12. Hagley/Ferrymead Community Board Minutes - 18 May 2016

 

Council Decision

Refer to item 11.

 

13. Riccarton/Wigram Community Board Minutes

 

Mike Mora, Chairperson joined the table for this item.

Council Resolved CNCL/2016/00283

That the Council receives the Minutes from the Riccarton/Wigram Community Board meetings held 3 May 2016 and 17 May 2016.

Councillor Chen/Deputy Mayor                                                                                                                            Carried

 

14. Riccarton/Wigram Community Board Minutes - 17 May 2016

 

Council Decision

Refer to item 13.

 

15. Shirley/Papanui Community Board Minutes

 

Council Resolved CNCL/2016/00284

That the Council receives the Minutes from the Shirley/Papanui Community Board meetings held

4 May 2016 and 18 May 2016.

Councillor Cotter/Councillor Jones                                                                                                                       Carried

 

16. Shirley/Papanui Community Board Minutes - 18 May 2016

 

Council Decision

Refer to item 15.

 

17. Spreydon/Heathcote Community Board Minutes - 3 May 2016

 

Karolin Potter, Chairperson and Melanie Coker joined the table for this item.

Council Resolved CNCL/2016/00285

That the Council receives the Minutes from the Spreydon/Heathcote Community Board meeting held 3 May 2016.

Councillor Clearwater/Councillor Scandrett                                                                                                     Carried

 

18. Burwood/Pegasus Community Board Minutes

 

Council Resolved CNCL/2016/00286

That the Council receives the Minutes from the Burwood/Pegasus Community Board meetings held 18 April 2016 and 2 May 2016.

Councillor East/Councillor Livingstone                                                                                                                Carried

 

19. Burwood/Pegasus Community Board Minutes - 18 April 2016

 

Council Decision

Refer to item 18.

 

Report from Regulation and Consents Committee - 19 May 2016

20. Approved Urban Design Experts

 

Council Resolved CNCL/2016/00287

Part A

That the Council resolve:

1.         That there is an interim delegation to approve an urban design expert as set out in the District Plan to the Head of Resource Consents and Head of Urban Design, Urban Regeneration and Heritage.

2.         That staff develop an interim set of criteria and process for approving an urban design expert.

3.         That a further and final report which includes delegations, criteria and process be brought back to the Committee and Council following the release of the Central City chapter decision.  

Councillor East/Councillor Scandrett                                                                                                                   Carried

 

21. Regulation and Consents Committee Minutes - 19 May 2016

 

Council Decision

Refer to item 3.

 

Report from Strategy and Finance Committee - 19 May 2016

22. Central Plains Water Trust - Draft Statement of Intent

 

Council Resolved CNCL/2016/00288

That the Council:

1.         Receives the draft Statement of Intent for Central Plains Water Trust;

2.         Recommends to the Central Plain Water Trust Joint Standing Committee that strengthening the monitoring of environmental effects and consideration for increasing the environmental levy be included in the Statement of Intent

Councillor Cotter/Councillor East                                                                                                                          Carried

 

42. Chair's Report of the Multicultural Working Party

 

Council Resolved CNCL/2016/00289

Part A

That the Council:

1.         Approve the release of the Christchurch Multicultural Strategy consultation document.

2.         Note that consultation will commence in July 2016 and feature consultation that also meets the needs of people with English as a second language and various cultural groups. 

3.         Note that a final Multicultural Strategy will be recommended to Council for approval, following the conclusion of consultation, in September 2016.

Councillor Chen/Councillor Livingstone                                                                                                              Carried

 

The meeting adjourned at 11:09am and resumed at 11:36am.


 

Report from Strategy and Finance Committee - 19 May 2016

23. Corporate Finance Report for the period ending 31 March 2016

 

Council Resolved CNCL/2016/00290

Part A

That the Council receives this report.

Councillor Manji/Councillor Gough                                                                                                                      Carried

 

Report from Strategy and Finance Committee - 19 May 2016

24. Performance report for the nine months to 31 March 2016

 

Council Resolved CNCL/2016/00291

That the Council receive this report.

Councillor Manji/Councillor Gough                                                                                                                      Carried

 

Report from Strategy and Finance Committee - 19 May 2016

25. Earthquake Claims Update as at 31 March 2016

 

Council Resolved CNCL/2016/00292

Recommend to the Council:

1.         That the information in this report be received.

2.         That this report be the final quarterly Earthquake Claims Update report to Council.

Councillor Manji/Councillor Gough                                                                                                                      Carried

 

Report from Strategy and Finance Committee - 19 May 2016

26. Development Contributions Remission Application

 

Council Decision

That the Council:

 

1.         Approve Option 2, for the remission of Development Contributions payable for St Francis of              Assisi Catholic School.

Councillor Turner/Councillor Clearwater                                                                                                                  Lost

 

Report from Strategy and Finance Committee - 19 May 2016

27. Remotely Piloted Aircraft (Drones) Policy

 

Council Resolved CNCL/2016/00293

Part A

That the Council:

1.         Resolves to adopt Option 1, with the deletion of 5.2 iii (c), Remotely Piloted Aircraft Policy (Attachment A) with effect from 1 August 2016.

2.         Resolves, under Clause 12(4) of the Parks and Reserves Bylaw, that all Remotely Piloted Aircraft systems, regardless of weight, MAY NOT be flown in the parks and reserves below without explicit consent (which may be granted on a case-by- case basis) from an Authorised Officer of Council:

a.         Garden and Heritage Parks, and Cemeteries.

b.         Within ten metres of an open-air public pool or playground or the boundary of any park.  

c.         The Council's legal road corridor on the coast - Scarborough Boat Ramp to Godley Head, and on Banks Peninsula.

d.         Over Council property at Te Waihora (Lake Ellesmere); Birdlings Flat; Brooklands Lagoon; Travis Wetland; Charlesworth Reserve; McCormack's Bay; South Shore Spit; Bromley Oxidation ponds; Bexley Wetland, Ferrymead Wetland and Linwood Paddock.

 

Councillor Johanson/Councillor Manji                                                                                                                Carried

 

28. Strategy and Finance Committee Minutes - 19 May 2016

 

Council Decision

Refer to item 3.

 

29. Burwood Resource Recovery Park - Change of Reserve Classification

 

Council Resolved CNCL/2016/00294

That the Council:

1.    Resolve pursuant to Section 24 A of the Reserves Act 1977 to change the classification of the areas of land at Bottle Lake Forest Park described below and comprised in parts of Reserves 2636, 2637 and 2638 held within CB 128/166 containing approximately 75 ha (subject to survey) from Local Purpose (Plantation) Reserve to Local Purpose (Landfill) Reserve:

a.    The area of 65ha zoned Special Purpose (Landfill) in the Operative District Plan (attachment A).

b.    The new BRRP comprising approximately 10ha (area B on attachment B).

2.    Delegate to the Property Consultancy Manager authority to manage and conclude the reclassification process and make all decisions necessary at his sole discretion.

Councillor East/Councillor Livingstone                                                                                                                Carried

 


 

30. Member Resignation from the District Plan Review Subcommittee


 

Council Resolved CNCL/2016/00295

That the Council:

1.         Receive and accept the resignation of Councillor Johanson from the District Plan Review Subcommittee.

Mayor/Councillor Scandrett                                                                                                                                   Carried

 

31. Civic Assurance Annual General Meeting June 2016 Proxy

 

Council Resolved CNCL/2016/00296

That the Council:

1.       Appoints Councillor Andrew Turner as the Council's representative at the Annual General Meeting of New Zealand Local Government Insurance Corporation Ltd (trading as Civic Assurance) to be held on 17 June 2016.

2.       Directs Councillor Turner to vote in favour of:

2.1          Receiving the Annual Report for the year ended 31 December 2015.

2.2          Reappointing the Auditor-General as auditor and authorising the Directors to determine the remuneration for the auditor for the year.

3.       Directs Councillor Turner to abstain on the reappointment of the Directors.

4.       Directs Councillor Turner to vote against the Director's fees increase.

Councillor Scandrett/Councillor Clearwater                                                                                                     Carried

 

32. Canterbury Indoor Bowls Association Inc.

 

Council Resolved CNCL/2016/00297

That the Council:

1.         Approves a grant of $50,000 from the Capital Endowment Fund in 2016/17 to Canterbury Indoor Bowls Association Inc. towards the rebuild of their bowling hall.

Councillor Lonsdale/Councillor Johanson                                                                                                          Carried

 

33. Councillor-directors' Remuneration

 

Council Resolved CNCL/2016/00298

That the Council:

1.         Receive the information in the report.

2.         Resolves that Christchurch City Holdings Ltd be directed to donate to ‘Imagination Station’ an amount equivalent to the fees that would otherwise be payable to two directors for the year ended 30 June 2016, and the balance of the donation, in lieu of Councillor director fees, to the Mayor’s Welfare Fund.

Deputy Mayor/Councillor Gough                                                                                                                         Carried

Councillors East and Jones abstained from voting on this item.

 

Report from Communities, Housing and Economic Development Committee - 2 June 2016

43. Sumner Road Reopening Project - Geotechnical Risk Mitigation Solutions for Zone 3B

 

Council Resolved CNCL/2016/00299

That the Council:

1.         Receive the information in this briefing report as a supplement to the material that will be shown in the technical briefing session for Councillors on 9 June 2016.

Councillor Lonsdale/Councillor Turner                                                                                                                Carried

 

44. Development Christchurch Limited - Future Funding

 

Council Resolved CNCL/2016/00300

That the Council:

1.         Note that work is ongoing between Development Christchurch Limited, Christchurch City Holdings Limited and Council to develop appropriate and agreed funding sources and processes for the services provided by Development Christchurch Limited to Council.

2.         Note that the outcome of this work will be included in the final Development Christchurch Limited Statement of Intent which will be approved by the Development Christchurch Limited Board and presented to Christchurch City Holdings Limited by 30 June.

Councillor Manji/Deputy Mayor                                                                                                                           Carried

 

45. District Plan Review McCulloch & Associates Report

 

Council Resolved CNCL/2016/00301

That the Council:

1.         Receive the information in the McCulloch & Associates report.

Mayor/Councillor Scandrett                                                                                                                                   Carried

 


 

 

Report from Infrastructure, Transport and Environment Committee - 2 June 2016

46. Asia Pacific Cycling Congress September 2017

 

Council Resolved CNCL/2016/00302

Part A

That the Council:

1.         Agree to host the 2017 Asia Pacific Cycling Congress

2.         Approve that a grant of $50,000.00 be made from the Capital Endowment Fund to fund the initial work to establish this Congress. These funds to be refunded if possible from the Congress income.

 

Councillor Clearwater/Councillor Cotter                                                                                                            Carried

 

34  Resolution to Exclude the Public

 

Council Resolved CNCL/2016/00303

That at 1:20pm the resolution to exclude the public set out on pages 369 to 370 of the agenda and pages 51 to 52 of the supplementary agenda be adopted.

AND

That Padraig McNamara of Simpson Grierson remain after the public have been excluded for Item 48 and that Colin Knaggs of NZTA remain after the public have been excluded for Item 40 of the public excluded agenda as he has knowledge that is relevant to that item and will assist the Council.

Mayor/Councillor Scandrett                                                                                                                                      Carried

 

The meeting adjourned from 1:21pm and reconvened at 2:08pm in public excluded session.

 

At 4:32pm the meeting adjourned and reconvened in public excluded session at 11:39am on Tuesday 14 June 2016 in the Mayor’s Lounge, Level 6, Civic Offices, 53 Hereford Street, Christchurch.

 

The public were re-admitted to the meeting at 12:26pm on 14 June 2016.

   

Meeting concluded at 12:26pm on 14 June 2016.

 

CONFIRMED THIS 23rd DAY OF JUNE 2016.

 

Mayor Lianne Dalziel

Chairperson

 


Council

23 June 2016

 

 

6.        Chief Executive's Report

Reference:

16/424890

Contact:

Karleen Edwards

Karleen.edwards@ccc.govt.nz

941 8999

 

 

1.   Purpose of Report

1.1       This Chief Executive’s Report provides a summary of the Council’s organisational performance for May 2016.

 

2.   Recommendation to Council

That the Council:

1.         Receive the report.

 

 

Attachments

No.

Title

Page

a

Chief Executive's Report

18

 

 

Signatories

Author

Karleen Edwards

Chief Executive

  


Council

23 June 2016

 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


Council

23 June 2016

 

Report from Audit and Risk Management Committee  – 24 May 2016

 

7.        Audit New Zealand Management Report for the 2015 year end audit

Reference:

16/630827

Contact:

Patricia Christie

Patricia.christie@ccc.govt.nz

941 8113

 

 

 

 

1.   Audit and Risk Management Committee Consideration

 

The Committee discussed the report and a number of recommendations reflecting the accounting implications.

 

2.   Staff Recommendations

 

It is recommended that:

1.         The Audit and Risk Management Committee consider the comments made by Audit New Zealand in its Management Report on the 2015 Annual report.

2.         After consideration of the Management Report, the Committee recommend to the Council that it receive the Audit New Zealand 2015 Management Report.

 

3.   Audit and Risk Management Committee Recommendation to Council

 

It is recommended that:

1.         The Council receive the Audit New Zealand 2015 Management Report.

 

 

Attachments

No.

Report Title

Page

1

Audit New Zealand Management Report for the 2015 year end audit

30

 

No.

Title

Page

a

CCC 2015/16 Audit New Zealand Management Report to the Council

34

 

 


Council

23 June 2016

 

 

Audit New Zealand Management Report for the 2015 year end audit

Reference:

16/442611

Contact:

Patricia Christie

Patricia.christie@ccc.govt.nz

941 8113

 

 

1.       Purpose and Origin of Report

Purpose of Report

1.1          The purpose of this report is to table with the Audit and Risk Management Committee the Audit New Zealand Management Report relating to their audit of the Council's financial statements for the year ended 30 June 2015.

Origin of Report

1.2          This report is staff generated in accordance with standard governance procedures.

2.       Significance

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

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

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

 

3.       Staff Recommendations

It is recommended that:

1.              The Audit and Risk Management Committee consider the comments made by Audit New Zealand in its Management Report on the 2015 Annual report.

2.              After consideration of the Management Report, the Committee recommend to the Council that it receive the Audit New Zealand 2015 Management Report.

 

 

4.       Key Points

4.1          The Audit New Zealand Management Report to Council is attached as Attachment A.

4.2          The key points noted by Audit New Zealand in the Management Report are:

Introduction

4.2.1         The Council made some progress in 2014 towards removing the audit opinion modification by revaluing the water supply class of assets. In 2015, further progress was made with the revaluation of land and buildings, roading and sewerage class of assets, leaving only the stormwater asset class to be addressed.

4.2.2         The modification has been removed for land and buildings but remains for roading and sewerage as the valuations did not adequately take into account the unrepaired earthquake damage remaining on the networks. The modification is likely to remain until the Stronger Christchurch Infrastructure Rebuild team (SCIRT) completes their task of repairing the roading and sewerage assets.

4.2.3         The other modifications for insurance receivables and SCIRT capital work in progress remain.

Asset valuation

4.2.4         The sewerage network assets were revalued using a top-down damage assessment approach where the valuer adjusted the total useful life of assets constructed prior to the earthquakes based on work SCIRT undertook in 2013. This was considered a reasonable first step but a better more reliable approach would have been to assess the extent of damage on each individual asset in the network and reduce the remaining useful life. Staff note that the valuer could not take such an approach for the valuation as damage assessment has not been undertaken to this level of detail.

4.2.5         The top down approach introduced the potential for a significant variance in the value of the unrepaired earthquake damage, based on different potential methodologies to calculate the value. The variability meant Audit New Zealand could not assess whether the valuation was materially misstated.

4.2.6         The lack of detailed information from SCIRT on what assets were due to be repaired and/or replaced as part of the SCIRT programme also impacted on Audit New Zealand's ability to conclude on the valuation provided.

4.2.7         A revaluation of roading assets was also undertaken for the annual report but Council were unable to provide clear and persuasive evidence in the time available in support of the valuation methodology adopted.

4.2.8         A revaluation of the Council's land and buildings was undertaken and the valuation accepted by Audit New Zealand. The valuation of buildings was undertaken on an as-repaired basis. Council made a separate "impairment" adjustment to reflect the estimated cost of earthquake repairs that were not complete at 30 June 2015.

SCIRT and Work in Progress balance

4.2.9         $55 million was written off relating to both SCIRT and Infrastructure Rebuild Management Office (IRMO) investigative costs and discontinued projects. However, there is a risk that some of the remaining SCIRT work is operational maintenance rather than capital expenditure. This is only able to be assessed once Council receives the completed work from SCIRT.

4.2.10      As identified in previous years, Council cannot capitalise completed SCIRT work in progress (WIP) until practical completion at which stage the information is provided. SCIRT's policy is to transfer ownership once an entire program is complete, which can result in the WIP balance including completed assets that may have been in use for up to 12 months.

Insurance receivables

4.2.11      The uncertainties regarding the value of the insurance receivable and when it would be received are also noted as issues. However, subsequent to year end and before the date of the report the insurance claim was settled.

Performance reporting

4.2.12      Audit New Zealand reviewed the environment, processes and controls for reporting on service performance. With the exception of one measure they confirmed that Council had reliable systems in place for the material measures.

4.2.13      The one measure that was deficient was in relation to building consents where the 2014/15 annual plan did not include a measure on the time taken to process consents. This would normally be included because it is a statutory requirement. Council originally stated that 89% of building consents were processed within the statutory timeframe. This comment was subsequently qualified once testing of this result identified that the system did not accurately record the time taken to process a consent.

Focus for future years

4.2.14      Audit New Zealand consider that the audit modification for infrastructure assets valuations will remain in place until sometime after SCIRT completes its work in December 2016. This is on the basis that the remaining damaged assets will have been substantially repaired and assumes that the SCIRT programme is successful. If this is not the case Audit New Zealand are of the opinion that the qualifications could extend beyond 2017.

4.2.15      Audit focus in 2016 will be directed to the project management. Initially this will focus on the project management of large anchor projects being managed by the Council such as the Town Hall. Audit New Zealand will ascertain whether the Council has appropriate and effective management techniques in place to manage these projects from start to finish.

 

5.       Comment

5.1          The issues noted by Audit New Zealand regarding the Roading and Sewerage valuations have continued to be progressed during the year. A useful meeting was held with Audit New Zealand to discuss their expectations of an infrastructure revaluation in the post-earthquake environment. Work is continuing with the Council's valuer to improve the audit conclusions in relation to these asset classes, but with the SCIRT programme still in progress there is little chance of any change is the 2016 Annual Report. No additional asset classes will be revalued in 2016.

5.2          The issues in relation to SCIRT work in progress also continue to be advanced, but as noted above Council's position is totally dependent on SCIRT providing sufficient detailed information in a timely manner.  Council staff have been unable to influence this. The rate at which the SCIRT projects reached practical completion fell away significantly during the first nine months of this financial year, which leaves little probability of any change in the audit opinion.

 

 

Attachments

No.

Title

Page

a 

CCC 2015/16 Audit New Zealand Management Report to the Council

 

 

 

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

Patricia Christie

Diane Brandish

Manager External Reporting & Governance

Head of Financial Management

Approved By

Diane Brandish

Peter Gudsell

Head of Financial Management

General Manager Finance & Commercial

 


Council

23 June 2016

 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


Council

23 June 2016

 

Report from Audit and Risk Management Committee  – 24 May 2016

 

8.        Health and Safety Management Update

Reference:

16/630753

Contact:

Emma Davis

Emma.davis@ccc.govt.nz

941 8907

 

 

 

 

1.   Audit and Risk Management Committee Consideration

 

The Committee considered the information presented in the Health and Safety Management Update report and discussed issues including indicators and reporting.

 

2.   Staff Recommendations

 

That the Audit and Risk Management Committee:

1.         Consider the information presented in this report.

2.         Refer this report to the full Council.

 

3.   Audit and Risk Management Committee Recommendation to Council

 

That the Council:

1.              Receive the information presented in this report.

2.              Establish a Health and Safety Committee as a Committee of Council comprising independent members as well as Councillors.

 

Secretarial Note:  Should the Council wish to establish a Health and Safety Committee it is recommended that it request a staff report on the establishment of a Committee that includes draft Terms of Reference and the appointments process for independent members as appropriate.

 

 

 

Attachments

No.

Report Title

Page

1

Health and Safety Management Update

64

 

No.

Title

Page

a

ACC Accredited Employer Certificate 2016

70

b

CCC Health and Safety Newsletter March 2016

71

 

 


Council

23 June 2016

 

 

Health and Safety Management Update

Reference:

16/510469

Contact:

Emma Davis

Emma.davis@ccc.govt.nz

941 8907

 

 

1.       Purpose and Origin of Report

Purpose of Report

1.1          The purpose of this report is for the Audit and Risk Management Committee to be informed of health and safety matters at Christchurch City Council.

Origin of Report

1.2          This report is staff generated to provide the Audit and Risk Management Committee with an overview of health and safety management within the 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 likely impact on people and finances.

 

3.       Staff Recommendations

That the Audit and Risk Management Committee:

1.              Consider the information presented in this report.

2.              Refer this report to the full Council.

 

 

4.       Key Points

4.1          The City Council's Executive Leadership Team are committed to leading the safety and well-being of staff, contractors and visitors.  An independent review of the Council's health and safety practice was undertaken in late 2015.  A comprehensive plan of action is in place to address the findings from this review. 

4.2          Health and Safety Lead and Lag Performance Indicators have been developed and are included in this report.  The next report to the Audit and Risk Management Committee will include an organisation-wide health and safety dashboard allowing at-a-glance governance level reporting.

4.3          The Council has retained tertiary level in the ACC Accredited Employer Audit.

 

5.       Introduction

PWC Audit findings

5.1          An Independent Audit was undertaken by PWC within Council in late 2015 on the Health and Safety Reform Bill Readiness and our health and safety practices in light of this legislative change.  The objective was to assess the adequacy of our health and safety framework and processes that are in place to enable the Executive Leadership Team (ELT) to fulfil their respective health and safety obligations.  This Audit was based on the Institute of Directors Good Governance Practices Guideline for Managing Health and Safety Risk and the Health and Safety Reform Bill.  The full progress report against findings is included in the Head of Audit and Risk report but significant achievements include:

·      The majority of actions are completed, with all remaining open actions due for completion by 30 September 2016.  Actions have all been prioritised for completion. 

·      Officers and Due Diligence workshop for the ELT has been completed and the ELT have committed to further IoD training. 

·      The ELT have confirmed procedures under the new legislation relating to PCBU (the Council is a single PCBU), officers, and accountabilities.

·      The ELT have established new organisation wide performance indicators and an improved reporting framework (including lead and lag indicators).

·      Implementation of the updated online Accident, Incident and Discomfort Report form which has improved near miss reporting and managers involvement.

·      Recruitment of the Health and Safety Manager.

·      Various risk related procedures and policy have been refreshed and communicated, including an updated Health and Safety Policy, Health and Safety Charter, and Health and Safety Roles and Responsibilities.

·      Delivery of a revamped Health and Safety newsletter which is more informative on lessons learned and ways to improve Health and Safety practices across the Council.  The March newsletter is attached.

5.2          The ELT recognises that further work is also required to ensure the organisation is routinely operating at the level expected, especially in the area of health and safety for contractors and visitors, and exercise of health and safety responsibilities for events. 

5.3          It is expected that a further independent audit of progress now that the Health and Safety at Work legislation is in force, may be undertaken in the second half of 2016.   

Performance Indicators

5.4          As noted above, a Health and Safety performance dashboard is currently under production and will in future be used to report performance metrics.  For the Audit and Risk Management Committee's benefit, the lead and lag indicators under production are detailed in the following sections:

Health and Safety Leading Indicators

5.5          This table is a summary of the categories of the Leading Performance Indicators for the quarter 1 January 2016 - 31 March 2016 (note, near misses are included as a lag indicator)

Leading Performance Indicators

March Quarter

# of Ergonomic Assessments Completed

96

# of Skin Checks - total
# of Skin Checks - paid for by CCC

339

117

# of Health & Safety Committee meetings held

11

# of Resilience sessions held

3

# of participants enrolled for Yoga

120

# of participants attending Prevention of OOS course

25

# of participants attending Workplace First Aid course

10

# of participants attending Workplace First Aid Revalidation course

17

 


 

 

Completion of compulsory H&S courses

YTD Total

Health and Safety e-learning module and Health and Safety Management Responsibilities course

1547

 

Notes:

·         Ergonomic Assessments are carried out as part of induction and repeated if a staff member reports pain or discomfort.

·         Skin checks are provided to staff who are exposed to the sun during their work day activities.  Other strategies are also in place to reduce the risk of exposure including job rotation, sun screen and personal protective clothing.  Additionally this service is offered to staff not exposed to the risk as a wellness opportunity on a cost recovery basis.

·         Health and Safety Committees bring together staff and management for the review and development of health and safety processes in the workplace.  This programme also assists with staff participation, engagement and encourages a step change in culture.  A range of detailed leading indicators are also discussed at Health and Safety Committees, although the exact content varies greatly given the range of Council places of operation - for example, at construction site a greater focus is placed on PPE, morning stand-up meetings, hazard boards, sub-contractor induction.  At a swimming pool, a focus will include lifeguard to swimmer ratio, ensuring compliance with supervision responsibilities by adults etc.

·         Council has a relationship with the Mental Health Foundation who provide resilience sessions for staff providing strategies for preventing and managing stress and overload.   Excellent feedback has been received.

·         Since 2013 Yoga sessions have been organised for staff as an additional wellness initiative before and after work.  These sessions are funded by staff.

·         Council is targeting 65% of all staff to have completed an e-learning module on health and safety responsibilities by 30 June 2016.  We are currently on track with 57% YTD with 1547 completes

Health and Safety Lag Indicators: Accident statistics

 

5.6          The below table is a summary of the categories of accidents and incidents reported by staff across the organisation for the first nine months of this financial year compared with the same timeframe for the previous year.  Overall there has been a general trend downward in the number of incidents reported in all categories except pain and discomfort and injuries requiring first aid.  However there has been an increase in the numbers of days lost due to work injury mainly due to one injury which is requiring a long time to rehabilitate.

 

YTD

1 July 14 to 31 March 15

YTD

1 July 15 to 31 March 16

Lost time injury (LTI)

23

22

Medical Injury (MI)

92

67

First Aid Injury (FAI)

116

119

Near Miss (NM)

52

33

Pain & Discomfort

67

68

Abuse, Threat & Assault

not recorded

19

Total Incidents reported

350

328

Days lost

322

473

ACC Claims

80

69

Serious Harm Notifications to WorkSafe NZ*

6

4

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 


 

* Serious harm notifications reported since 1 July 2015:

·           Finger laceration caused when tree branch snapped back when mowing underneath

·           Fractured wrist caused when slipped on wet floor  

·           Fractured elbow caused when tripped on uneven concrete path at private venue  

·           Fractured arm caused when came off motor scooter

 

Accident / Incidents reported by Month - July 14 - March 16

 

 

 

5.7          One important aspect to note with the above information is that a new online Accident, Incident and Discomfort Report form went live early in March, which anecdotally has led to an increase in reporting. This is partly evidenced by March having the highest number of accidents reported since March last year. It is believed that this is attributed to the online form being more user friendly and the general focus on health and safety with the legislation introduction.

 


 

Lost Time Injury Frequency Rate by Month - July 14 - March 16

 

 

5.8       The Lost Time Injury Frequency Rate records the number of Lost Time Injuries per 1 million hours worked.  The monthly LTIFR has substantial variability in the past 21 months with a low of 0 to a high of 12.8. The 12 month rolling average shows that from June to September-15 the LTIFR fell from 7.2 to 6.2, however since then it has been modestly climbing to 6.9. In the future we will explore the possibility of benchmarking this against comparable organisations, especially, other local government entities.

 

ACC Accredited Employer Programme

 

5.9          Christchurch City Council has been a member of the ACC Accredited Employer Programme (formerly the ACC Partnership Programme) since 2000.   This risk sharing programme reduces the ACC levy costs in exchange for the employer taking responsibility for the costs of work related claims.  An annual audit conducted by an independent auditor is required to remain in this programme.    The audit for 2016 took place on Tuesday 23 February and Tertiary status has been retained for the period April 2016 -March 2017.  The certificate is attached to this report.

 

Conclusions

5.10       Considerable work has been completed, and is still to be completed, to ensure that the Christchurch City Council consistently achieves its expectations for the safety and wellbeing of all staff, contractors, visitors, and the public alike.  The introduction of the Health and Safety at Work Act has helped set the legislative parameters, and the Council will continue to proactively review and improve its practice.

5.11       We would welcome feedback from the Audit and Risk Management Committee. 





 

Attachments

 

No.

Title

Page

a 

ACC Accredited Employer Certificate 2016

 

b 

CCC Health and Safety Newsletter March 2016

 

 

 

Confirmation of Statutory Compliance

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

(a) This report contains:

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

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

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

 

Signatories

Authors

Melissa Haskell

Emma Davis

Health and Safety Auditor

Head of Human Resources

Approved By

Emma Davis

Brendan Anstiss

Head of Human Resources

General Manager Strategy and Transformation

 


Council

23 June 2016

 

PDF Creator


Council

23 June 2016

 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


Council

23 June 2016

 

Report from Audit and Risk Management Committee  – 24 May 2016

 

9.        Annual Review of ARMC Terms of Reference

Reference:

16/630898

Contact:

Shaun Dowers

Shaun.dowers@ccc.govt.nz

941 8550

 

 

 

 

1.   Audit and Risk Management Committee Consideration

 

The Committee considered a report asking that it review and update its Terms of Reference.

 

2.   Staff Recommendations

 

That the Audit and Risk Management Committee:

1.         Review and agree to the draft Terms of Reference.

2.         Recommend that the Council approve the updated Terms of Reference.

 

3.   Audit and Risk Management Committee Recommendation to Council

 

That the Council:

1.         Approve the updated Terms of Reference.

 

 

Attachments

No.

Report Title

Page

1

Annual Review of ARMC Terms of Reference

74

 

No.

Title

Page

a

Audit and Risk Management Committee Terms of Reference - Original

76

b

Audit and Risk Management Committee - Draft Terms of Reference showing Tracked Changes

79

c

Audit and Risk Management Commiteee - Proposed Terms of Reference

84

 

 


Council

23 June 2016

 

 

Annual Review of ARMC Terms of Reference

Reference:

16/493357

Contact:

Shaun Dowers

Shaun.dowers@ccc.govt.nz

03 9418550

 

 

1.       Purpose and Origin of Report

Purpose of Report

1.1          The purpose of this report is for the Audit and Risk Management Committee to review and update its Terms of Reference.

Origin of Report

1.2          This report is staff generated to facilitate review and update of the Audit and Risk Management Committee (ARMC) Terms of Reference.

 

2.       Staff Recommendations

That the Audit and Risk Management Committee:

1.              Review and agree to the draft Terms of Reference.

2.              Recommend that the Council approve the updated Terms of Reference.

 

 

3.       Key Points and Background

3.1          The draft ARMC Terms of Reference is included at Appendix A, and includes the consolidation of commentary, track changes and feedback received prior to agenda distribution.

3.2          The ARMC last reviewed their Terms of Reference in November 2014. Since this review the ARMC has included a paragraph regarding review of the Annual Plan and Long Term Plan.

 

 

 

Attachments

No.

Title

Page

a 

ARMC Terms of Reference

 

 

 

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

Shaun Dowers

Head of Risk & Audit

Approved By

Anne Columbus

General Manager Corporate Services

 


Council

23 June 2016

 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


Council

23 June 2016

 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


Council

23 June 2016

 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


Council

23 June 2016

 

 

10.    Audit and Risk Management Committee Minutes - 24 May 2016

Reference:

16/641470

Contact:

Margaret Henderson

Margaret.henderson@ccc.govt.nz

941 8185

 

 

1.   Purpose of Report

The Audit and Risk Management Committee held a meeting on 24 May 2016 and is circulating the Minutes recorded to the Council for their information.

 

2.   Recommendation to Council

That the Council receives the Minutes from the Audit and Risk Management Committee meeting held 24 May 2016.

 

 

Attachments

No.

Title

Page

A

Minutes Audit and Risk Management Committee - 24 May 2016

90

 

 

Signatories

Author

Margaret Henderson

Committee Advisor

  


Council

23 June 2016

 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


Council

23 June 2016

 

 

11.    Chief Executive and Employment Matters Committee Minutes - 27 January 2016

Reference:

16/681749

Contact:

Kevin Roche

kevin.roche@ccc.govt.nz

941-6458

 

 

1.   Purpose of Report

The Chief Executive and Employment Matters Committee held a meeting on 27 January 2016 and is circulating the Minutes recorded to the Council for their information.

 

2.   Recommendation to Council

That the Council receives the Minutes from the Chief Executive and Employment Matters Committee meeting held 27 January 2016.

 

 

Attachments

No.

Title

Page

a

Minutes Chief Executive and Employment Matters Committee - 27 January 2016

96

 

 

Signatories

Author

Kevin Roche

Committee Secretary

  


Council

23 June 2016

 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


Council

23 June 2016

 

 

12.    Chief Executive and Employment Matters Committee Minutes - 24 May 2016

Reference:

16/682083

Contact:

Kevin Roche

kevin.roche@ccc.govt.nz

941-6458

 

 

1.   Purpose of Report

The Chief Executive and Employment Matters Committee held a meeting on 24 May 2016 and is circulating the Minutes recorded to the Council for their information.

 

2.   Recommendation to Council

That the Council receives the Minutes from the Chief Executive and Employment Matters Committee meeting held 24 May 2016.

 

 

Attachments

No.

Title

Page

A

Minutes Chief Executive and Employment Matters Committee - 24 May 2016

100

 

 

Signatories

Author

Kevin Roche

Committee Secretary

  


Council

23 June 2016

 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


Council

23 June 2016

 

Report from Communities, Housing and Economic Development Committee  – 2 June 2016

 

13.    Proposed Draft Housing Policy

Reference:

16/646815

Contact:

Paul Cottam

paul.cottam@ccc.govt.nz

941 6385

 

 

 

 

1.   Communities, Housing and Economic Development Committee Consideration

 

The Committee considered the report on the Proposed Draft Housing Policy and discussed the issue of strengthening the policy to include objectives of zero homelessness and opportunities for assisted home ownership.

 

2.   Staff Recommendations

 

That the Communities, Housing and Economic Development Committee:

1.         Recommend to Council that

a.         it adopts a Draft Housing Policy

b.         consultation is carried out on the Draft Housing Policy

c.         staff report back to Council a proposed final Housing Policy.

 

3.   Communities, Housing and Economic Development Committee Recommendation to Council

 

Part A

That Council:

a.         adopts the Draft Housing Policy

b.         considers strengthening the policy to include objectives of zero homelessness and opportunities for assisted home ownership.

c.         consults on the Draft Housing Policy

d.         requests staff report back to Council a proposed final Housing Policy

 

 

 

 

Secretarial Note:

Following further discussion staff recommend the following amendments to the Committee recommendation for Council consideration:

That the Council:

1.              Adopts the Draft Housing Policy with the following amendments:

a.              Amend Goal 6 on 'Acute Needs' to read 'Work with other agencies in the effective provision of housing and associated support services to address acute housing need and to eliminate homelessness

b.             Amend the fifth bullet point item from Schedule One of the Policy, to read: ‘Encourage and support a range of ownership models for modest income households such as assisted home ownership

c.              Amend the fifteenth bullet point item from Schedule One of the Policy, to read 'Education and advocacy on a range of housing issues, including promoting a range of housing types and tenures.

2.              Consults on the Draft Housing Policy.

3.              Requests staff report back to Council a proposed final Housing Policy.

 

 

 

Attachments

No.

Report Title

Page

1

Proposed Draft Housing Policy

105

 

No.

Title

Page

a

Draft Housing Policy 2 June 2016

112

 

 


Council

23 June 2016

 

 

Proposed Draft Housing Policy

Reference:

16/508426

Contact:

Paul Cottam

paul.cottam@ccc.govt.nz

941 6385

 

 

1.       Purpose and Origin of Report

Purpose of Report

4.1          The purpose of this report is for the Communities, Housing and Economic Development Committee to recommend to Council the adoption of a Draft Housing Policy.

Origin of Report

4.2          This report is staff generated in support of housing issues raised at the Communities, Housing and Economic Development Committee and discussed at the Housing Taskforce.

2.       Significance

2.1          The decision(s) 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 completing a Significance and Engagement Policy assessment.

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

 

3.       Staff Recommendations

That the Communities, Housing and Economic Development Committee:

4.              Recommend to Council that

a.              it adopts a Draft Housing Policy

b.             consultation is carried out on the Draft Housing Policy

c.              staff report back to Council a proposed final Housing Policy

 

4.       Key Points

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

4.1.1     Activity: Strategic Planning and  Policy

·           Level of Service: 17.0.23 Development of new policies, strategies and plans

4.2          The following feasible options have been considered:

·           Option 1 - adopt a Draft Housing Policy (preferred option)

·           Option 2 - do not develop a Draft Housing Policy

4.3          Option Summary - Advantages and Disadvantages (Preferred Option)

4.3.1     The advantages of this option include:

·           An informed, broad policy framework under the Local Government Act 2002 can more effectively guide Council decisions and actions across the spectrum of social, affordable and market housing.

4.3.2     The disadvantages of this option include:

·           The potential cost to Council to give full effect to the proposed Draft Policy in terms of assistance it may provide, especially in the areas of social and affordable housing.

 

5.       Context/Background

Policy Context

5.1          A range of work is being undertaken by the Council in the housing area.  This includes responding to requests for assistance (e.g. homelessness), proactively addressing issues (e.g. through submissions to central government, ensuring the efficient supply of market housing) and making the most of opportunities as they present themselves (e.g. supporting affordable housing initiatives and mixed housing developments).

5.2          The Land Use Recovery Plan and the Christchurch Housing Accord have provided some direction for the Council in the regulatory and land use planning area (especially in relation to market housing supply), and in addressing financial issues around the Council's social housing stock.  The Council has also adopted several affordable housing related resolutions in 2015.

5.3          Submissions received during forming of the Long Term Plan 2015-2015 showed that overall there was some support from the community for the Council to play a more active role in housing.  Generally submitters felt that the Council should work with the Government, community groups, the private sector and other agencies and providers to increase the supply of both affordable and social housing.

5.4          However whilst Council's role is clear in the support of market housing delivery, there is a policy vacuum which can result in questions being raised on the appropriate and legitimate role of the Council in some housing matters, especially affordable housing, under the purpose sections of the Local Government Act.

 

Policy Content

5.5          The proposed Draft Housing Policy has the overall aim of all people in Christchurch having access to adequate housing that is secure, safe, affordable, warm and dry.  It supports the four key Council Community Outcomes relating to the range and choice of housing in Christchurch: affordable housing options, good quality housing, range of housing types, and sufficient housing to accommodate residents.

5.6          As an indication of affordability, the median Christchurch household income of approximately $70,000 means it is marginal to pay no more than the recommended 30% of gross household income on housing cost when purchasing a lower quartile priced house (which stood at $382,500 in early 2016), even in the current low interest rate environment.

5.7          In a similar vein, the median Christchurch household income cannot affordably service the median rent for a three bedroom home, which stood at $430 per week in early 2016. Monitoring of the Christchurch Housing Accord shows that for 2015, 38% of households earning up to the 40th household income percentile were paying more than 30% of their income on housing cost.

5.8          The key themes of the Draft Housing Policy are that it:

·                Provides a grounded policy framework to guide and inform Council activities in the social, affordable and market housing space.

·                Contains guiding principles of housing adequacy, security of tenure, collaboration, quality of life, and quality of housing.

·                Recognises wider structural context and drivers of housing issues, and for affordable housing in particular (e.g. rising numbers of older adults being cash poor as well as asset poor).

·                Recognises all sections of the community have an interest and an active role to play.

·                Notes the importance of capability, capacity, evidence and information sharing.

·                Builds in the concept of resilience with housing as vital community infrastructure rather than just simply a market good.

·                Notes collaboration and effective use of resources within a 'housing continuum' framework to point to issues, options and roles.

·                Describes a series of actions through an attached Schedule (which can be amended as needed without revisiting the core of the Policy) to give effect to the Policy, so as to inform Council activities in social, affordable and market housing.

 

Policy Development

5.9          The Draft Housing Policy has been discussed at the Housing Taskforce since the middle of 2015

5.10       It has been the subject of two Canterbury Sustainable Homes Working Party workshops in late 2015 that included a range of participants.  The Draft Policy has also been aired at the Housing Forum (in 2015) and at the Te Waipounamu Community Housing Providers Network (in 2016).  Informal discussion has taken place with the Ministry for Business Innovation and Employment and Development Christchurch Limited.  Community Housing Aotearoa have also provided early, supportive input. 

5.11       The proposal to develop a Draft Housing Policy complements an action point within the Draft Resilience Plan calling for a Greater Christchurch Housing Policy.

5.12       If adopted by Council, further dialogue with key stakeholders will be carried out before reporting back to Council for final adoption of the Housing Policy.

5.13       Upon final adoption of the Housing Policy, a series of actions, as indicated in Schedule One would be implemented under the framework with subsequent reporting back to Council.

 

Policy Actions

5.14       Schedule One contains a list of proposed actions to give effect to the Draft Housing Policy. They are a mix of general commitments (e.g. take opportunities from the redevelopment or reutilisation of public land to deliver a range of housing), and more specific deliverable actions (e.g. evaluate mixed housing exemplar and other residential developments to assess housing outcomes). 

5.15       Most of the actions in Schedule One can reasonably be achieved within existing budgets, and many are closely related to existing work.

5.16       Some of the actions would be an additional cost to Council if fully implemented. These include:

·      Develop consenting, rating and development contributions assistance policies to support social and affordable housing.

·      Encourage and support public, private and philanthropic investment in affordable housing, e.g. investigate the feasibility of housing bond guarantees.

·      Develop measures that assist people to maintain their household security and remain in their communities, e.g. postponing rates.

5.17       The extra cost to Council for these particular actions is estimated to be in the range $50,000 to $500,000 per annum, depending on how much of a graduated approach is taken to their implementation.  These potential costs are both discretionary and reversible.

5.18       The extent to which the Housing Policy is implemented will depend on decisions made in the Council’s Long Term Plan and Annual Plan processes, as balanced against other Council projects and services.  It is intended that the Housing Policy be reviewed on a six yearly basis as the City evolves through and beyond the recovery period.

 

6.       Option 1 - Adopt the Draft Housing Policy (preferred)

Option Description

6.1          Adopt the Draft Housing Policy, for further engagement and consultation, to provide a policy framework to more effectively guide Council decisions and actions across the spectrum of social, affordable and market housing.

Significance

6.2          The level of significance of this option is medium consistent with section 2 of this report.  Engagement requirements for this level of significance are dialogue and workshops with key stakeholders.

Impact on Mana Whenua

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

Community Views and Preferences

6.4          Developers and providers of housing and housing related services, especially social and affordable housing and the households that occupy them, are specifically affected by this option due to the potential assistance it can provide for them.  Their views relate to the unmet housing need in the social and affordable areas (rather than overall housing supply and demand), and their ability to contribute towards addressing it.

6.5          Recent expressions of community views were made during the developing of the Long Term Plan 2015-2025, which were summarised in the thematic analysis of that LTP's submissions:

6.5.1     Overall there was good support from submissions on housing for the Council to play a more active role in housing.  Generally submitters felt that the Council should work with the Government, community groups, the private sector and other agencies and providers to increase the supply of both affordable and social housing.

6.5.2     Support for housing also included actively encouraging and enabling sustainable as well as affordable urban living.  In terms of housing quality, there was support for a Warrant Of Fitness for all rental housing and for new social housing to be built to higher than building code, preferably to Lifemark and Homestar standards.

6.5.3     Supporting emergency and transitional housing services was noted, as were calls for the Council to fast track development and re-development of its social housing property, especially to encourage a focus on youth housing.  It was suggested that the Council should support social housing through reducing development contribution costs.

6.5.4     There was support on several levels for the Council to be involved directly or indirectly in affordable housing initiatives.  In addition to affordability, other principles such as security of tenure, accessibility, habitability and adequacy were also emphasised from a human rights perspective.

6.5.5     Making Council social housing portfolio land available for affordable housing developments including mixed developments was noted, as was creating an entity that would enable the Council to source additional funding to grow affordable housing stocks.

Alignment with Council Plans and Policies

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

Financial Implications

6.7          Cost of Implementation - extra costs are discretionary and reversible, ranging from $0 to $500,000 per annum.  Although some work has been done, more detailed estimates can be included in the final report to Council following consultation on the Draft Policy.

6.8          Maintenance / Ongoing Costs - nil

6.9          Funding source - Long Term Plan and Annual Plan processes, as balanced against other Council projects and services.

Legal Implications

6.10       Nil

Risks and Mitigations

6.11       No risks with adopting the Draft Policy itself.  Most identified actions that give effect to it pose little risk.

Implementation

6.12       Implementation dependencies - no direct dependencies, although would support existing work.

6.13       Implementation timeframe - over the course of the Policy, reviewable every six years.

Option Summary - Advantages and Disadvantages

6.14       The advantages of this option include:

·      An informed, broad policy framework under the LGA (2002) can more effectively guide Council decisions and actions across the spectrum of social, affordable and market housing

6.15       The disadvantages of this option include:

·      The potential cost to Council to give full effect to the proposed Draft Policy in terms of assistance it may provide, especially in the areas of social and affordable housing.

7.       Option 2 - Do not develop and adopt a Draft Housing Policy

Option Description

7.1          Do not develop and adopt a Draft Housing Policy.

Significance

7.2          The level of significance of this option is low consistent with section 2 of this report.  Engagement requirements for this level of significance are nil.

Impact on Mana Whenua

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

Community Views and Preferences

7.4          Developers and providers of housing and housing related services, especially social and affordable housing and the households that occupy them, are specifically affected by this option due to the lack of any specific housing policy direction and assistance that can be provided for them.  Their views relate to the unmet housing need in the social and affordable areas (rather than overall housing supply and demand), and their ability to contribute towards addressing it.

Alignment with Council Plans and Policies

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

Financial Implications

7.6          Cost of Implementation - nil

7.7          Maintenance / Ongoing Costs - nil

7.8          Funding source - nil

Legal Implications

7.9          Nil

Risks and Mitigations

7.10       Nil

Implementation

7.11       Implementation dependencies  - nil

7.12       Implementation timeframe - nil

Option Summary - Advantages and Disadvantages

7.13       The advantages of this option include:

·      No extra cost to Council

7.14       The disadvantages of this option include:

·      An undeveloped policy position that does not sufficiently guide or support Council actions across the housing continuum.

 

 

Attachments

No.

Title

Page

a 

Draft Housing Policy 2 June 2016

 

 

 

Confirmation of Statutory Compliance

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

(a) This report contains:

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

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

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

 

Signatories

Author

Paul Cottam

Senior Policy Analyst

Approved By

Katherine Harbrow

Helen Beaumont

Brendan Anstiss

Finance & Commercial Manager

Head of Strategic Policy

General Manager Strategy and Transformation

 


Council

23 June 2016

 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


Council

23 June 2016

 

 

14.    Communities, Housing and Economic Development Committee Minutes - 2 June 2016

Reference:

16/647880

Contact:

Liz Ryley

liz.ryley@ccc.govt.nz

941 8153

 

 

1.   Purpose of Report

The Communities, Housing and Economic Development Committee held a meeting on 2 June 2016 and is circulating the Minutes recorded to the Council for their information.

 

2.   Recommendation to Council

That the Council receives the Minutes from the Communities, Housing and Economic Development Committee meeting held 2 June 2016.

 

 

 

Secretarial Note:  Item 17 Chairs Report of the Multicultural Working Party was a Part A item to Council on 9 June 2016.

   Attachments

No.

Title

Page

A

Minutes Communities, Housing and Economic Development Committee - 2 June 2016

122

 

 

Signatories

Author

Liz Ryley

Committee Advisor

  


Council

23 June 2016

 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


Council

23 June 2016

 

Report from Infrastructure, Transport and Environment Committee  – 2 June 2016

 

15.    Christchurch City Council Freight Management Action Plan

Reference:

16/647414

Contact:

Angela McDonnell

angela.mcdonnell@ccc.govt.nz

941 8379

 

 

 

 

1.   Staff Recommendations

 

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

1.         Receive and adopt the information in the Christchurch City Council Freight Management Action Plan report.

 

2.   Infrastructure, Transport and Environment Committee Recommendation to Council

 

Part A

That the Council:

1.         Receive and adopt the information in the Christchurch City Council Freight Management Action Plan report.

 

 

Attachments

No.

Report Title

Page

1

Christchurch City Council Freight Management Action Plan

130

 

No.

Title

Page

a

CCC Freight Management Action Plan (2016)

132

 

 


Council

23 June 2016

 

 

Christchurch City Council Freight Management Action Plan

Reference:

16/56335

Contact:

Karyn Teather

karyn.teather@ccc.govt.nz

03 941 8161

 

 

1.       Purpose of Report

1.1          To update the Committee on the Christchurch City Council Freight Management Action Plan.

 

2.       Staff Recommendations

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

1.              Receive and adopt the information in the Christchurch City Council Freight Management Action Plan report.

 

 

3.       Key Points

3.1          The CCC Freight Management Action Plan was reported to the Infrastructure, Transport and Environment Committee in March 2015 and April 2016.  It was prepared to ensure that CCC's local road network supports the movement of freight in and around the city and to address local freight issues in Christchurch. It was developed from the Christchurch Transport Strategic Plan and Greater Christchurch Freight Study (which predicts significant commodity growth) to support economic development and address local freight network issues while integrating with the existing transport network.

3.2          Overarching goal: to improve the efficiency of freight movement by defining and protecting freight routes and managing freight in local areas.

3.3          Objectives:

3.3.1     Establish a good understanding of the issues surrounding local freight management within Council.

3.3.2     Understand and address local network issues.

3.3.3     Understand industry issues.

3.3.4     Mitigate the impacts of freight vehicles on communities.

3.4          The plan aims to ensure that freight issues are understood and that the network is optimised to integrate with other modes.

3.5          The plan will be monitored and implemented by a working group of CCC officers to deliver on the key focus areas:

1.       Communication

5. Wayfinding

2.       Research

6. Funding

3.       Assessment

7. Protection and Resilience

4.       Network Optimisation

 

 

There are currently no financial implications associated with the plan, however as work progresses projects may be identified for the Long Term Plan and will in turn follow the appropriate application process.

Attachments

No.

Title

Page

a 

CCC Freight Management Action Plan (2016)

 

 

 

Signatories

Authors

Karyn Teather

David Falconer

Rae-Anne Kurucz

Policy Planner - Transport

Senior Policy Planner - Transport

Team Leader Transport

Approved By

Richard Osborne

Brendan Anstiss

Head of Planning & Strategic Transport

General Manager Strategy and Transformation

 


Council

23 June 2016

 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


Council

23 June 2016

 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


Council

23 June 2016

 

Report from Infrastructure, Transport and Environment Committee  – 2 June 2016

 

16.    Shared Fleet Report

Reference:

16/647482

Contact:

Kevin Crutchley

kevin.crutchley@ccc.govt.nz

941 8209

 

 

 

 

1.   Staff Recommendations

 

That the Infrastructure, Transport and Environment Committee recommend:

1.         Council request staff to seek commitments from potential shared fleet partners for a 100% electric compact car fleet, with zero tail pipe emissions.

2.         Council request staff to undertake a formal procurement process to engage a third party to provide a shared 100% electric car fleet, with zero tail pipe emissions, for Council and its shared fleet partners.

3.         Council request staff to report back through the Infrastructure Transport and Environment Committee on the third party proposals received; the preferred proposal and the affordability of this proposal; and seek approval on whether to proceed with engaging the preferred third party to operate the shared fleet for Council and its shared fleet partners.

 

2.   Infrastructure, Transport and Environment Committee Recommendation to Council

 

Part A

That the Council:

1.         Request staff to seek commitments from potential shared fleet partners for a 100% electric compact car fleet, with zero tail pipe emissions.

2.         Request staff to undertake a formal procurement process to engage a third party to provide a shared 100% electric car fleet, with zero tail pipe emissions, for Council and its shared fleet partners.

3.         Request staff to report back through the Infrastructure Transport and Environment Committee on the third party proposals received; the preferred proposal and the affordability of this proposal; and seek approval on whether to proceed with engaging the preferred third party to operate the shared fleet for Council and its shared fleet partners.

 

 

Attachments

No.

Report Title

Page

1

Shared Fleet Report

147

 

No.

Title

Page

a

Shared fleet Council report Council meeting 2015 10 29

154

 

 


Council

23 June 2016

 

 

Shared Fleet Report

Reference:

16/580393

Contact:

Kevin Crutchley

Kevin.Crutchley@ccc.govt.nz

941 8209

 

 

1.       Purpose and Origin of Report

Purpose of Report

1.       The purpose of the report is to:

a.       Update the Infrastructure Transport and Environment Committee on progress with the shared fleet project.

b.      Seek endorsement for staff recommendations.

Origin of Report

1.1          Council resolution dated 29th October 2015 supporting exploration of a shared vehicle fleet and opportunities for electric vehicles (Title of report: Shared Fleet Options and Proposal).

2.       Significance

2.1          The decision(s) in this report has 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 impact of this issue against the Council’s Significance and Engagement Policy.

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

 

3.       Staff Recommendations

That the Infrastructure, Transport and Environment Committee recommend:

1.         Council request staff to seek commitments from potential shared fleet partners for a 100% electric compact car fleet, with zero tail pipe emissions.

2.         Council request staff to undertake a formal procurement process to engage a third party to provide a shared 100% electric car fleet, with zero tail pipe emissions, for Council and its shared fleet partners.

3.         Council request staff to report back through the Infrastructure Transport and Environment Committee on the third party proposals received; the preferred proposal and the affordability of this proposal; and seek approval on whether to proceed with engaging the preferred third party to operate the shared fleet for Council and its shared fleet partners.

 

4.       Key Points

4.1          This report supports the Council's Christchurch Energy Action Plan and the objective to use a greater proportion of energy from renewable sources.

4.2          The following feasible options have been considered:

·         Option 1 - Shared 100% electric compact car fleet (preferred option)

·         Option 2 - Council converts its own fleet to electric cars

 

 

4.3          Option Summary - Advantages and Disadvantages (preferred Option)

4.3.1     The advantages of this option include:

·         Health and environmental benefits of zero emissions vehicle fleet

·         Council takes leadership role in adoption of electric vehicles

·         Potential for government funding.

4.3.2     The disadvantages of this option include:

·         Less control over the compact car fleet as the cars will be shared.

 

5.       Context/Background

Previous report

5.1          Staff presented the Shared Fleet Options and Proposal report to the Infrastructure Transport and Environment Committee on 8th October 2015 which was subsequently tabled at the Council meeting on 29th October 2015. This report outlined a proposal to investigate sharing a pool vehicle fleet because it offered efficiency opportunities and, importantly, because it was expected to be able to sustain a noteworthy proportion of electric vehicles. Councillors adopted the staff and committee recommendations and passed the following resolutions on 29th October 2015:

That the Council:

a.       Support staff pursuing the Shared Fleet Project being facilitated by Energy Efficiency and Conservation Authority (EECA) as outlined in this report.

b.      Acknowledge that the Shared Fleet Project is the best delivery mechanism to investigate and assess the possibilities for electrification of the fleet and car sharing. Staff are therefore requested to ensure that the Shared Fleet Project includes these two options in all stages of its project i.e. when going to market with the expressions of interest (EOI) and request for proposal (RFP) and the business case to be developed between these two steps.

c.       Request that staff report back through the Infrastructure Transport and Environment Committee to Council on the business case, end of stage two, and seek approval on whether to proceed to the final RFP stage or not.

 

Shared Fleet Business Case

5.2          The Energy Efficiency and Conservation Authority (EECA) prepared a business case for a vehicle fleet shared by Council, Environment Canterbury (ECan) and Meridian Energy's Christchurch operation. The business case model is that the shared fleet is owned and operated by a third party (Fleet Operator).

5.3          The business case involved the modelling of a number of scenarios for sharing fleets. The base case assumes that:

a.       The total fleet size is 100 vehicles, shared between the three agencies.

b.      Of the 100 vehicles, 84 are assumed to be compact cars (the remaining 16 vehicles include vans and utility vehicles)

c.       Of the 84 compact cars, 54 were assumed to be electric vehicles (the remaining 30 compact vehicles are assumed to be conventional internal combustion engine vehicles).

 

 

 

5.4          The EECA business case suggests that there are a number of benefits from a shared fleet, including:

a.       Lower operating costs through improved fleet management and optimised vehicle utilisation: Savings associated with sharing common services such as booking systems and consolidated fleet management. As demand profiles can differ between organisations, vehicle utilisation can be improved by smoothing out peak demand.

b.      Reducing parking requirements: A smaller total pool of fleet vehicles in the CBD.

c.       Electric vehicle uptake and carbon dioxide emission reductions: Improved vehicle utilisation in a shared fleet means that the economics of electric vehicles can be improved.

d.      Potential starting-point for a public car share scheme in Christchurch: In the current operating context it is very unlikely that an operator would set up a car share scheme without the commitment of anchor members. An initial fleet of about 100 vehicles could provide the critical mass necessary to develop and show-case a compelling value proposition to other potential users.

5.5          Additional benefits associated with the conversion of Council's pool car fleet to electric vehicles include:

a.       An investment in health and environmental outcomes (zero tail pipe emission vehicles).

b.      Alignment with global ambitions to reduce carbon emissions, as agreed at the Paris climate conference (COP21) in December 2015, and with the New Zealand Government's post-2020 climate change target, announced in July 2015, to reduce greenhouse gas emissions to 30 per cent below 2005 levels by 2030.

c.       Battery electric cars potentially have lower maintenance costs than internal combustion engine vehicles.

d.      Potential to reduce the number of cars in Christchurch and lead the transition to zero emission vehicles.

e.      Electric vehicles would be available for use by a range of Christchurch organisations and residents which would expose more people to electric vehicle use, help overcome myths and negative perceptions and encourage greater uptake of electric vehicles in Christchurch.

Strategic Opportunity for Christchurch

5.6          Government has recently announced a contestable fund to encourage innovation in promoting, enabling and accelerating the uptake of low emission vehicles. There is the opportunity to apply for funding for an innovative shared 100% electric car fleet, with zero tail pipe emissions in Christchurch.

5.7          Instead of sharing Council's entire pool vehicle fleet, as assumed in the EECA business case, staff recommend a shared fleet for the compact cars only and with 100% electric cars, with zero tail pipe emissions.

5.8          Staff recommend to proceed with an electric compact car shared fleet because:

a.       Compact cars are simpler to share and are available as electric cars. Only some of the non-compact vehicles are currently available as electric vehicles and their current range would not generally suit requirements for these vehicles.

b.      The distance modern electric compact cars can travel will meet shared fleet travel distance requirements.

c.       A 100% electric car fleet sends a signal to Christchurch residents that Council supports zero tail pipe emission vehicles for the benefit of Christchurch.

Next Steps

5.9          Staff propose the following next steps:

a.       Seek commitment from potential shared fleet partners to the next stage of this project.

b.      Undertake a formal procurement process to engage a third party to provide a shared 100% electric car fleet, with zero tail pipe emissions, for Council and its potential shared fleet partners.

c.       Apply for funding from the central government electric vehicle contestable fund.

d.      Depending on the above points, determine the affordability of the proposal against budgets.

e.      Subject to approval, implementation of a shared fleet is targeted to commence mid-2017.

6.       Option 1 - Shared 100% electric car fleet with zero tail pipe emissions

Option Description

6.1          Undertake a formal procurement process to engage a third party to provide a shared 100% electric car fleet, with zero tail pipe emissions, for Council and its potential shared fleet partners.

Significance

6.2          The level of significance of this option is low, consistent with section 2 of this report.  Engagement requirements for this level of significance are nil.

Impact on Mana Whenua

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

Community Views and Preferences

6.4          Assumed to be supportive, especially if the fleet becomes a starting point for a publicly available fleet of electric cars which is available to Christchurch residents in the future. Staff intend to plan community events to raise awareness of the benefits of electric cars alongside this project.

Alignment with Council Plans and Policies

6.5          This option is consistent with the Council's Christchurch Energy Action Plan.

Financial Implications

6.6          Cost of Implementation - Until the market has responded to the formal procurement process (for which this report seeks approval), the financial implications will not be known in detail. However, the EECA business case suggests that there will be savings from sharing a pool car fleet of with a mix of electric and internal combustion vehicles. Staff expect that sharing the compact car fleet will result in lower costs than Council converting its compact car fleet to electric vehicles on its own.

Council staff will report back through the Infrastructure Transport and Environment Committee on the third party proposals received; the preferred proposal; and seek approval on whether to proceed with engaging the preferred third party to operate the shared fleet for Council and its shared fleet partners.

6.7          Maintenance / Ongoing Costs - The savings resulting from a shared fleet can offset some of the additional cost of electric compact cars and associated charging infrastructure compared to organisations setting up their own electric compact car fleet. Council will also apply for financial support through the Government's electric vehicle contestable fund.

6.8          Funding source - Council will apply for financial support through the Government's electric vehicle contestable fund to support the implementation of a shared 100% electric car fleet.

6.9          Once staff have reviewed proposals from third parties (fleet operators) and have a better understanding of the eligibility criteria of the contestable fund recently announced by the government, staff will return to the Infrastructure, Transport and Environment Committee with a report which will provide a recommendation for procuring a shared 100% electric car fleet service (or otherwise), which will include details with regards to the financial implications.

Legal Implications

6.10       Staff do not expect this project to have significant legal implications. The formal procurement process will follow Council's procurement policies and rules.

Risks and Mitigations

6.11       At present, the biggest risk to this project is not obtaining financial support through the Government’s electric vehicle contestable fund. Lack of staff buy-in and support is considered a small risk and will be mitigated through actively educating staff on the environmental and health benefits of a shared electric car fleet. Throughout the procurement process, the potential risks will be identified and mitigation measures implemented as appropriate.

Implementation

6.12       Implementation dependencies  - implementation is dependent on

·         at least one other shared fleet partner coming on board

·         the terms and conditions of the shared fleet operator being acceptable to Council.

6.13       Implementation timeframe - target date for commencing implementation is mid-2017

Option Summary - Advantages and Disadvantages

6.14       The advantages of this option include:

·         Health and environmental benefits of zero emissions vehicle fleet

·         Little or no additional costs.

·         Council takes leadership role in adoption of electric vehicles

·         Potential for government funding.

6.15       The disadvantages of this option include:

·         Less control over the compact car fleet as the cars will be shared.

7.       Option 2 - Council converts its own fleet to electric cars

Option Description

7.1          The Council investigate the cost and potential implementation options for converting Council's fleet of compact cars to electric cars and seek Council approval to proceed with the recommended implementation option.

Significance

7.2          The level of significance of this option is low, consistent with section 2 of this report.  Engagement requirements for this level of significance are nil.

Impact on Mana Whenua

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

Community Views and Preferences

7.4          Not applicable.

Alignment with Council Plans and Policies

7.5          This option is consistent with Council's Christchurch Energy Action Plan.

Financial Implications

7.6          Cost of Implementation - to be confirmed

7.7          Maintenance / Ongoing Costs - to be confirmed

7.8          Funding source - to be confirmed

Legal Implications

7.9          Staff do not expect this project to have significant legal implications.

Risks and Mitigations

7.10       Cost and availability of electric vehicles.

Implementation

7.11       Implementation dependencies - to be confirmed.

7.12       Implementation timeframe - to be confirmed.

Option Summary - Advantages and Disadvantages

7.13       The advantages of this option include:

·         Greater control over the compact car fleet as it would be owned by Council.

7.14       The disadvantages of this option include:

·         Unlikely to receive any financial support through the Government’s electric vehicle contestable fund.

·         Greater cost than Option 1 and does not include the wider community benefits for Christchurch City that Option 1 would provide.

 

 

Attachments

No.

Title

Page

a 

Shared fleet Council report Council meeting 2015 10 29

 

 

 

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

Kevin Crutchley

Resource Efficiency Programme Manager

Approved By

Helen Beaumont

Michael Day

Anne Columbus

Brendan Anstiss

Head of Strategic Policy

Head of Business Partnerships

General Manager Corporate Services

General Manager Strategy and Transformation

 


Council

23 June 2016

 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


Council

23 June 2016

 

Report from Infrastructure, Transport and Environment Committee  – 2 June 2016

 

17.    Estuary Drain Concept Design

Reference:

16/647519

Contact:

Keith Davison

keith.davison@ccc.govt.nz

941 8999

 

 

 

 

1.   Infrastructure, Transport and Environment Committee Consideration

 

1.         A number of Committee members have been briefed on this project at the Land Drainage Recovery Programme Working Party.

 

2.   Staff Recommendations

 

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

1.         Progress the preferred Estuary Drain option (Option 1) to detailed design, consenting and construction.

 

3.   Infrastructure, Transport and Environment Committee Recommendation to Council

 

Part A

That the Council:

1.         Progress the preferred Estuary Drain option (Option 1) to detailed design, consenting and construction.

 

 

Attachments

No.

Report Title

Page

1

Estuary Drain Concept Design

166

 

No.

Title

Page

a

Pre-Earthquake Predicted 2% AEP Rainfall Event Flood Depth

179

b

Post-Earthquake Predicted 2% AEP Rainfall Event Flood Depth

180

c

Predicted 2% AEP Rainfall Event Flood Depth Difference Map

181

 

 


Council

23 June 2016

 

 

Estuary Drain Concept Design

Reference:

16/415165

Contact:

Keith Davison

Keith.davison@ccc.govt.nz

03 941 8999

 

 

1.       Purpose and Origin of Report

Purpose of Report

1.1          The purpose of this report is for the Infrastructure, Transport and Environment Committee to recommend to Council which option for post-earthquake flood mitigation works within Estuary Drain area progresses to detailed design and construction.

Origin of Report

1.2          This report is staff generated.

2.       Significance

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

2.1.1     The level of significance was determined by considering that the implications of not undertaking flood remediation in the Estuary Drain Catchment could have negative social impacts on the local community.  The proposed costs are less than originally budgeted and implications of the decisions relating to this drain affect only a small number of property owners.  The Estuary Drain project is one of the projects being delivered on a fast-track programme within the Land Drainage Recovery Programme (LDRP).  As a result any community engagement will be undertaken in parallel with the detailed design tasks to speed project delivery.

2.1.2     At this stage community consultation has been limited to engagement with the Burwood/Pegasus Community Board.

 

3.       Staff Recommendations

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

1.              Progress the preferred Estuary Drain option (Option 1) to detailed design, consenting and construction.

 

4.       Key Points

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

4.1.1     Activity: Flood Protection and Control Works

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

4.2          This project has been identified as medium/low priority within the Land Drainage Recovery Programme (LDRP).  This area was investigated early in the programme as it was adjacent to other high priority catchments.  Even though the project is medium/low priority the project was put on the fast-track programme with works planned to begin next financial year (2016/17) as the preferred option is relatively small scale.

4.3          LDRP project options are being developed using the framework in Table 1.


 

Table 1 LDRP Options Framework

Option

Description

Repair

Repair of direct earthquake damage to the waterway (e.g. bank slumping or culvert damage)

Remediation

Restoring loss in capacity due to:

               In-stream earthquake damage (e.g. change in slope of waterway due to level changes along its length reducing flow rate); and/or

               Change in flood risk resulting from the earthquake damage throughout the catchment, potentially, outside the waterway in areas drained by piped networks (e.g. changes in ground levels altering flow paths and catchment sizes)

Enhancement

Options to address some or all of the following, where practicable:

               Pre-earthquake flood risk

               Future flood risk due to climate change and sea level rise (1 m)

               Future development (maximum probable development, MPD)

               Water quality treatment

               Non-drainage values enhancement in the waterway

 

4.4          The following feasible options have been considered:

·           Option 1 - Repair and limited remediation (preferred option): reconstruction of the Breezes Road drain along with upsizing and extension of the piped network upstream of the Breezes Road Drain adjacent with Breezes Road

·           Option 2 - Full remediation: construction of a new pump station, rising main and pipe network upgrades

·           Option 3 - Enhancement: the remediation option with greater extent of network upgrades to service a greater area

4.5          Option Summary - Advantages and Disadvantages of the repair option (Preferred Option)

4.5.1     The advantages of this option include:

·           Returns the network to a serviceable state

·           Significantly lower cost compared to alternative options

·           Construction impacts minimised

·           Not precluding future flood risk mitigation works

·           Remediates increases in flood risk associated with the Canterbury Earthquake Sequence ('the earthquakes') for the two houses estimated to be at risk in a predicted 2% Annual Exceedance Probability (AEP) rainfall event that were not estimated to be at risk before the earthquakes

4.5.2     The disadvantages of this option include:

·           Does not remediate pre-earthquake flood risk for two properties that remain predicted to be at risk during an estimated 2% AEP rainfall event.  Flood risk at one of these properties has reduced as a result of the earthquakes

·           Significant numbers (126) of properties are estimated to remain at risk of underfloor flooding in the predicted 2% AEP rainfall event, which is six properties more than pre-earthquake

4.6          The preferred option will cost approximately $1.8 M +/- 30% and could be delivered next financial year. 

4.7          There are no houses estimated to be at risk of flooding above floor level in a predicted 10% AEP rainfall event both pre- and post-earthquake.

 

5.       Context/Background

5.1          The Estuary drain discharges into Otakaro / Avon River upstream of the Bridge Street bridge and collects flows from the catchment roughly bounded by Bexley Park, Cuthberts Green and Aranui Primary School.

5.2          The LDRP investigation into the Lower Avon Drains (Knights, Estuary, City Outfall and Brittans) was awarded to engineering consultants, Jacobs, in April 2015.  The study investigated earthquake related flood risk within the catchment and identified options for repair, remediation and enhancement.  The Issues, Options and Concept Design report resulted in the recommendation of repair, remediation and enhancement design concepts.

5.3          This project is identified as a medium/low priority within the LDRP and but has been put on a fast-track programme as there is direct damage to the network.  Physical works are planned to start within the 2016/17 LDRP capital works programme.  Preliminary cost estimates for the recommended repair option indicate that the works can be delivered within the budget set in the Draft Annual Plan.

5.4          The location of the proposed works are shown below.

Figure 1 Location of Proposed Works

5.5          Flooding in the catchment is driven by extreme rainfall events ('pluvial' flooding), with inundation of lower lying areas within the catchment which are poorly serviced by overland flow paths. 

5.6          Significant earthquake land damage has been observed in the area.  Some parts of the catchment have been estimated to have dropped in the order of 1 m, but more typically 200mm - 400mm in the urban area.  This has increased predicted flood risk in some areas within the catchment in an estimated 2% AEP rainfall event, however buildings located within these areas are typically elevated above flood levels.  Attachment A shows the pre-earthquake flood extent in a 2% AEP event, and Attachment B shows the same event post-earthquake. Attachment C shows the difference map between the pre-earthquake flooding and the post-earthquake flooding. This shows that some areas have less depth of flooding while others have increased depth.

5.7          Floors at risk of flooding are defined as those residential dwelling floors with flooding within 100 mm of the floor level. These have been assessed for the 2% and 10% AEP pre- and post-earthquake events.

5.8          There are no floors estimated to be at risk of flooding in a 10% AEP event, either pre-earthquake or post-earthquake.

5.9          In the pre-quake predicted 2% AEP rainfall event four residential floors were estimated at risk of pluvial flooding. As a result of the earthquake effects on land levels:

·      Three of these properties are at reduced risk of flooding, of which two of them no longer considered at risk of floor level flooding

·      One property is at very similar risk as before the earthquake

5.10       In the post-quake predicted 2% AEP rainfall event there are also four residential floors estimated at risk of pluvial flooding. Of these:

·      Two of these were estimated to be at risk before the earthquakes (with one having slightly reduced flooding but remaining at risk)

·      Two are new floors estimated to be at risk. These two houses are adjacent to each other and are the target of the remediation component of the preferred option.

5.11       Properties and houses (underfloor) are at risk primarily from the local catchment pluvial flooding and are spread across the catchment, making remediation options expensive.  Pre-earthquake and post-earthquake floor levels at risk within the catchment are shown in Table 1.

Table 1 Foundation and Floor Levels at Risk of Flooding (within 100 mm of floor level) Estimated in a Predicted 2% AEP Rainfall Event

 

Approximate Underfloor / foundation

Estimated residential floor levels at risk

Pre-earthquake

120

4

Post-earthquake

134

4

Post preferred option

126

2

 

5.12       Unlike the adjacent Knights Drain catchment, all of the urban areas are above today's 20% AEP tide but are below a similar event with predicted with 1m sea level rise.  There are localised depressions located within the catchment which present drainage challenges.

5.13       Extreme tide levels within the Avon River ('tidal' flooding) will exert increasing influence on the catchment as sea levels rise, indicating that stormwater pumping will become necessary to service the local stormwater drainage network.

5.14       Condition assessment work has been carried out within the catchment.  In summary; the Breezes Road Drain was severely damaged (Figure 2) but there has been a minimal decline in landscape and recreational value as a result of the earthquakes (noting the poor water quality and ecological health of the drain).

5.15       SCIRT has enacted works within the catchment, including installation of backflow prevention devices to limit tidal flooding, pipe repairs, and construction of a bund behind St Heliers Crescent.

5.16       A wide range of options (11) were considered within the catchment to address different areas of flooding and combinations of works.  The final repair, remediation and betterment options were developed from these options.

Figure 2 Post-Earthquake Breezes Road Drain

6.       Option 1 - Repair and Limited Remediation (preferred)

Option Description

6.1          The repair option consists of:

·      Replacing the damaged length of Breezes Road Drain (approximately 170 m) and other minor damages within the catchment

·      Upgrading the existing stormwater pipe network through private property parallel with Breezes Road (approximately 180 m)

·      Extending the network upstream of the upgraded pipe network through private property as a new below ground pipe or surface swale, potentially with a small pump (approximately 75 m)

6.2          The costs for this option have been estimated at approximately $1.8 M +/- 30%.  The repair estimate has been based upon replacement of the timber lining, however, alternative linings will be considered during the next design stages.  There may be some opportunities to install alternative linings but this will be heavily dependent on ground investigations, location of any potentially contaminated materials, and cost to install.

6.3          This option will decrease flood risk within the catchment and is predicted to remove the floor level flood risk from the two properties estimated to be at risk of flooding post-earthquake which were not at risk pre-earthquake.

6.4          Two of the floor levels estimated to be at risk of pre-earthquake flooding will remain at risk following implementation of the scheme. However, this risk was present pre-earthquake and the overall numbers of floor levels estimated at risk will reduce to two less than the pre-earthquake number.

6.5          There are no flooded floors predicted to be at risk during an estimated 10% AEP rainfall event.

Significance

6.6          The level of significance of this option is low consistent with section 2 of this report.  Engagement requirements for this level of significance are to inform the community of the works.  Engagement with directly affected landowners will occur during the next design stages.

Impact on Mana Whenua

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

Community Views and Preferences

6.8          The Mayoral Flood Taskforce (2014) noted, amongst other things, that residents identified concern over the health, social and financial effects of increased depth and frequency of flooding.

6.9          The preferred option was presented to the Burwood-Pegasus Community Board on 16 May 2016 to better understand community views and preferences in this area. The Community Board expressed support for the repair works and mitigation of the new post-earthquake floor level flooding, but expressed concern that underfloor flooding was only marginally improved. The Community Board requested a seminar with further information on this option, and this will be arranged for early June.

6.10       No other feedback from the community has been sought at this stage, but the community will be informed through the Community Board and through communications updates.

Alignment with Council Plans and Policies

6.11       This option is consistent with Council’s Plans and Policies.  Generally council preference is to naturalise waterways during renewals and this will be explored in subsequent design stages.  However, the close proximity to landfill and lateral spread risks may preclude naturalisation.

Financial Implications

6.12       Cost of Implementation - The current estimates for repair works totals approximately $1.8 M +/- 30%.

6.13       Maintenance / Ongoing Costs - Maintenance costs for the drain will not be materially affected over the life of the asset as the proposed option is a renewal rather than construction of a new asset.

6.14       Funding source - The Long Term Plan has funding allocated to the Land Drainage Recovery Programme.  Within the budget there is sufficient provision to enact the works.  The draft annual plan has $ 918,000 allocated to the project in FY 2016/17 and a total of $14.7 M over 3 financial years.  Some funds may need to be brought back from later financial years to enact the works on the current programme.  The vast majority of this funding will need to be returned to the LDRP programme budget to facilitate other flood mitigation projects across the city.  HIGG approval will be required to support cost share funding.

Legal Implications

6.15       A detailed consenting analysis will be undertaken during the next design stage but initial investigations have identified that the proposed works may be consistent with conditions of specific and/or global consents already held by Council.  As the designs progress there may be a need to apply for new consents particularly if contaminated land is discovered.  Land use and earthworks consents are likely to be required for some components of the proposed works.

6.16       Other consents, such as, Heritage New Zealand, tree removal and building consents will be scoped and obtained, if required, during the next design stage.

6.17       There are proposed works on private property.  These works directly benefit the affected parties or their close neighbours.  Council may need to utilise powers under the Christchurch District Drainage Act 1951, or other legislation, to implement the scheme.

Risks and Mitigations

6.18       There are listed land use register sites within the area of the proposed works.  Further investigation may discover contaminated land which could influence consenting requirements and construction costs.

6.19       Costs will be re-estimated during the detailed design stage.  The detailed design cost estimates may vary from the current cost estimates.

6.20       Evaluation of tree removals has not occurred at this stage.  Tree surveys and arborist reports will be commissioned through the detailed design process and tree removals may be identified.  Any removals will follow standard Council approvals processes.

6.21       Access to private property will be required to enact the works.  There are programme risks associated with implementing the works.

Implementation

6.22       Implementation dependencies - There are no particular dependencies that have been identified that could delay the project other than access to private property.

6.23       Implementation timeframe - Detailed design is currently programmed for completion by the end of 2016 with completion of physical works by the end of next financial year (30 June 2017) but this is dependent on property access.  Existing delegated authorities will be used to award the construction contracts.

Option Summary - Advantages and Disadvantages

6.24       The advantages of this option include:

·      Returns the network to a serviceable state

·      Significantly lower cost compared to alternative options

·      Construction impacts minimised

·      Not precluding future flood risk mitigation works

·      Remediates increases in flood risk associated with the Canterbury Earthquake Sequence ('the earthquakes') for the two houses estimated to be at risk in a predicted 2% Annual Exceedance Probability (AEP) rainfall event that were not estimated to be at risk before the earthquakes

6.25       The disadvantages of this option include:

·      Does not remediate pre-earthquake flood risk for two properties that remain predicted to be at risk during an estimated 2% Annual Exceedance Probability (AEP) rainfall event.  Flood risk at one of these properties has reduced as a result of the earthquakes.

·      Significant numbers (126) of properties are estimated to remain at risk of underfloor flooding in the predicted 2% AEP rainfall event, slightly above the pre-earthquake number of 120.


 

7.       Option 2 - Full Remediation

Option Description

7.1          The full remediation option consists of:

·      Construction of a new pump station and rising main in Bexley Reserve

·      A new outfall structure within Estuary Drain

·      Upgrades to the stormwater network

·      New stormwater network within the upstream catchment

7.2          This option provides the same floor level flooding reduction benefit as Option 1.  It reduces the predicted flood depths at all of the properties where the risk of floor level flooding has increased as a result of the earthquakes in a predicted 2% AEP rainfall event.  The option drops the number (2) of floor levels at risk to below that predicted in the pre-earthquake 2% AEP rainfall event (4).

7.3          The main benefit of this option is to reduce underfloor and street flooding. This option will reduce the estimated number of properties with underfloor flooding predicted in the 2% AEP rainfall event to approximately 94 and below the pre-earthquake number of approximately 120.  These works are costly due to the distributed nature of the flooded properties at risk of underfloor flooding.

Significance

7.4          The level of significance of this option is medium and inconsistent with section 2 of this report given the increased costs with this option.  Engagement requirements for this level of significance are greater than option 1.

Impact on Mana Whenua

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

Community Views and Preferences

7.6          The Mayoral Flood Taskforce noted, amongst other things, that residents identified concern over the health, social and financial effects of increased depth and frequency of flooding.

7.7          A joint seminar between the Infrastructure, Transport and Environment Committee and the Burwood-Pegasus Community Board was held on 21 October 2015 to better understand community views and preferences in this area, and a full remediation option was presented.  At that meeting the Community Board did not support this option given the estimated costs for the project for the limited additional benefit.  However, in an update to the Community Board on 16 May 2016 they expressed concerns that there will be unresolved post-earthquake underfloor flooding. They expressed a preference for options which resolve underfloor flooding. Community views and preferences have not been specifically canvassed for this option other than engagement with Alignment with Council Plans and Policies

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

Financial Implications

7.9          Cost of Implementation - The costs for this work have been estimated at approximately $16 M (including a 15% contingency).

7.10       Maintenance / Ongoing Costs - There would be ongoing costs associated with maintaining and operating a new pump station.

7.11       Funding source - Costs for this option exceed the current budget of $14.7 M.  The Land Drainage Recovery Programme has sufficient funding in years 2017/18 onwards to enact the remediation option but this could delay or preclude other, more viable, works in other parts of the city.

Legal Implications

7.12       A detailed consenting analysis would be required during the next design stage but initial investigations have identified that the proposed works may be consistent with conditions of specific and/or global consents already held by Council.  As the designs progress there may be a need to apply for new consents particularly if contaminated land is discovered.  Land use and earthworks consents are likely to be required for some components of the proposed works.

7.13       Council may need to utilise powers under the Christchurch District Drainage Act 1951, or other legislation, to implement the scheme.

Risks and Mitigations

7.14       There are listed land use register sites within the area of the proposed works.  Further investigation may discover contaminated land which could influence consenting requirements and construction costs.

7.15       Costs will be re-estimated during the detailed design stage.  The detailed design cost estimates may vary from the current cost estimates.

7.16       Evaluation of tree removals has not occurred at this stage.  Tree surveys and arborist reports will be commissioned through the detailed design process and tree removals may be identified.  Any removals will follow standard Council approvals processes.

7.17       Dependency on pump stations for flood management increases risk of failure during a flood event.

Implementation

7.18       Implementation dependencies - There are no particular dependencies that have been identified that could delay the project.

7.19       Implementation timeframe - Detailed design could begin FY 16/17.  A preliminary implementation programme indicates completion of the detailed design within 12 months followed by a 2 year construction programme with completion mid-2019.

Option Summary - Advantages and Disadvantages

7.20       The advantages of this option include:

·      Remediation of flood risk with a return, approximately, to pre-earthquake numbers of residential floors estimated in a predicted 2% AEP rainfall event (2) (same as option 1)

·      Reduces the risk for approximately 40 of the estimated 134 houses at risk of underfloor flooding predicted in an estimated 2% AEP rainfall event since the earthquakes.  Prior to the earthquakes the number of houses at risk of underfloor / foundation flooding is estimated at approximately 120 and would drop to approximately 94 with this option

·      Improved peace of mind for residents in areas significantly affected by the earthquakes

·      Provides a resilient option to address future sea level rise effects, where tidal inundation could be a regular occurrence

7.21       The disadvantages of this option include:

·      Significant costs that are much greater than the repair costs and significantly outweigh the reduction in damages resulting from the works

·      Reliance on flood protection by mechanical means

8.       Option 3 - Enhancement

Option Description

8.1          The enhancement option consists of the remediation option (Option 2) but with a greater extent of new stormwater network within the upstream catchment.

8.2          The works drops the number (1) of floor levels at risk to below that predicted in the pre-earthquake 2% AEP rainfall event (4).

8.3          The number of foundations at risk in a predicted 2% AEP rainfall event reduces below pre-quake levels to approximately 60.

8.4          These works are costly due to the distributed nature of the floor levels at risk.

Significance

8.5          The level of significance of this option is medium and inconsistent with section 2 of this report given the increased costs with this option.  Engagement requirements for this level of significance are greater than the other options.

Impact on Mana Whenua

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

Community Views and Preferences

8.7          The Mayoral Flood Taskforce (2014) noted, amongst other things, that residents identified concern over the health, social and financial effects of increased depth and frequency of flooding.

8.8          A joint seminar between the Infrastructure, Transport and Environment Committee and the Burwood-Pegasus Community Board was held on 21 October 2015 to better understand community views and preferences in this area and an enhancement option was presented. .  At that meeting the Community Board did not support this option given the estimated costs for the project for the limited additional benefit. However, in an update to the Community Board on 16 May 2016 they expressed concerns that there will be unresolved post-earthquake underfloor flooding. They expressed a preference for options which resolve underfloor flooding. Community views and preferences have not been specifically canvassed for this option other than engagement with the Community Board.

Alignment with Council Plans and Policies

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

Financial Implications

8.10       Cost of Implementation - The costs for this work have been estimated at over $20 M (including a 15% contingency).

8.11       Maintenance / Ongoing Costs - There would be ongoing costs associated with maintaining and operating a new pump station.

8.12       Funding source - Costs for this option exceed the current budget of $14.7 M.  The Land Drainage Recovery Programme has sufficient funding in years 2017/18 onwards to enact the remediation option but this could delay or preclude other, more viable, works in other parts of the city.


 

Legal Implications

8.13       A detailed consenting analysis would be required during the next design stage but initial investigations have identified that the proposed works may be consistent with conditions of specific and/or global consents already held by Council.  As the designs progress there may be a need to apply for new consents particularly if contaminated land is discovered.  Land use and earthworks consents are likely to be required for some components of the proposed works.

8.14       Council may need to utilise powers under the Christchurch District Drainage Act 1951, or other legislation, to implement the scheme.

Risks and Mitigations

8.15       There are listed land use register sites within the area of the proposed works.  Further investigation may discover contaminated land which could influence consenting requirements and construction costs.

8.16       Costs will be re-estimated during the detailed design stage.  The detailed design cost estimates may vary from the current cost estimates.

8.17       Evaluation of tree removals has not occurred at this stage.  Tree surveys and arborist reports will be commissioned through the detailed design process and tree removals may be identified.  Any removals will follow standard Council approvals processes.

8.18       Dependency on pump stations for flood management increases risk of failure during a flood event.

8.19       The extent of the proposed new pipe work could result in rework of recently laid roads completed by SCIRT.

Implementation

8.20       Implementation dependencies - There are no particular dependencies that have been identified that could delay the project.

8.21       Implementation timeframe - Detailed design could be started FY 16/17.  A preliminary implementation programme indicates completion of the detailed design within 12 months followed by an approximate 2 year construction programme, with completion mid-2019.

Option Summary - Advantages and Disadvantages

8.22       The advantages of this option include:

·      Mitigates all estimated residential properties estimated to be risk of floor flooding in a predicted 2% AEP rainfall event

·      Reduces the risk for approximately 73 of the estimated 134 houses at risk of underfloor flooding predicted in an estimated 2% AEP rainfall event since the earthquakes.  Prior to the earthquakes the number of houses at risk of underfloor / foundation flooding is estimated at approximately 120 and would drop to approximately 60 with this option

·      Improved peace of mind for residents in areas significantly affected by the earthquakes

·      Provides a resilient option to address future sea level rise effects, where tidal inundation could be a regular occurrence

8.23       The disadvantages of this option include:

·      Significant costs that are much greater than the repair costs and significantly outweigh the reduction in damages resulting from the works

·      Reliance on flood protection by mechanical means

 

Attachments

No.

Title

Page

a 

Pre-Earthquake Predicted 2% AEP Rainfall Event Flood Depth

 

b 

Post-Earthquake Predicted 2% AEP Rainfall Event Flood Depth

 

c 

Predicted 2% AEP Rainfall Event Flood Depth Difference Map

 

 

 

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

Tom Parsons

Surface Water Engineering Consultant

Approved By

Keith Davison

John Mackie

Peter Langbein

David Adamson

Unit Manager - Storm Water & Land Drainage Rebuild

Head of Three Waters & Waste

Finance Business Partner

General Manager City Services

 


Council

23 June 2016

 

PDF Creator


Council

23 June 2016

 

PDF Creator


Council

23 June 2016

 

PDF Creator


Council

23 June 2016

 

Report from Infrastructure, Transport and Environment Committee  – 2 June 2016

 

18.    No. 1 Drain Earthquake Damage Repair Options

Reference:

16/647546

Contact:

Keith Davison

keith.davison@ccc.govt.nz

941 8999

 

 

 

 

1.   Infrastructure, Transport and Environment Committee Consideration

 

1.         A number of Committee members have been briefed on this project at the Land Drainage Recovery Programme Working Party.

 

2.   Staff Recommendations

 

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

1.         Progress the preferred repair option (Option 1) which involves the Land Drainage Recovery Programme undertaking:

a.         Detailed design of the naturalisation of No. 1 Drain

b.         Construction works to naturalise the western half of the drain

c.         Spot repairs to earthquake damage in the eastern half of the drain (if required)

 

3.   Infrastructure, Transport and Environment Committee Recommendation to Council

 

Part A

That the Council:

1.         Progress the preferred repair option (Option 1) which involves the Land Drainage Recovery Programme undertaking:

a.         Detailed design of the naturalisation of No. 1 Drain

b.         Construction works to naturalise the western half of the drain

c.         Spot repairs to earthquake damage in the eastern half of the drain (if required)

 

 

Attachments

No.

Report Title

Page

1

No. 1 Drain Earthquake Damage Repair Options

184

 

 

 


Council

23 June 2016

 

 

No. 1 Drain Earthquake Damage Repair Options

Reference:

16/512466

Contact:

Keith Davison

keith.davison@ccc.govt.nz

941 8071

 

 

1.       Purpose and Origin of Report

Purpose of Report

1.1          The purpose of this report is for the Infrastructure, Transport and Environment Committee to recommend to Council which option for the repair of No. 1 Drain to progress to detailed design and construction.

Origin of Report

1.2          This report is staff generated.

2.       Significance

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

2.1.1     The level of significance was determined by considering the limited impact of the proposed works (one property) and the potential for positive ecological and cultural outcomes. As a result any community engagement will be undertaken in parallel with the detailed design tasks to speed project delivery.

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

 

3.       Staff Recommendations

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

1.              Progress the preferred repair option (Option 1) which involves the Land Drainage Recovery Programme undertaking:

a.              Detailed design of the naturalisation of No. 1 Drain

b.             Construction works to naturalise the western half of the drain

c.              Spot repairs to earthquake damage in the eastern half of the drain (if required)

 

4.       Key Points

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

4.1.1     Activity: Flood Protection and Control Works

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

4.2          This project has been identified as medium/low priority within the Land Drainage Recovery Programme (LDRP) and is on the fast-track programme with works planned to begin next financial year (2016/17).

4.3          DRP project options are being developed using the framework in Table 1.

Table 1 LDRP Options Framework

Option

Description

Repair

Repair of direct earthquake damage to the waterway (e.g. bank slumping or culvert damage)

Remediation

Restoring loss in capacity due to:

               In-stream earthquake damage (e.g. change in slope of waterway due to level changes along its length reducing flow rate); and/or

               Change in flood risk resulting from the earthquake damage throughout the catchment, potentially, outside the waterway in areas drained by piped networks (e.g. changes in ground levels altering flow paths and catchment sizes)

Enhancement

Options to address some or all of the following, where practicable:

               Pre-earthquake flood risk

               Future flood risk due to climate change and sea level rise (1 m)

               Future development (maximum probable development, MPD)

               Water quality treatment

               Six values enhancement

 

4.4          Modelling is currently underway to confirm the need or otherwise for a remediation option for the No. 1 Drain.

4.5          The following feasible options have been considered:

·           Option 1 - Repair through naturalisation (preferred option): naturalisation of western half and spot repair of earthquake damage in the eastern half

·           Option 2 - Repair with concrete channel: like for like repair with new concrete channel for the western half and spot repair of earthquake damage in the eastern half

·           Option 3 - Enhancement: naturalisation of full length

4.6          Option Summary - Advantages and Disadvantages (Preferred Option)

4.6.1     The advantages of this option include:

·           Improved hydraulic capacity and will allow scope for future enhancement if necessary

·           Is consistent with Council's six values approach to managing waterways

·           Aligns with the aims of Ngai Tahu for improving the water quality and ecological health of Waikākāriki/Horseshoe Lake

·           Preferred option of the principal landowner

4.6.2     The disadvantages of this option include:

·           Higher capital cost than concrete channel

·           Only half of the channel is naturalised, reducing the ecological and cultural benefits when compared to the enhancement option

4.7          The preferred option will cost approximately $1.5 M +/- 30% and could be delivered next financial year.  Budget is currently available within the LTP.

 

5.       Context/Background

Location

5.1         

No. 1 Drain is a 480 m long concrete lined drain located in Christchurch Golf Club’s Shirley Links Golf Course between Marshland Road and Waikākāriki/Horseshoe Lake (Figure 1).

 

Figure 1 Location of No. 1 Drain

 

5.2          In pre-European times Waikākāriki/Horseshoe Lake was the site of a significant Māori settlement called Te Oranga. The Mahaanui Iwi Management Plan notes, “Water quality at Waikākāriki (Horseshoe Lake) is particularly degraded. It is a significant urban drainage sink with multiple stormwater inputs draining urban and rural land. Despite the degraded water quality, Waikākāriki scored high in a recent cultural health assessment, largely due to the presence and abundance of remnant/restored native vegetation and wetland/ spring values. Given that there is good remnant/restored native vegetation at this traditional settlement (Te Oranga) and food gathering site, and therefore a good potential to achieve full cultural health, Ngāi Tahu have identified it as a priority site with regard to addressing water quality issues.”

Earthquake damage

5.3          A condition assessment of No. 1 Drain was carried out under the Land Drainage Recovery Programme (LDRP) in 2015 as it was known that it had suffered extensive earthquake damage, with emergency repairs already undertaken on the worst affected parts of the drain. The investigation concluded that:

·      Replacement or significant repair is required over the western half (205 m or 43% of the total length)

·      Patch repairs required over the remaining length of the eastern half (275 m or 57% of the total length)

5.4          Figure 2 shows the areas which require repair and/or replacement, with sections requiring replacement shown as red lines, and repair shown as red dots.

 

Figure 2 Locations of replacement or repair on No. 1 Drain

 

Repair options

5.5          Due to the extensive nature of the earthquake damage the western half of the drain requires full replacement. This falls within the current scope of the LDRP.

5.6          The LDRP developed the concept design of three options for replacement of the damaged concrete channel:

·      Option A: Repairing and/or replacing the concrete channel in a like for like manner

·      Option B: Removing the concrete channel and replacing with 3:1 earth banks

·      Option C: Removing the concrete channel and naturalising the waterway

5.7          The profiles of each of these three options are illustrated in Figure 3.

Figure 3 Profile options for No. 1 Drain

 

5.8          The unit length costs (construction cost only) for each option are similar:

·      Concrete lining (like for like) - $2,600/m

·      Grassed slopes (3:1 banks) - $2,550/m

·      Naturalisation (planted banks, varied habitats) - $2,900/m

5.9          There is a relatively small cost increase per unit length for naturalisation compared to the other alternatives but significantly higher ecological benefits. For these reasons the preferred option is repair of the western half through naturalisation. Alternative options of like for like repair (with concrete) or enhancement (full naturalisation) were also considered and are included in the options assessment. 

5.10       The options have been discussed with Golf Club and naturalisation is their favoured option and they were positive toward the previous naturalisation by Council of No. 2 Drain in the northern portion of the golf course. Detailed design will need to ensure that the golf course is minimally impacted, but initial discussions have indicated that course requirements can be incorporated.

5.11       The eastern half only requires spot repairs to address earthquake effects under the current LDRP scope. However the spot repairs will only take place if it is confirmed that no works will take place to either naturalise or widen this section.

5.12       Naturalisation of this section will either require the LDRP to demonstrate that additional capacity is required or funds from other Council programmes to be allocated to the naturalisation. An alternative is for the LDRP scope to be extended for this project to include enhancement of the full length of the drain, and this is presented as Option 3 below.

Potential alignment with Avon Stormwater Management Plan

5.13       The No. 1 Drain lies within the area covered by the Avon Stormwater Management Plan (SMP).

5.14       Naturalisation by itself does not significantly improve water quality, although there are ecological benefits through additional habitats and shading of the waterway.

5.15       Discussions with those involved in the implementation of the Avon SMP have indicated that some water quality benefits can be achieved through the introduction of an on-line treatment facility (e.g. first flush basin) in an area of the Golf Course between fairways.

5.16       Early discussions with Christchurch Golf Club have indicated an openness to this proposal, and this may allow some funds from the Avon SMP to be used toward the full naturalisation of the drain.

5.17       At this stage the feasibility and cost of this option has not been assessed and it is not taken into account in the options assessment.


 

6.       Option 1 - Repair through naturalisation (preferred)

Option Description

6.1          This option involves the LDRP repair of earthquake damage through replacing the damage concrete lining western half of the drain with natural banks, and spot repairs of damage in the eastern half (if necessary).

6.2          Naturalising a channel provides a greater variety of habitats as can be seen in the indicative cross-section is shown in Figure 4. A low flow channel will re-create elements of a natural stream habitat, with planting on the banks providing shading for the waterway and a varied terrestrial habitat.

6.3          In Figure 4 the red dashed line shows the original profile of the concrete drain. This shows that through naturalisation there is also a significant increase in hydraulic capacity which will not restrict opportunities to enhance flows in the upper catchment.

Figure 4 Typical naturalised cross-section

 

6.4          Naturalisation of No. 2 drain in the northern section of the golf course was successfully achieved by Council in 2007-8, and this serves as a template for the naturalisation of the western half of No. 1 drain.

6.5          If additional capacity in the eastern half is required, or funds for naturalisation are identified, then no repairs will be required for the eastern half. However, if this section is to be left as it is then earthquake damage to the eastern half of the drain will be spot repaired under the LDRP but the channel lining and alignment will not change.

6.6          Detailed design of the naturalisation of the entire length of the drain is undertaken by the LDRP. This offers the most efficient use of design resources and consistency of design.

6.7          The construction works to naturalise the eastern half will be dependent on one of the following to occur:

·      Demonstrating, through hydraulic modelling, that additional capacity is required to address increased flooding due to earthquake induced settlement in the upstream catchment. Replacement of the eastern half of the drain would then fall within LDRP scope.

·      Identifying funds from other programmes within Council, from agencies outside of Council for naturalisation of waterways, or through cost-share with the Golf Club. Initial discussions with a number of these parties have indicated that funds are limited and higher priority projects may exist.

·      Staging the replacement, with the eastern half being replaced in the future by Council when it comes up for renewal.

6.8          If modelling shows that additional capacity is necessary to remediate increased flooding in the upper catchment due to earthquake effects then naturalisation of the entire length of the drain is proposed under this option.

Significance

6.9          The level of significance of this option is low consistent with section 2 of this report.  Engagement requirements for this level of significance are to inform the community of the works.

6.10       The preferred option was presented to the Burwood-Pegasus Community Board on 16 May 2016 to better understand community views and preferences in this area.  The Community Board expressed support for naturalisation, but there was not time at the meeting to discuss the alternatives for full or partial naturalisation. A seminar has been organised with the Community Board for 7 June 2016 to present the options in more detail.

Impact on Mana Whenua

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

6.12       It is considered that the impact is positive, with a positive benefit on cultural and ecological values, and some benefit to water quality.

6.13       Due to the significance of Waikākāriki/Horseshoe Lake to mana whenua the detailed design will need their input.

Community Views and Preferences

6.14       Christchurch Golf Club are specifically affected by this option due to the waterway being located on land owned by Golf Club.  The proposal has been discussed with the Golf Club and their members have been informed of the discussions. Feedback from the Golf Club on naturalisation of the western half has been positive, but there is a preference for the naturalisation works to extend the full length of the concrete lined channel.

6.15       No other feedback from the community has been sought at this stage, but the community will be informed through the Community Board and through communications updates.

Alignment with Council Plans and Policies

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

Financial Implications

6.17       Cost of Implementation - The current estimate for detailed design and construction of the western half is $1.5 million +/- 30%. If the eastern half requires naturalisation under the LDRP to provide additional capacity then this will cost an additional $0.5 million +/- 30%.

6.18       Maintenance / Ongoing Costs - Annual maintenance costs of a naturalised waterway will be higher than for a concrete channel, but the future renewal cost is less.

6.19       Funding source - The Long Term Plan has funding allocated to the Land Drainage Recovery Programme.  Within the budget for next financial year (2016/17) there is sufficient provision to enact the naturalisation of the entire length. If only the western half of the drain is naturalised then surplus funds will be returned to the programme. 

Legal Implications

6.20       A detailed consenting analysis will be undertaken during the next design stage but initial investigations have identified that the proposed works may be consistent with conditions of specific and/or global consents already held by Council.

6.21       Other consents, such as, Heritage New Zealand, tree removal and building consents will be scoped and obtained, if required, during the next design stage.

Risks and Mitigations

6.22       Costs will be re-estimated during the detailed design stage.  The detailed design cost estimates may vary from the current cost estimates.

Implementation

6.23       Implementation dependencies - If agreement to enact the works is not obtained from Christchurch Golf Club then delays may be introduced into the project.

6.24       Implementation timeframe - The preliminary programme is detailed design commencing August 2016 and construction commencing January 2017.

Option Summary - Advantages and Disadvantages

6.25       The advantages of this option include:

·      Improved hydraulic capacity and will allow scope for future enhancement if necessary

·      Is consistent with Council's six values approach to managing waterways

·      Aligns with the aims of Ngai Tahu for improving the water quality and ecological health of Waikākāriki/Horseshoe Lake

·      Preferred option of the principal landowner

6.26       The disadvantages of this option include:

·      Higher capital cost than concrete channel

·      Only half of the channel is naturalised, reducing the ecological and cultural benefits when compared to the enhancement option


 

7.       Option 2 - Repair with concrete channel

Option Description

7.1          This option is similar to Option 1, except that repair of the western half is with concrete channel rather than through naturalisation. Spot repair of earthquake damage in the eastern half will also be required.

7.2          This option maintains No. 1 drain as a lined channel with minimal ecological value.

7.3          Current hydraulic capacity will be maintained but not increased.

Significance

7.4          The level of significance of this option is low consistent with section 2 of this report.  Engagement requirements for this level of significance are to inform the community of the works.

7.5          This option was presented to the Burwood-Pegasus Community Board on 16 May 2016 to better understand community views and preferences in this area.   The Community Board did not support this option, expressing instead a preference for naturalisation.

Impact on Mana Whenua

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

7.7          While this proposal has not been specifically discussed with mana whenua it is expected that the preference will be for naturalisation rather than replacing with concrete lined channel.

Community Views and Preferences

7.8          Christchurch Golf Club are specifically affected by this option due to the waterway being located on land owned by Golf Club.  The proposal has been discussed with the Golf Club and their members have been informed of the discussions. Feedback from the Golf Club on the proposal is that naturalisation is the preferred option from a safety and aesthetic viewpoint.

7.9          No other feedback from the community has been sought at this stage, but the community will be informed through the Community Board and through communications updates.

Alignment with Council Plans and Policies

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

Financial Implications

7.11       Cost of Implementation - The current estimate for detailed design and construction is similar to that for Option 1 at $1.5 million +/- 30%.

7.12       Maintenance / Ongoing Costs - Annual maintenance costs of a concrete channel will be less than that for a naturalised waterway but the future renewal cost is significantly higher.

7.13       Funding source - The Long Term Plan has funding allocated to the Land Drainage Recovery Programme.  Within the budget for next financial year (2016/17) there is sufficient provision to enact the naturalisation of the entire length. If only half of the drain is replaced (Option 2) then surplus funds will be returned to the programme.

Legal Implications

7.14       A detailed consenting analysis will be undertaken during the next design stage but initial investigations have identified that the proposed works may be consistent with conditions of specific and/or global consents already held by Council.

7.15       Other consents, such as, Heritage New Zealand, tree removal and building consents will be scoped and obtained, if required, during the next design stage.

Risks and Mitigations

7.16       Costs will be re-estimated during the detailed design stage.  The detailed design cost estimates may vary from the current cost estimates.

Implementation

7.17       Implementation dependencies - If agreement to enact the works is not obtained from Christchurch Golf Club then delays may be introduced into the project.

7.18       Implementation timeframe - The preliminary programme is detailed design commencing August 2016 and construction commencing January 2017.

Option Summary - Advantages and Disadvantages

7.19       The advantages of this option include:

·      Slightly reduced construction cost

·      Lower annual maintenance costs

7.20       The disadvantages of this option include:

·      No improvement in hydraulic capacity

·      Is inconsistent with Council's six values approach to managing waterways

·      Does not align with the aims of Ngai Tahu for improving the water quality and ecological health of Waikākāriki/Horseshoe Lake

·      Is not the preferred option of the principal landowner


 

8.       Option 3 - Enhancement through full naturalisation

Option Description

8.1          This option is identical to Option 1 but naturalisation of both the western and eastern halves will take place through the LDRP.

8.2          This option provides the greatest immediate ecological benefit as the naturalised channel will extend from Horseshoe Lake right through the golf course. This extends the habitat currently provided in Horseshoe Lake.

8.3          There be some minor water quality benefits through trapping of some sediment and reduction in water temperatures through shading, but the naturalisation is primarily for improvement of ecological rather than water quality values.

8.4          The additional cost of this option over and above Option 1 (partial naturalisation) is $500,000. This is due to the longer length over which naturalisation will take place.

8.5          Further modelling is underway to establish if the increased capacity is required in the western half to meet other LDRP objectives (such as remediation of flooding in the upper catchment as a result of earthquake induced settlement).

Significance

8.6          The level of significance of this option is low consistent with section 2 of this report.  Engagement requirements for this level of significance are to inform the community of the works.

8.7          This option was presented to the Burwood-Pegasus Community Board on 16 May 2016 to better understand community views and preferences in this area. The Community Board expressed support for naturalisation, but there was not time at the meeting to discuss the alternatives for full or partial naturalisation. A seminar has been organised with the Community Board for 7 June 2016 to present the options in more detail.

Impact on Mana Whenua

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

8.9          It is considered that the impact is positive, with a positive benefit on cultural and ecological values, and some benefit to water quality.

8.10       Due to the significance of Waikākāriki/Horseshoe Lake to mana whenua the detailed design will need their input.

Community Views and Preferences

8.11       Christchurch Golf Club are specifically affected by this option due to the waterway being located on land owned by Golf Club.  The proposal has been discussed with the Golf Club and their members have been informed of the discussions. Feedback from the Golf Club on naturalisation of the full length has been positive.

8.12       No other feedback from the community has been sought at this stage, but the community will be informed through the Community Board and through communications updates.

Alignment with Council Plans and Policies

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

Financial Implications

8.14       Cost of Implementation - The current estimate for detailed design and construction is $2.0 million +/- 30%.

8.15       Maintenance / Ongoing Costs - Annual maintenance costs of a naturalised waterway will be higher than for a concrete channel, but the future renewal cost is less.

8.16       Funding source - The Long Term Plan has funding allocated to the Land Drainage Recovery Programme.  Within the budget for next financial year (2016/17) there is sufficient provision to enact the works.  Use of LDRP funds for enhancement (naturalisation) is currently outside of scope and agreement will need to be obtained to extend the scope for this project.

Legal Implications

8.17       A detailed consenting analysis will be undertaken during the next design stage but initial investigations have identified that the proposed works may be consistent with conditions of specific and/or global consents already held by Council.

8.18       Other consents, such as, Heritage New Zealand, tree removal and building consents will be scoped and obtained, if required, during the next design stage.

Risks and Mitigations

8.19       Costs will be re-estimated during the detailed design stage.  The detailed design cost estimates may vary from the current cost estimates.

Implementation

8.20       Implementation dependencies:

·      Implementation of this option is dependent on gaining an agreement to extend the LDRP scope to include enhancement for this project.

·      If agreement to enact the works is not obtained from Christchurch Golf Club then delays may be introduced into the project.

8.21       Implementation timeframe - The preliminary programme is detailed design commencing August 2016 and construction commencing January 2017.

Option Summary - Advantages and Disadvantages

8.22       The advantages of this option include:

·      Greatest ecological benefit

·      Is consistent with Council's six values approach to managing waterways

·      Aligns with the aims of Ngai Tahu for improving the water quality and ecological health of Waikākāriki/Horseshoe Lake

·      Preferred option of the principal landowner

·      Improved hydraulic capacity

8.23       The disadvantages of this option include:

·      Higher capital cost

·      Allocation of LDRP funds to naturalisation means that the funds available to restore pre-earthquake flood risk in other locations will be reduced by approximately $500,000.

 

Attachments

There are no attachments to this report.

 

Confirmation of Statutory Compliance

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

(a) This report contains:

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

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

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

 

Signatories

Author

Peter Christensen

Senior Water Resources Engineer

Approved By

Keith Davison

Peter Langbein

John Mackie

David Adamson

Unit Manager - Storm Water & Land Drainage Rebuild

Finance Business Partner

Head of Three Waters & Waste

General Manager City Services

 


Council

23 June 2016

 

Report from Infrastructure, Transport and Environment Committee  – 2 June 2016

 

19.    Construction site Hoardings - Temporary Use of Legal Road Fee Rebate Programme

Reference:

16/647644

Contact:

Pana Togiaso

pana.togiaso@ccc.govt.nz

941 5294

 

 

 

 

1.   Staff Recommendations

 

That the Infrastructure, Transport and Environment Committee recommend that the Council continue and extend the Construction Site Hoardings - Temporary Use of Legal Road Fee Rebate Programme for two years with the following recommended changes:

1.         Disseminate information on the programme to capture the various levels of construction delivery (developers, architects, planners, construction companies).

2.         Simplify the current design guidelines

3.         Implement standard graphics option including

a.         Print ready files of pre-designed graphics that can be downloaded from the Council's website, printed, and installed following a guide by the developer.  

 

2.   Infrastructure, Transport and Environment Committee Recommendation to Council

 

Part A

That the Council continue and extend the Construction Site Hoardings - Temporary Use of Legal Road Fee Rebate Programme for two years with the following recommended changes:

1.         Disseminate information on the programme to capture the various levels of construction delivery (developers, architects, planners, construction companies).

2.         Simplify the current design guidelines

3.         Implement standard graphics option including

a.         Print ready files of pre-designed graphics that can be downloaded from the Council's website, printed, and installed following a guide by the developer.  

 

 

Attachments

No.

Report Title

Page

1

Construction site Hoardings - Temporary Use of Legal Road Fee Rebate Programme

199

 

No.

Title

Page

a

15 211308 2015-02-26 Construction Site Hoardings - Temporary Use of Legal Road Fee Rebate Programme

208

 

 


Council

23 June 2016

 

 

Construction site Hoardings - Temporary Use of Legal Road Fee Rebate Programme

Reference:

16/518728

Contact:

Pana Togiaso

pana.togiaso@ccc.govt.nz

03 941 5294

 

 

1.       Purpose and Origin of Report

Purpose of Report

1.1          The purpose of this report is for the Infrastructure, Transport and Environment Committee to make a recommendation to Council in relation to the extension of the Construction Site Hoardings - Temporary Use of Legal Road Fee Rebate Programme.

Origin of Report

1.2          This report is being provided to fulfil the Council resolution (30) passed at the Christchurch City Council meeting on 26 March 2015.

1.3          The Council resolved to approve this programme for the period 1 July 2015 to 30 June 2016.

1.4          This period, for the purposes of this report, can be considered a pilot.

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 assessing the criteria in the Significance and engagement Policy

2.1.2     The level of community engagement and/or consultation provided in this report reflects the assessed level of significance.

 

3.       Staff Recommendations

That the Infrastructure, Transport and Environment Committee recommend that the Council continue and extend the Construction Site Hoardings - Temporary Use of Legal Road Fee Rebate Programme for two years with the following recommended changes:

1.              Disseminate information on the programme to capture the various levels of construction delivery (developers, architects, planners, construction companies).

2.              Simplify the current design guidelines

3.              Implement standard graphics option including

a.              Print ready files of pre-designed graphics that can be downloaded from the Council's website, printed, and installed following a guide by the developer.  

 

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: 16.0.9 Maintain resident satisfaction with footpath condition

4.2          The following feasible options have been considered:

·           Option 1 - (preferred option) Retain the current programme with some amendments; that improve on the current programme and ensure that Council's obligations and principals are maintained and/or exceeded in reference to the provision of satisfactory footpath condition  

·           Option 2 - Retain the current programme with no changes; i.e. rely on the current programme and processes to ensure Council's obligations and principals are maintained in reference to the provision of satisfactory footpath condition

·           Option 3 - Cease the programme; i.e. rely on the existing processes without the programme to ensure Council's obligations and principals are maintained in reference to the provision of satisfactory footpath condition

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

4.3.1     The advantages of this option include:

·           Reduce visual impact of construction hoardings, increase visual amenity for the public and visitors alike, enhancing the resident and visitor experience

·           Simplify the application process, reduce approval requirements and therefore staff time whilst maintaining high quality visual outcomes

·           Increase flexibility of options and entry points reducing barriers enabling greater uptake of the programme

·           Provide a viable option for developers that want to reduce their costs in regard to Temporary Use of Legal Road charges reducing pressure on staff by developers. Levels the field.

4.3.2     The disadvantages of this option include:

·           Some additional upfront cost to implement the recommended changes.

4.4          Option Summary - Advantages and Disadvantages Option 2

4.4.1     The advantages of this option include:

·           No additional upfront cost in implementing the recommended changes

4.4.2     The disadvantages of this option include:

·           Ongoing low uptake of the programme i.e. not commensurate with staff time or investment

·           Doesn’t provide a viable option for a wide range of developers or developments, high barrier to engagement

4.5          Option Summary - Advantages and Disadvantages Option 3

4.5.1     The advantages of this option include:

·           No cost implication

4.5.2     The disadvantages of this option include:

·           Unlikely to reduce the visual impact of hoardings

·           Unlikely to maintain or exceed resident satisfaction with footpath condition

·           Removes option for developers to reduce their costs in regard to Temporary Use of Legal Road charges. This is likely to lead to ongoing pressure from some developers to waive these charges.

 

5.       Context/Background

Background

5.1          This programme was implemented to reduce the visual impact of hoardings, enhance the resident and visitor experience and support visual amenity during the rebuild. It forms part of the longer term strategy of Urban Regeneration to enliven the city and connect residents and visitor alike with the rebuild.

·      This is achieved through incentivising land owners and developers to contribute to the creative culture of the city by providing artwork on construction hoardings that occupy legal road in exchange for a waiver of the temporary use of legal road fees (TUOLR) on the area the hoarding occupies.

·      It normalises the inclusion of design values to improve clarity, prudent branding prominence, the reduction of unnecessary promotion or visual clutter to hoardings.

·      Any rebate available under this resolution ceases at 30 June 2016 unless renewed.

·      The impact of hoardings has not decreased in the intervening period, the increased pace of development has led to a greater number of solid hoardings versus chain link fencing.

·      Whilst not all hoardings encroach into legal road and therefore accountable to pay fees, the current levels of fencing and hoarding in the city can contextualise the scale of potential hoarding availability of which some would have the opportunity to be converted to creative use. Current civil defense fencing in the CBD is 6150 metres. The proposed sites for the new convention centre, Metro Sports and the Central Library total 3,100m. Private development in terms of linear metres of hoarding isn't tracked (rather square meters for charge of the TUOLR fee) and will fluctuate as developments start and finish, however it is conservatively estimated at approx. 2,700m within the 30km central city alone.

Review

5.2          Overall the programme has had low uptake. Two hoardings have been produced with a few others about to be delivered. Both completed hoardings have been completed to a high standard and add amenity.

Some of the reasons for the low uptake of the programme as it currently stands are:

·      Current stage of development. For a majority of sites either underway or well past the stage where the incentive would factor into budget considerations when it was implemented, the time and cost of engaging an artist or designer to develop the hoarding isn’t warranted. The budget has already been allocated to cover the TUOLR cost.

·      Insufficient marketing of the incentive through both internal and external channels

·      Insufficient understanding, experience or confidence by developers in contracting artists and managing creative projects.

·      Bespoke designs therefore require a reasonable level of support from council staff to both promote and assist the developer or construction company to deliver. Staff levels have been insufficient to support this fully.

There are also still challenges to the payment of the TUOLR fee by developers which can be met by the offer of this incentive.

Recommendations

5.3           The following changes are recommended to the programme.

·         Disseminate information on the programme to capture the various levels of construction delivery (developers, architects, planners, construction companies).

·         Simplify the current design guidelines

·         Implement standard graphics option

-       This provides print ready files of pre-designed graphics that can be downloaded from the Council's website, printed, and installed following a guide by the developer.

-       Follows a very successful City of Sydney model as part of their revamp of their hoardings policy, http://www.cityofsydney.nsw.gov.au/development/building-and-construction-approvals/temporary-structures/hoardings-and-scaffolding/standard-graphics  

-       City of Sydney initially worked with two local prominent graphic design companies to produce three suites of works that could be rearranged within each suite into various configurations providing a greater amount of variation and adaptability

-       The success of this programme in its first year has meant that they are currently contracting with new designers to produce 10 suites and have plans in 2017 to go out to a public submission process to gather further designs.

6.       Option 1 - Retain the current programme with some amendments (preferred)

Option Description

6.1          Improve on the current programme and ensure that Council's obligations and principals are maintained and/or exceeded in reference to the provision of resident satisfaction with footpath condition  

Significance

6.2          The level of significance of this option is low consistent with section 2 of this report.  Engagement requirements for this level of significance are not applicable.

Impact on Mana Whenua

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

Community Views and Preferences

6.4          These are not required for this project though the experiences of developers with the current programme have been collated and are noted in point 5.2

6.5          Alignment with Council Plans and Policies

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

6.6.1     Although this issue is not specifically identified in the Council's Long Term Plan it will assist in improving the urban environment i and is consistent with the longer term strategy of Urban Regeneration to enliven the city and connect residents and visitor alike with the rebuild as per the community outcomes under Liveable City.

6.6.2     Reason for inconsistency - not applicable

6.6.3     Amendment necessary - not applicable

Financial Implications

6.7          Temporary use of legal road charges are made across a range of developers on a regular basis. The cost of this has recently increased from $7.50 per month to $15 per month (per square metre).  Previously the expected revenue in the 2015 was anticipated to be $400,000. The revenue was budgeted to be approximately $450,000 in 2016 and is anticipated to be $500,000 in 2017. Examples of organisations paying these charges include: Fletcher Construction, Armitage Williams, Carter Group, Leighs Construction, Naylor Love, Southbase.

6.8          The cost of the fee rebate programme depends on the number of qualifying applications however it is proposed that an upper limit per site per annum be determined.

6.9          The implementation of a standard graphics component is incorporated as part of Urban Regenerations budget as a one off cost.

6.10       Maintenance / Ongoing Costs - Maintenance is not applicable as the outcome, a creative hoarding, is the responsibility of the developer to maintain. Staff time is required to assess the proposed creative hoardings to ensure they meet the criteria to be eligible for the rebate. As noted staff time is expected to reduce with the introduction of amendments to the programme.

6.11       Funding source - Transport Operations.

Legal Implications

6.12       Not applicable

Risks and Mitigations

6.13       None identified

Implementation

6.14       Implementation dependencies - securing Council's approval by the end of the current programme 30 June 2016.

6.15       Implementation timeframe - two months

Option Summary - Advantages and Disadvantages

6.16       The advantages of this option include:

·      Reduce visual impact of construction hoardings, increase visual amenity for the public and visitors alike, enhancing the resident and visitor experience

·      Simplify the application process, reduce approval requirements and therefore staff time whilst maintaining high quality visual outcomes

·      Increase flexibility of options and entry points reducing barriers enabling greater uptake of the programme

·      Provide a viable option for developers that want to reduce their costs in regard to Temporary Use of Legal Road Fee reducing pressure on staff by developers. Levels the field.

6.17       The disadvantages of this option include:

·      Some additional upfront cost to implement the recommended changes.

7.       Option 2 - Retain the current programme with no changes

Option Description

7.1          The Council will rely on the current programme and processes to ensure Council's obligations and principals are maintained in reference to the provision of satisfactory footpath condition.

Significance

7.2          The level of significance of this option is low consistent with section 2 of this report. Engagement requirements for this level of significance are not applicable.

Impact on Mana Whenua

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

Community Views and Preferences

7.4          These are not required for this project though the experiences of developers with the current programme have been collated and are noted in point 5.2

Alignment with Council Plans and Policies

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

7.5.1     Although this issue is not specifically identified in the Council's Long Term Plan it will assist in improving the urban environment and is consistent with the longer term strategy of Urban Regeneration to enliven the city and connect residents and visitor alike with the rebuild as per the community outcomes under Liveable City.

7.5.2     Reason for inconsistency - not applicable

7.5.3     Amendment necessary - not applicable

Financial Implications

7.6          Cost of Implementation - none as the programme in its current form is already running

7.7          Maintenance / Ongoing Costs - not applicable

7.8          Funding source - Transport Operations

Legal Implications

7.9          Not applicable

Risks and Mitigations

7.10       Not applicable

Implementation

7.11       Implementation dependencies - securing Council's approval by the end of the current programme 30 June 2016.

7.12       Implementation timeframe - not applicable

Option Summary - Advantages and Disadvantages

7.13       The advantages of this option include:

·      No added upfront cost in implementing the recommended changes

7.14       The disadvantages of this option include:

·           Ongoing low uptake of the programme i.e. not commensurate with staff time or investment

·           Doesn’t provide a viable option for a wide range of developers or developments, high barrier to engagement

8.       Option 3 - Cease the programme

Option Description

8.1          Rely on the existing processes without the programme to ensure Council's obligations and principals are maintained in reference to the provision of satisfactory footpath condition

Significance

8.2          The level of significance of this option is low consistent with section 2 of this report.  Engagement requirements for this level of significance are not applicable.

Impact on Mana Whenua

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

Community Views and Preferences

8.4          These are not required for this project though the experiences of developers with the current programme have been collated and are noted in point 5.2.  

Alignment with Council Plans and Policies

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

8.5.1     Inconsistent with Level of Service: 16.0.9 Maintain resident satisfaction with footpath condition and also community outcomes noted under Liveable City

8.5.2     Reason for inconsistency - doesn't meet Council objectives to provide an attractive and well-designed urban environment where urban areas are well designed and meet the needs of the community. 

8.5.3     Amendment necessary - not applicable

Financial Implications

8.6          Cost of Implementation - zero cost as the current programme will be ceased

8.7          Maintenance / Ongoing Costs - not applicable

8.8          Funding source - not applicable

Legal Implications

8.9          Not applicable

Risks and Mitigations

8.10       Not applicable

Implementation

8.11       Implementation dependencies  - will need to remove website information and advise staff of changes before 30 June 2016

8.12       Implementation timeframe - 1 week

Option Summary - Advantages and Disadvantages

8.13       The advantages of this option include:

·      No cost implications

8.14       The disadvantages of this option include:

·         Unlikely to reduce the visual impact of hoardings

·         Unlikely to maintain or exceed resident satisfaction with footpath condition

·         Removes a viable option for developers to reduce their costs in regard to Temporary Use of Legal Road charges. This is likely to lead to direct pressure from specific developers to council staff and potentially elected members.

 

Attachments

No.

Title

Page

a 

15 211308 2015-02-26 Construction Site Hoardings - Temporary Use of Legal Road Fee Rebate Programme

 

 

 

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

Mair Jo

Pana Togiaso

Transitional Projects Advisor

Team Leader Road Amenity & Asset Protection

Approved By

Steffan Thomas

Chris Gregory

David Adamson

Operations Manager

Head of Transport

General Manager City Services

 


Council

23 June 2016

 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


Council

23 June 2016

 

 

20.    Infrastructure, Transport and Environment Committee Minutes - 2 June 2016

Reference:

16/647906

Contact:

Chris Turner

christopher.turner@ccc.govt.nz

941 8233

 

 

1.   Purpose of Report

The Infrastructure, Transport and Environment Committee held a meeting on 2 June 2016 and is circulating the Minutes recorded to the Council for their information.

 

2.   Recommendation to Council

That the Council receives the Minutes from the Infrastructure, Transport and Environment Committee meeting held 2 June 2016.

 

Secretarial Note:  Item 19 of these minutes, Asia Pacific Cycling Congress September 2017 was considered by the Council at its meeting on 9 June 2016.

Attachments

No.

Title

Page

A

Minutes Infrastructure, Transport and Environment Committee - 2 June 2016

214

 

 

Signatories

Author

Chris Turner

Committee Advisor

  


Council

23 June 2016

 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


Council

23 June 2016

 

 

21.    Hearings Panel Report to the Council on the Proposed Changes to the Jellie Park Management Plan

Reference:

16/543333

Contact:

Mark Saunders

mark.saunders@ccc.govt.nz

941 6436

 

 

1.   Purpose of Report

1.1       The purpose of this report is to present to the Council the Hearings Panel's recommendations following the consultation and hearings process on proposed changes to the Jellie Park Management Plan (the "Management Plan") that have arisen from a non-comprehensive review of the Management Plan intended to address some specific issues that are described below.

1.2       The draft changes to the Management Plan consulted on were publicly circulated as tracked changes to the relevant parts of it referred to as the "draft changes December 2015". Attachment A presents the Hearings Panel’s recommended alterations to the “draft changes December 2015” as additional tracked changes, and Attachment B presents them incorporated into a full “clean” version of the Management Plan as it would be amended if the Council approves the Hearings Panel’s recommendations.

1.3       The Council can accept or reject the recommendations, bearing in mind that the Local Government Act 2002 requires that “the views presented to the local authority should be received by the local authority with an open mind and should be given by the local authority, in making a decision, due consideration” (section 82(e)). The final decision-maker should put itself in as good a position as the Hearings Panel having heard and read the submissions. 

1.4       The Hearings Panel, consisting of Councillor David East (Chairperson), Community Board member Faimeh Burke and Community Board member Emma Norrish, convened on Friday 13 May 2016 to hear submitters who wished to be heard and to commence its consideration of all submissions and it deliberations.

 

2.   Hearings Panel Recommendations

That the Council:

1.              Approves the changes to the Jellie Park Management Plan incorporated in it in Attachment B, thereby approving, in accordance with section 41 of the Reserves Act 1977, the amended Jellie Park Management Plan as it appears in Attachment B as the operative plan.

 

3.   Background

3.1       The current Management Plan was approved by the Council following public comment in 2010. Although Jellie Park ("the Park"), in general, is functioning well and does not require much adjustment, changes to the use of the Park since 2010 have been proposed to be addressed in ways that are inconsistent with the current Management Plan, prompting a need to change the Management Plan.

3.2       The changes to the use of the Park since 2010 include:

3.2.1   a significant increase in users, from around 600,000 users per year in 2008/9, to over 1,000,000 in 2013/14, causing the current 177 car-parking spaces (including 65 along Ilam Road) to be insufficient to meet current requirements; and

3.2.2   the installation of a temporary high performance sport facility (the "Apollo Projects Centre building") post-earthquakes.

3.3       Temporary car-parking is currently occasionally opened on green space on the Park in front of the Recreation and Sports Centre building to accommodate periods of high demand for car-parking but this arrangement is regarded as unsatisfactory in the long term as the area is unpaved, not prepared nor maintained to accommodate such purpose and liable to deterioration through overuse for that purpose.

3.4       Ways in which the changes to the use of the Park since 2010 might be addressed that are inconsistent with the current Management Plan include:

3.4.1   Possible redevelopment, involving expansion, of the main public car park area in front of the Recreation and Sports Centre to meet the current demand for car-parking spaces.

3.4.2   Consideration of the potential to accommodate, for the benefit of the wider public, the continuation of the Apollo Projects Centre building, which is not shown nor described in the current Management Plan.

3.5       The "draft changes December 2015" to the Management Plan were proposed as a means of addressing inconsistencies between the current Management Plan and the possible mechanisms for addressing the changes to the use of the Park since 2010 in the following ways:

3.5.1   The zone designated in the Management Plan for possible access and car-parking development on the Park was regarded by staff as insufficient to meet current demand, and the "draft changes December 2015" proposed to expand the zone in two areas referred to as areas "A" and "B" on the version of the "Zoning Plan" proposed by the "draft changes December 2015".

3.5.2   The "Indicative Development Plan" in the Management Plan is inconsistent with the "Zoning Plan" in the Management Plan, notably in regard to the area outlined for "vehicle circulation and parking" in the Indicative Development Plan being less extensive than the zone designated for "access and parking" in the Zoning Plan. Though the Indicative Development Plan is merely indicative and, unlike the Zoning Plan, simply constitutes possible development projects, the proposal is to take the opportunity to delete the part of the Management Plan that includes the Indicative Development Plan, since it is out-of-date, obsolete and potentially misleading.

3.5.3   The Apollo Projects Centre building needs appropriate mention in the Management Plan to bring the Management Plan up-to-date, to recognise the reality that it is now on the Park, to consider its future, and to record how it came to be on the Park pursuant to the authorisation given by the Council, using the Canterbury Earthquake (Reserves Legislation) Order 2011, to High Performance Sport New Zealand (HPSNZ) to place it there to house HPSNZ's high performance sport activities following HPSNZ losing its previous facilities through the earthquakes.

4.   Consultation

4.1       The consultation on the "draft changes December 2015" to the Management Plan was to meet the requirement of the Reserves Act 1977 to provide the public with the opportunity to comment in writing on the proposed changes to the Management Plan.

4.2       The draft changes to the Management Plan were approved by the Fendalton/Waimairi Community Board on 14 December 2015 to be notified for public comment. The draft changes document was advertised on 23 January 2016. Written submissions were invited to be submitted by the public up until 28 March 2016.

4.3       In the information accompanying the draft changes to the Management Plan, including on the submission form and information leaflet downloadable from the Council’s online Have Your Say page for this consultation, submitters were asked to indicate if they did or did not generally support the draft changes to the Management Plan, and also if they did or did not wish to be heard at a hearing in support of their submission.

4.4       Two drop in sessions were held in the Fendalton Service Centre boardroom for people to call in to talk to staff in person. These were 4pm to 6pm on Thursday 11 February 2016 and 10am to 12noon on Saturday 13 February 2016. During the first session five people attended and one during the second.

5.   Submissions

5.1       130 submissions were received as a result of the consultation; 19 of the submitters initially indicated that they wished to be heard in support of their written submission, and 8 of these submitters ultimately elected to attend and were heard.

5.2       A synopsis of submissions that was prepared for the Hearings Panel is attached as Attachment C to indicate the relative levels of submitter support for, and opposition to, the "draft changes December 2015" to the Management Plan. The Hearings Panel was able to consider this synopsis, along with the submissions in full and also summarised with staff responses to submissions (these lengthier documents are available respectively alongside and within the agenda for the meeting on 13 May 2016 of the Hearings Panel and can be found at: http://christchurch.infocouncil.biz/).

6.   Consideration of Submissions and Deliberations

6.1       After hearing from the submitters who wished to be heard, the Hearings Panel then considered all submissions and commenced its deliberations, with the key points of discussion being:

6.1.1   Noting how the Apollo Projects Centre building came to be placed on the Park through the Council on 25 August 2011 exercising its powers under the Canterbury Earthquake (Reserves Legislation) Order 2011 to authorise High Performance Sport New Zealand to temporarily locate a building for its high performance sport activities within the Recreation and Sports Centre zone in Jellie Park as it had lost its venue at the QEII Park Recreation and Sport Centre following the earthquakes. The Hearings Panel further noted that this Order in Council has been extended by the Greater Christchurch Regeneration Act 2016 to remain in force up to 2021, with the opportunity for the Council to authorise the continuance of the building for the approved use for up to that time.

6.1.2   Around allegations from submitters that the Zoning Plan in the current Management Plan that includes an area of green space on the Ilam Road frontage of the Park in the area zoned for access and car-parking had not been previously consulted on. The Panel regarded that, though the inconsistency between the Zoning Plan and the Indicative Development Plan should be addressed so as to remove any possible confusion arising from failing to appreciate that the Indicative Development Plan was merely indicative, the allegations that the Zoning Plan was never consulted on were unfounded.

6.1.3   That the zoning of an area for access and car-parking for users of the recreation and sports centre, and the mapping and description of the Apollo Projects Centre building, in the Management Plan did not mean that development for that zoned purpose or building would necessarily happen. It was noted that decisions on these would be made in subsequent forums.

6.1.4   The Hearings Panel advised those submitters opposed to any increase in the current car-parking on the Park, even within the zone already designated under the current Zoning Plan for possible development of access and car-parking, that if they wished to advance their opposition to increased car-parking they could approach the Fendalton/Waimairi Community Board, as their submissions spoke in part to matters beyond the scope of the Hearings Panel.

7.   Determinations

7.1       Following its consideration of the submissions and its deliberations the Hearings Panel decided to recommend that the Council approve the "draft changes December 2015" to the Management Plan subject to its recommended alterations to those draft changes as shown in Attachment A.

7.2       The key alteration to the "draft changes December 2015" to the Management Plan the Hearings Panel decided to recommend in response to the submissions was:

7.2.1   Deletion of one of the two proposed extensions of the "Access and parking" zone into the "Open parkland and trees" zone, being that extension indicated as area "A" in the draft Zoning Plan (Figure 3 in Attachment A). Noteworthy in respect of deliberations leading to this recommendation were the following points:

·   The Hearings Panel was split on this alteration, but the majority of its members considered this alteration appropriate due to the higher proportion of submissions not supporting more car-parking or loss of green space for car-parking.

·   A dissenting member opposed the alteration − there being considerable submitter support for more car-parking, along with comment from staff that they had assessed that the extension of the access and car-parking zone into area "A" was necessary to meet demand for car-parking. Staff commented that they believed that demand for car-parking would remain high even as similar facilities are restored in other parts of the city following the earthquakes.

·   However, the majority of the Hearings Panel were influenced by:

·     higher submitter resistance to increased car-parking and consequent loss of green space;

·     submissions submitting that the planned construction of aquatic facilities in other parts of the city will reduce the demand for car-parking at the Park; and

·     submissions from users of the Park reporting their observations that there generally is sufficient car-parking for users of the Park, even if not in the main car park, combined with a lack of substantiating evidence for the contention that the car-parking is insufficient, leading the majority of the Hearings Panel to be unconvinced that extending the access and parking zone to area "A" could be justified having considered the submissions.

7.3       A new change to the Management Plan that the Hearings Panel decided to recommend to the Council, which was not among the "draft changes December 2015", but which was raised as an issue by a submission is: 

7.3.1   Removal of words from policies 3.2.1 and 3.2.2 in the Management Plan specifying the days of the week the playing fields on the Park can be used by sports teams or for informal use. The reason for this being that it is now not the practice to use Management Plan policy to dictate or restrict playing field use on recreation reserves.

7.4       The Hearings Panel unanimously supported the "draft changes December 2015" in adding to the Management Plan recognition of the reality of the existence of the Apollo Projects Centre building on the Park while deciding to make some minor alterations to the relevant parts of the draft changes to reflect their deliberations in respect of clarifying the circumstances around the installation of the building.

7.5       The Hearings Panel also unanimously supported the "draft changes December 2015" in respect of extending the zone designated for access and car-parking to include area "B" in the draft Zoning Plan recognising the reality that this area is already used for access and extending the zone to area "B" does not imply any practical change to the current use of the area.

7.6       All other changes to the Management Plan, and alterations to the "draft changes December 2015", as indicated by tracked changes in Attachment A are supported by the Hearings Panel; many of these adopt suggestions made by submitters around minor improvements or corrections. Those alterations to the "draft changes December 2015" removing depiction on the Park Map (Figure 2 in Attachments A and B) of the car park extension within the zone already designated for access and parking, and removing reference to the proposal for the Apollo Projects Centre to be transferred to the Council's ownership to be managed as a public indoor sports and recreational facility, were merely to emphasise that those matters, which were of concern to submitters opposed to a reduction of green space, have not been determined by the Hearings Panel and they are matters for other forums.

 

Attachments

No.

Title

Page

a

Attachment A - Jellie Park Management Plan (reviewed part only) - Hearings Panel recommendations as tracked changes - May 2016

228

b

Attachment B - Jellie Park Management Plan - Full Clean Version incorporating Hearings Panel's recommended changes - June 2016

248

c

Attachment C - Synopsis of Submissions on the Jellie Park Management Plan Draft Changes 2016

293

 

 

Signatories

Author

David East

Councillor

Approved By

The Hearings Panel

 

  


Council

23 June 2016

 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


Council

23 June 2016

 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


Council

23 June 2016

 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


Council

23 June 2016

 

 

22.    Hearings Panel Report to the Council on the Proposed Revocation of the Pedestrian Mall in Poplar Street

Reference:

16/570969

Contact:

Mark Saunders

mark.saunders@ccc.govt.nz

941 6436

 

 

1.   Purpose of Report

1.1       The purpose of this report is to present to the Council the Hearings Panel's recommendations following the consultation and hearings process on the proposal to:

1.1.1   Revoke, under section 336 of the Local Government Act 1976, the existing part-time pedestrian mall in Poplar Street, which applies to the area from Lichfield Street extending south along Poplar Street to a point 45.5m south of Lichfield Street, from 6pm to 6am.

1.1.2   Declare, under clause 14A of the Christchurch City Council Traffic and Parking Bylaw 2008, the area stated in the preceding paragraph as a new full-time shared zone − the applicable speed limit would automatically be set at 10km/h under clause 8(2) of the Speed Limits Bylaw 2010.

1.2       The Hearings Panel, consisting of Councillor Phil Clearwater (Chairperson), Councillor Yani Johanson and Councillor Paul Lonsdale, convened on Tuesday 17 May 2016 to hear submitters who wished to be heard and to commence its consideration of all submissions and its deliberations. The hearings process resulted in the Hearings Panel arriving at the recommendations it makes to the Council as set out below.

1.3       The Council can accept or reject the recommendations, bearing in mind that the Local Government Act 2002 requires that “the views presented to the local authority should be received by the local authority with an open mind and should be given by the local authority, in making a decision, due consideration” (section 82(e)). The final decision-maker should put itself in as good a position as the Hearings Panel having heard and read the submissions.

1.4       If the Council approves the recommendations and thereby declares that it revokes the part-time pedestrian mall in Poplar Street, then any person, pursuant to section 336(3) of the Local Government Act 1974, may, within 1 month after the making of the declaration, or within such further time as the Environment Court may allow, appeal to the Environment Court against the declaration. Pursuant to section 336(2) of the Local Government Act 1974, the declaration will not take effect until the time in which it may be appealed has expired and any appeals have been determined.

 

2.   Hearings Panel Recommendations

That the Council:

1.              Declares that the part-time Pedestrian Mall status over the section of Poplar Street from its intersection with Lichfield Street to its intersection with Ash Street is revoked.

2.              Revoke all traffic controls on Poplar Street from its intersection with Lichfield Street to its intersection with Ash Street, and that this one way section of Poplar Street be revoked as authorised under clause 12 of the Christchurch City Council Traffic and Parking Bylaw 2008. 

3.              Approve pursuant to clause 12 of the Christchurch City Council Traffic and Parking Bylaw 2008 that Poplar Street be one way north to south for all road users, except cyclists and pedestrians from its intersection with Lichfield Street, to its intersection with Ash Street.

4.              Approve pursuant to Section 14A of the Christchurch City Council Traffic and Parking Bylaw 2008, that Poplar Street, between Lichfield Street and Ash Street, be declared a Shared Zone (note 1 applies) where the driving, riding or parking of any vehicle, including passenger service vehicles, is prohibited at all times subject to the following exceptions and conditions:

a.         The following are permitted in the Shared Zone at any time: Pedestrians, Trams, Cycles and Street cleaning and rubbish collection vehicles operated by the Christchurch City Council or its nominated contractor.

b.         Trade and other vehicles (including those operated by service authorities) of any class may enter the Shared Zone at specified times if authorised to do so by the council officer who holds the position of asset owner at that time.

c.         Goods service vehicles are permitted in the Shared Zone for the purpose of loading and unloading between 3am and 10am and between 3pm and 6pm each day.

d.         Nothing in this Council resolution prohibits or restricts the use of the Shared Zone by any fire appliance, ambulance or other vehicle where it is necessary for that appliance, ambulance or other vehicle to enter the Shared Zone for the protection of human life or of property.

e.         Any vehicle or specified class of vehicle that has entered the Shared Zone under the above provisions must not be parked for a longer period than is necessary for its driver to carry out his or her business or for the period of any emergency.

5.              Revoke all parking and stopping restrictions on both sides of Poplar Street from its intersection with Lichfield Street to its intersection with Ash Street.

6.              Approve that the stopping of vehicles be prohibited at any time on both sides of Poplar Street, from its intersection with Lichfield Street to its intersection with Ash Street.

7.              Note that the Hearings Panel noted that the time restrictions around the goods service vehicles are likely to require reviewing as the area develops.

Note 1: For the purposes of the following resolutions relating to a Shared Zone, under clause 8(2) of the Speed Limits Bylaw (amendment made by decision under section 27 (1) (e) of the Canterbury Earthquake Act 2011, dated 11 December 2014), a speed limit of 10km/h applies to the Shared Zone.

 

In the context of making these recommendations the Hearings Panel additionally requested that staff provide the Council with information on the proposed new public laneway from Lichfield Street to Tuam Street (shown as the blue arrow in the map within clause 4.4.1 below) and traffic management to the proposed new car park building that will have its access and egress into that laneway. Staff are in the process of preparing a memorandum accordingly.

 

 

3.   Background

3.1       Before the earthquakes, business people and the New Zealand Police expressed concerns to Christchurch City Council about vehicles using Poplar Street at night when retail business gave way to entertainment activity and an associated increase in the number of pedestrians. This led to the Council creating a part-time (from 6pm to 6am) pedestrian mall in September 2010. However, this was never operative due to earthquake damage.

3.2       After the earthquakes, the Government's Christchurch Central Recovery Plan (CCRP) was developed based on Share an Idea contributions from the community. The CCRP includes the South, North and East Frames. The South Frame is relevant to this proposal.

3.3       The South Frame development includes changes in the way various modes of transport access and move through the area. Decisions about this have been made by the Canterbury Earthquake Recovery Authority (CERA), as lead organisation for development of the South Frame, in collaboration with its partners, including the Council.

3.4       The objectives of the proposal are to:

3.4.1   Provide a safer and more attractive people-friendly environment with less motor vehicle traffic during the day, not just in the evening or overnight;

3.4.2   Support the development of the South Frame and align the legal status of this area with other similar sections within the South, North and East Frames; and

3.4.3   Reduce potential conflict between pedestrians, cyclists, goods service vehicles and, in the future, trams.

3.5       It is intended that the proposed shared zone would have conditions and restrictions that are similar to the part-time pedestrian mall and support the above objectives.

4.   Consultation

4.1       The revocation of a pedestrian mall must be done by way of a Special Consultative Procedure (SCP).

4.2       The SCP on the proposal opened for submissions on 29 February 2016 and closed on 1 April 2016.

4.3       Seventeen submissions were received. Two submitters requested to be heard, but neither of those two submitters ultimately attended to be heard.

4.4       Three options were presented within the SCP:

4.4.1   Option One: Shared zone (recommended option)

·   The Statement of Proposal in the consultation leaflet advised, describing this Option One (which is the option it proposed and also the option the Hearings Panel is recommending to the Council), that restrictions on motor vehicle movement through Poplar Street, as a result of the proposed new shared zone status, will be managed through the creation of a new lane to the east of Poplar Street as part of the South Frame Plan − while this new lane is not part of this proposal, it is noted that it will allow all vehicles to travel from Lichfield Street to Tuam Street and will include a new car parking building.

·   It was further noted in the Statement of Proposal that the Council has recently made decisions to change the rest of Poplar Street, Ash Street and Mollett Street in the South Frame to shared zones, and that these decisions were made on 11 February 2016 under the Traffic and Parking Bylaw 2008 and did not require a special consultative procedure due to there being no pedestrian mall in place in those locations.

·   The Statement of Proposal listed the features of the proposal as:

·     Continuation of no parking on all of Poplar Street;

·     Prohibiting motor vehicles (except goods service vehicles, Council street cleaning vehicles, and emergency vehicles) from using Poplar Street from Lichfield Street to Ash Street;

·     Changing the goods service vehicles loading periods from between 6am and 6pm to between 3am and 10am, and between 3pm and 6pm;

·     Continuing the one way direction of vehicular traffic from north to south;

·     Tram tracks to remain;

·     Retractable bollards may be used in future to prevent access for vehicles but allow access for trams;

·     Trade vehicles as permitted by Council on a case by case basis.

4.4.2   Option Two: Retain the pedestrian mall and keep the status quo

·   The Statement of Proposal suggested in respect of this option that:

·     Keeping the existing part-time pedestrian mall, and all the existing conditions and restrictions, will not reduce the potential for conflict between street users during the day.

·     It will also not have the same potential to increase public accessibility to the area compared to the level and type of use that could be achieved over a 24-hour period by implementing Option One.

·     The current pedestrian mall status is not consistent with other similar areas that have been developed or are planned within the South Frame or within the North and East Frames, developed from the CCRP.

4.4.3   Option Three: Retain the pedestrian mall and adjust the conditions and restrictions to match the proposal

·   The Statement of Proposal noted in respect of this option that:

·     It would create an improved environment and would require a change in the pedestrian mall status from part-time to full-time.

·     However, the pedestrian mall status is not consistent with other similar areas that have been developed or are planned within the South Frame or within the North and East Frames, developed from the CCRP.

5.   Submissions

5.1       Of the three options presented within the SCP, 15 of the 17 submissions received supported Option One (the proposal), 1 of the 17 submissions supported Option Two, and 1 of the 17 submissions supported Option Three.

5.2       Seven of the submissions were from organisations and all of them supported Option One. The organisations included Christchurch Tramway Ltd, Inner City East Neighbourhood Group, BBS Group of Companies, NZ Automotive Assn., Tramway Historical Soc. Inc., Spokes Canterbury Cyclists Association, and the Dux Group.

5.3       The submission of Claude Tellick in support of Option Two was not accompanied by any comments.

5.4       The submission of Vince Eichholtz in support of Option Three was accompanied by the following comments:

                      I feel reducing the available pedestrian option is not desirable as it has the potential to form part of a wider redesigning of 'use of space' in the central city area and can help provide a focus for planning of new retail shops and associated higher density residential housing.

Perhaps a review of this situation might be appropriate in the future once a clearer picture of the direction of CPD development has occurred (note-occured, not that planned) High street has always been a focus for low speed/foot traffic etc which the subsequently led to include the excellent Poplar lane and Lordship Lane Pedestrian areas.

5.5       The submissions in support of Option One were accompanied by comments, which are substantially copied below along with accompanying staff comments.

Submitter

Submitter comment

Staff comment

Jack Thompson

“I support the proposal however there is one detail that concerns me: It is my understanding that CCC cannot legally set a 10km/h speed limit. The CCC intends to use its authority under the Speed Limits Bylaw 2010 to set the speed limit in Poplar Lane to 10km/h. However the Speed Limits Bylaw 2010 is made in accordance with the Land Transport Rule: Setting of Speed Limits 2003 (Rule 54001), in which sub-section 2.2 lists the range of acceptable speed limits: The lowest legal speed limit is 20km/h.”

Although the 10km/h speed limit appears in Council's Speeds Limits Bylaw it is not Council that 'set' that speed limit.  New clause 8 of the Speed Limits Bylaw was the result of a s27 Canterbury Earthquake Recovery Act 2011 decision by CERA, effective 11 December 2014.  As noted in the consultation material, as soon as Council makes the resolution for Poplar St to become a shared zone it automatically becomes a 10km/h area as a result of the Bylaw amendment introduced by CERA.

Fiona Bennetts

“I like that cyclists are allowed at all times while general vehicle access is prohibited at all times. I think the service access hours are more appropriate for businesses. I like the reduced speed limit.”

 

Steven Muir

“the shared zone with 10km/hr limit is a great idea”

 

Lisa Sinke

[No comment]

 

Richard Sinke – Dux Group

“Currently cars are parking in Poplar Street which is apparently not legal, but this is not being attended to. Cars and taxis are frequently driving all the way up to the end of Poplar St, either looking for a park or to pick up/drop off people. The drivers then have to either reverse all the way back, or turn around. Both these maneuvers [sic] are dangerous to pedestrians, and disruptive to the ambience of the lane. It would be very beneficial to the environment for this to be stopped.”

Referred concerns to enforcement.

Holly Hopkins

"The cars driving up and down the lane are very dangerous to pedestrians. It would be great to have this stopped and therefore much improve the environment for the enjoyment of the people."

 

Gareth Thomas

"My intention is to support the use of vehicles for delivery to businesses only. Allowing parking and taxis to zone down what is essentially a pedestrian zone (perceived at least) is dangerous and disruptive to what should be a safe pedestrian-centric street".

 

Jason Glenn

[No comment]

 

John Smith - Operations Manager at Christchurch Tramway Ltd

"I believe Option One would work well for the future tram operation as well as being more flexible for future changes if needed than a pedestrian mall status. The hours for goods service access differ from what malls/shared zones with tram access have in the city. The 3-6.00 pm access would be better at 4.00 -6.00 pm (malls currently have) as the extra hour would be beneficial to the tram as this is likely to be a busy time for carrying passengers/visitors. Our current customer lifting's is 120,000 passenger per annum."

Restriction times agreed with current local developments - potential for future adjustments to reflect change.

Monica Reedy - Coordinator for Inner East Neighbourhood Group

"Generally support the proposal. We raise the issue that if the area becomes residential as well as business allowing services vehicles in as early as 3am may not be acceptable".

Restriction times may be adjusted in future to suit ongoing development mix.

John Webb - Director of BBS Group Companies

"Our group suggest an area between the proposed new lane onto Poplar Street be developed into a square with the new tram stop."

Outside of scope - will refer suggestion to Regeneration.

Sean O'Connell - Regional Manager for NZAA

[No comment]

 

Graeme Belworthy - President of Tramway Historical Soc. Inc.

"The recommended option works well from the perspective of the future tram operations and is more flexible than the pedestrian mall designation if changes are needed later. We do have a questions about goods service vehicles access, in particular the allowance between 3 and 6pm. This differs from other malls or shared zones where the tram currently operates (Cashel, High, New Regent) where the allowance is 4pm-6pm. Should such hours be consistent? We believes the extra hour would be of benefit to future tram operation as this is likely to be quite a busy time."

Restriction times agreed with current local developments - may be adjustments considered as further developed.

Don Babe - Chairperson of Spokes Canterbury

"[…] Making the CBD a people friendly area by making Poplar Street a 'shared zone' and also applying this designation to the whole of Poplar between Lichfield and Tuam and adjoining Ash St. is great planning. Spokes Canterbury supports option 1."

 

Dr Ramon Pink for CDHB

"The CDHB supports Option One. […] The CDHB supports the proposed 10km per hour speed limit and continued access of emergency vehicle to Poplar Street at all times."

 

 

6.   Consideration of Submissions and Deliberations

6.1       After receiving the staff presentation on the proposal and the submissions received in response to the consultation on the proposal, the Hearings Panel proceeded to consider the submissions and commence its deliberations. Some of the key issues addressed by the Hearings Panel during its deliberations included:

6.1.1   The point that 15 of the 17 submissions received supported the proposal (Option One).

6.1.2   The Hearings Panel considered that there was some merit to the submissions of John Smith and Graeme Belworthy that the goods service vehicles access period between 3pm and 6pm would be better restricted to 4pm to 6pm to benefit trams, given that 3pm to 4pm is likely to still be their busy time, and considered that there was also some merit to the submission of Monica Reedy that if residential development occurs in the area then allowing goods service vehicles in the Shared Zone to load and unload in the early morning may need to be reviewed. However, the Hearings Panel also considered that:

·     there are no trams operating in the area presently and this is likely to be the case for some years (though the Hearings Panel was favourable to trams operating there in the future);

·     the concern about possible residential development relates to possible future development, rather than present needs, and future needs can be met as they arise;

·     it is preferable to not alter the proposed time restrictions presently, since they align with neighbouring areas;

·     if the proposal is adopted it will be easier to change the time restrictions as the area develops, since a Shared Zone, unlike a pedestrian mall, will not require a SCP to be changed in this respect.

The outcome of the deliberations on this point was to proceed with recommending Option One to the Council with the time restrictions unchanged from those consulted on, but to note in their recommendations to the Council that those time restrictions are likely to require reviewing as the area develops.

6.1.3   Emergency service vehicle access was considered and the Hearings Panel accepted staff comment that the Fire Service did not have a problem in this case.

6.1.4   The Hearings Panel also discussed concerns noted in the submissions relating to not allowing taxis to access the area. The outcome of the deliberations on this point was to specify in their recommendations to the Council in favour of changing the area to a shared zone that any vehicle, including passenger service vehicles, be prohibited at all times from driving or parking in the zone, subject to the proposed exceptions and conditions. Although the definition of 'goods service vehicles' would exclude taxis, adding 'passenger service vehicles' to the prohibition section of the shared zone resolution would clearly prevent taxis from relying on any of the exemptions to the prohibition.

6.1.5   The Hearings Panel had some concern about operational impacts of the proposed new car parking building in terms of access, exiting and possible queuing issues that might spill over to both Lichfield and Tuam Streets. Staff advised that a traffic assessment would have been included within the resource consent application.

6.1.6   The outcome of the deliberations on the preceding point, was that the Hearings Panel decided to request that staff provide the Council with information on the proposed public laneway from Lichfield Street to Tuam Street and traffic management to the car park building. It being noted that the proposed new lane is not strictly part of the proposal being considered, and so this decision was separated from what the Hearings Panel decided to recommend to the Council, though construction of the new lane was noted in the Statement of Proposal as "important to note".

6.2       Having addressed these issues as described, the Hearings Panel unanimously decided to make the recommendations to the Council set out above.

 

Attachments

There are no attachments for this report.

 

Signatories

Author

Phil Clearwater

Councillor

Approved By

The Hearings Panel

 

  


Council

23 June 2016

 

 

23.    Hearings Panel Report to the Council on the Proposed Changes to the Dog Control Policy and Dog Control Bylaw 2016

Reference:

16/405132

Contact:

Chris Turner

christopher.turner@ccc.govt.nz

941 8233

 

 

1.   Purpose of Report

1.1       The proposed Dog Control Policy 2016 and proposed Dog Control Bylaw 2016 are the result of a scheduled bylaw review. Bylaws must be reviewed at least every ten years. Every council must have a dog control policy and dog control bylaw, and they must be reviewed together.

1.2       The policy and bylaw review report was accepted by the Regulation and Consents Committee on 19 November 2015 and recommended to Council where it was adopted for consultation on 10 December 2015. Consultation opened on 1 February 2016 and closed on 4 March 2016.  Two hundred and fifty-six submissions were received.

1.3       The Hearings Panel consisted of Councillor David East (Chairperson), Councillor Andrew Turner and Community Board member Islay McLeod.

1.4       This report outlines the key changes the Hearings Panel is recommending to Council as a result of the submissions and hearings process on the proposed Dog Control Policy 2016 and proposed Dog Control Bylaw 2016.

 

Hearings Panel Recommendations

1.         That the Council adopt the Christchurch City Council Dog Control Policy 2016, as attached

2.         That the Council note the following changes to the Policy (as proposed):

a.         Re-ordering section 3, changing two subsections into notes, and clarifying the meaning of 'under effective control'.

b.         Improving the wording relating to dog registration classifications in section 4.

c.         Clarifying the wording in relation to the registration of working dogs and introducing a new working dog category (rural working dogs) in section 4.

d.         Replacing the wording relating to 'under effective control' in section 6.

e.         Extending the summer beach prohibition period from '1 December to 1 March' to '1 November to 31 March' on all specified beaches and adding one new beach and one previously removed beach on Banks Peninsula in section 6.

f.          Clarifying the description of 'road' and improving the wording relating to 'boat ramps and slipways' in section 6.

g.         Adding a paragraph about exercising care when taking children into Dog Parks in section 7.

h.         Amending the licence to own multiple dogs to refer to 'more than two dogs' and adding information about the purpose of the licence in section 8.

i.          Improving the wording relating to 'barking dogs', adding a new subsection on 'female dogs in season', and adding new information to the subsection 'learning how to be a good dog owner' in section 9.

3.         Making various amendments to the prohibited and leashed dog control areas in Schedule 1 to the Policy, including: -

a.         Deleting entries for: Balmoral Hill, Hoon Hay Scenic Reserve and Skellerup Reserve

b.         Altering the dog control status of entries for: Pony Point (leashed / under effective control), Hagley Park paths (leashed on sealed paths and two specified gravel paths) and Abberley Park (leashed / under effective control)

c.         Altering all entries with summer beach prohibition areas (change of dates)

d.         Clarifying the wording in the entries for: Akaroa Main Wharf, Britomart Reserve, Lake Forsyth, Cass Bay, Corsair Bay, , Governor's Bay mudflats, Sandy Bay beach, Mountfort Park, Ernle Clark Reserve, Jubilee Walkway, Southshore Spit Reserve and foreshore, Godley Head foreshore, Styx Mill Reserve, Roto Kohatu Regional Park, Halswell Quarry and Riccarton Bush

e.         Reinstating entries proposed for removal for: Akaroa Seaside Reserve (leashed), Rue Balguerie Reserve (leashed),  Paradise Bay beach (summer beach prohibition), the Groynes (prohibited / leashed / under effective control)

f.          Adding new entries for: Daly's Wharf (leashed), Lyttelton Recreation Ground (leashed), Diamond Harbour jetty (leashed), Head to Head walkway coastal track from Magazine Bay to Pony Point (leashed) and Hays Bay beach (summer beach prohibition)

g.         Other technical changes and corrections as shown in the attached policy.

4.         That the Council declares, under section 4 of the Dog Control Act 1996 and the section 2 definition of working dog, the following to be a classification of working dog (known as 'rural working dog') for the purposes of the Dog Control Act 1996 and the Council's Dog Control Policy and Dog Control Bylaw:

A dog which is

a.         housed on a working farm property; and

b.         that is kept solely or principally to contribute to the working of a farm or otherwise assist in farming activities.

5.         That the form of the Christchurch City Council Dog Control Policy 2016 meets the requirements of section 10 of the Dog Control Act 1996, and that the Council has had regard to the matters in section 10(4) of that Act.

6.         That the Christchurch City Council Dog Control Policy 2016 comes into force on 1 September 2016 and at that time revokes and replaces the Dog Control Policy 2008.

7.         That the Council adopt the Christchurch City Council Dog Control Bylaw 2016, as attached,

8.         That the Council note the following changes to the Bylaw (as proposed):

a.         Amending the definitions of "road" and "under effective control", and adding a new definition of "short leash" in clause 4.

b.         Improving the wording of clause 5(1), and changing clause 5(4) into an explanatory note.

c.         Changing clause 7(2) into an explanatory note, and extending the summer beach prohibition period from '1 December to 1 March' to '1 November to 31 March'

d.         Improving the explanatory notes relating to clauses 8(C) and 8(F)

e.         Improving the wording of clauses 10(A) and 10(B).

f.          Amending clause 11 to provide that it applies to more than two dogs.

g.         Reinstating a clause on female dogs in season, with new wording.

h.         Adding a new subclause to provide an exception for working dogs that are being worked whilst on the open tray of a vehicle.

i.          Other technical changes and corrections as shown in the attached bylaw.

9.         That the form of the Christchurch City Council Dog Control Bylaw 2016 is the most appropriate form, and that the bylaw is not inconsistent with the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990.

10.       That the Christchurch City Council Dog Control Bylaw 2016 comes into force on 1 September 2016.

11.       That staff are otherwise authorised to make any typographical changes or correct minor errors as the case may be before the Bylaw and Policy come into force.

12.       That the Council give public notice as soon as practicable, that the Christchurch City Council Dog Control Policy 2016 and the Christchurch City Council Dog Control Bylaw 2016 have been made by the Council, that they come into effect on 1 September 2016 and that copies of the policy and bylaw may be inspected and obtained at the Council’s offices or on its website, without payment.

13.       Revoke the 'Responsible Dog Owner Status Policy 1997 ' and remove it from the Council's policy register and webpages

14.       That the concerns about the speed of cyclists on paths in Hagley Park made in submissions be referred to the Police so that they are aware of the issues and can look at public education or enforcement in these areas and along the cycleways network and other shared paths generally.

15.       That the Parks Unit facilitates the design and installation of Dog Park signage, in consultation with the Animal Management Unit.

16.       That the Parks Unit facilitates the design and installation of consistent and easy to understand signage (including maps where possible) about leashed and prohibited areas across the district.

 

2.   Key Points

2.1       Attached is a staff summary of submissions to the Proposed Dog Control Policy and Bylaw. A total of 256 submissions were received and overall, submissions were very supportive of the proposals. 235 submitters completed a submission questionnaire. Of these, 72 per cent identified as dog owners. Three submissions were made by Community Boards. Nine group submissions were made - three from organisations, one from a residents association, three from dog-related businesses and two from small community groups. 13 non-questionnaire based submissions were made by individuals and 229 people took part in rapid surveys.

2.2       The Hearings Panel considered all of the submissions received and heard 12 verbal submissions on 5 April 2016. The Hearings Panel began deliberations on 6 and 8 April 2016 and concluded on 20 May 2016. The key themes discussed included:

·   Means of disposal of fouling.

·     The Hearings Panel recommends keeping the proposal as consulted on.

·     In response to comments on the provision and emptying of rubbish bins (particularly in the central city, but also in a number of park areas) the Panel deferred to good systems already in place for staff and contractors to monitor bin locations and emptying frequencies. Requests for new bins or issues with existing bins should go through the Council Contact Centre.


 

·     The Hearings Panel received some information from staff in response to submitters asking about biodegradable options. Plastic bags placed in red wheelie bins or Council rubbish bins is the most hygienic way to dispose of dog faeces. Biodegradable options do not break down quickly enough and can create environmental health hazards.

·    The definition of "under effective control".

·     The Hearings Panel recommends altering the proposal as consulted on.

·     The Panel agreed on a new definition that relates to being aware of where a dog is and what it is doing, ensuring a dog is responsive to commands, and that the dog is not creating a nuisance.

·   The issue of a license to own two or more dogs.

·     The Hearings Panel recommends keeping the proposal as consulted on in relation to extending the requirement to seek a license to the Banks Peninsula area, and only to properties smaller than one hectare (10,000m²) across the whole district.

·     The Hearings Panel recommends altering the proposal as consulted on in relation to the trigger for requiring a licence - agreeing that the wording should be amended to "more than two dogs", rather than "two or more dogs".

·     The rationale for requiring a licence has been added to the policy wording: "The purpose of the licence is to minimise the potential for issues associated with having too many dogs on small properties, and where neighbours are in close proximity."

·   Dog registration category - rural working dogs

·     The Hearings Panel is recommending that the Council introduce a new dog registration category called 'rural working dogs' that would apply to dogs that are housed on a working farm and that are kept solely or principally to contribute to the working of a farm or otherwise assist in farming activities.

·   Keeping dogs leashed within one metre of shared pathways in Hagley Park.

·     The Hearings Panel recommends altering the proposal as consulted on.

·     Rather than the leashed requirement applying to all paths in Hagley Park (whether sealed or not), the Panel agreed that the leash requirement should only apply to sealed pathways and to two specific high-use gravel pathways in Hagley Park.

·     If dog walkers use the paths they must keep the dog on a short leash - a new definition for 'short leash' was agreed by the Panel and has been added to the bylaw.

·     The speed of cyclists using paths in Hagley Park was raised by many submitters. The Hearings Panel agreed to recommend to the Council that these concerns be passed to the Police as they have a role in enforcing cycle safety.

·   Dogs in the CBD and New Brighton

·     The Hearings Panel recommends keeping the proposals as consulted on.

·     They note that dogs have always been permitted in the majority of the central city area, and that the proposal was to lift the prohibition in four specific areas and allow dogs on a leash in these areas i.e. in Cathedral Square, Victoria Square, Cashel Mall and New Regent Street.

·     The situation in New Brighton Pedestrian Mall was seen as similar to that of the central city, and the Panel is recommending going ahead as proposed (lifting the prohibition and putting in a leashed requirement in place).

·   Restrictions in Akaroa

·     The Hearings Panel recommends keeping the proposals as consulted on.

·     The Hearings Panel also recommends re-instating some small beach-side areas to require dogs to be on a leash around the Akaroa beach prohibition area (Rue Balguerie Reserve and Akaroa Seaside Recreation Reserve).

·     The Panel is also recommending requiring dogs to be on a leash on Daly's Wharf (new), on Akaroa's Main Wharf (existing), and also on Diamond Harbour Wharf (new), as these wharves are often busy and are used by locals, tourists and commercial operators.

·   Summer Beach Prohibition Areas

·     The Hearings Panel recommends changing the Summer Beach Prohibition Area as proposed.  This prohibition applies in specified beaches around the district that are used for swimming and recreation activities.

·     The Hearings Panel recommends extending the dates from '1 December to 1 March', to '1 November to 31 March' each year, while keeping the hours the same (between 9am and 7pm). The existing exemption would continue to apply during these times, allowing people to walk through these areas with their dog, as long as the dog is on a short leash and they are passing directly through the area.

·     The Hearings Panel considered alternatives such as the daylight savings period or up until Easter, however they agreed that exact dates would be easier for the public to reference. The new dates align with surf lifesaving operations and the peak times when beaches are likely to be in use. Signage will need to be replaced in affected areas.

·   Consideration of new summer beach prohibition areas - Hays Bay and Church Bay beaches (and the reinstatement of Paradise Bay beach)

·     The Hearings Panel agreed to further investigate new summer beach prohibition areas in Hays Bay and Church Bay, and to consider reinstating an existing summer beach prohibition area in Paradise Beach that was proposed for removal. These were raised in the Lyttelton Mt Herbert Community Board submission, as well as in another submission.

·     Staff undertook some rapid consultation with local residents associations and the reserve management committee, and reported to the Hearings Panel that there was:

         strong opposition to introducing a new summer beach prohibition area in Church Bay, and

         mixed, but generally supportive views on a new Hays Bay summer beach prohibition area and on reinstating the Paradise Bay summer beach prohibition area.

·     The Hearings Panel has therefore recommended not introducing a new summer beach prohibition area in Church Bay, introducing a new summer beach prohibition area in Hays Bay and reinstituting the summer beach prohibition area in Paradise Beach.

·   Prohibited and leashed areas - tables rearranged


 

·     Given the recent outcome of the Representation Review and the seven new community board areas (which will come into effect in October 2016), the Panel also asked staff to rearrange the tables setting out the prohibited and leashed areas in the policy away from the current community board area groupings, and into a new geographically grouped order.

2.3       Other minor changes were also made to the policy and bylaw, as indicated in the recommendations section of this report and in the attached documents. Staff also recommended a series of technical improvements and corrections to the wording of the policy and bylaw, and the Hearings Panel accepted these.  They have been incorporated into the attached policy and bylaw documents, and notable changes are indicated in the recommendations section of this report.

2.4       The Hearings Panel also recommends revoking the 'Responsible Dog Owner Status Policy 1997 ' and removing it from the Council's policy register and webpages.  The Responsible Dog Owner Status Policy was adopted by Council on 24 September 1997.  It covers the application criteria and conditions required for dog owners to seek and hold Responsible Dog Owner status for dog registration purposes. The policy wording has been updated and included in the proposed new, wider Dog Control Policy 2016 (under the section on Dog Registration).  This is a more appropriate place for the application criteria and conditions, rather than in a standalone policy.

3.   Legal Considerations

 

3.1       A bylaw hearing panel has no decision-making powers but in accordance with its delegation, considers written and oral submissions and makes recommendations to the Council. The Council can then accept or reject those recommendations as it sees fit, bearing in mind that the Local Government Act 2002 requires that “the views presented to the local authority should be received by the local authority with an open mind and should be given by the local authority, in making a decision, due consideration” (s.82(e)). 

3.2       The final decision-maker should put itself in as good a position as the Hearings Panel having heard and read the submissions.  This report discusses the submissions that were made and the written submissions are available to be viewed in the Hearings Panel Agenda: http://resources.ccc.govt.nz/files/annualplan/BLHP_20160405_AGN_921_AT.pdf.

3.3       The Legal Services Unit considers that the form of the Policy meets the requirements of section 10 of the Dog Control Act 1996.  The Legal Services Unit also considers that the form of the Bylaw, as proposed in this report, is the most appropriate form, and that the Bylaw is not inconsistent with the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990 (in accordance with section 155 of the Local Government 2002). The Hearings Panel has made recommendations to this effect.

 

 

Attachments

No.

Title

Page

a

Summary of Submissions

322

b

Revised Dog Control Bylaw 2016  (FINAL June 2016)

349

c

Revised Dog Control Policy 2016 (FINAL June 2016)

356

 

 

Signatories

Authors

Christopher Turner

Teena Crocker

Committee Advisor

Senior Policy Analyst

Approved By

David East

Councillor

  


Council

23 June 2016

 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


Council

23 June 2016

 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


Council

23 June 2016

 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


Council

23 June 2016

 

 

24     Te Waihora Co-Governance Group membership

Reference:

16/221730

Contact:

Diane Shelander

diane.shelander@ccc.govt.nz

941 8304

 

 

1.   Purpose and Origin of Report

Purpose of Report

1.1       The purpose of this report is to recommend that the Council join the Te Waihora Co-Governance Group and appoint the Council's representative.

Origin of Report

1.2       This report is in response to a request from the Mayor for staff advice on the invitation.

2.   Significance

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

2.1.1   The level of significance was determined based on the significance criteria used by the Council.

2.1.2   The community engagement and consultation was not required.

 

3.   Staff Recommendations

That the Council:

1.         Join the Te Waihora Co-Governance Group

2.         Appoint the Council's representative to the Te Waihora Co-Governance Group

 

 

4.   Key Points

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

4.1.1   Activity: Strategic Planning and  Policy

·     Level of Service: 17.0.30 Provision of strategic advice on the natural environment issues facing the city

4.2       The following feasible options have been considered:

·     Option 1 - Join the Te Waihora Co-Governance Group as a member (preferred option)

·     Option 2 – Continue to maintain observer status in Te Waihora Co-Governance Group

·     Option 3 – Decline to participate in the Te Waihora Co-Governance Group as either observer or full member

4.3       Option Summary - Advantages and Disadvantages (Preferred Option)

4.3.1   The advantages of this option include:

·     Demonstrates to partners, stakeholders and the public the Council’s interest in an importance natural resource that partially sits within the Council’s jurisdictional boundary

·     Participation in governance decision-making on Te Waihora/Lake Ellesmere matters

·     Aligns with the Council's Biodiversity Strategy, Surface Water Strategy, and Public Open Space Strategy

·     Supports Council's obligations under the Local Government Act.

4.3.2   The disadvantages of this option include:

·     There may be some impact of staff and/or elected members due to the need to attend meetings and/or related activities.  However it is not anticipated that the demand on staff and/or elected member's time would be significant.

·     There may be an expectation of funding beyond current Council work programmes to support the Whakaora Te Waihora programme.

 

5.   Context/Background

Introduction

5.1       In November 2015 Christchurch City Council was invited to attend the 18 December 2015 meeting of the Te Waihora Co-Governance Group (Co-Governance Group).  The invitation was in recognition of the fact that approximately one-third of Te Waihora/Lake Ellesmere is within Christchurch's boundary and that the upper portion of the Halswell River, which drains into the lake, is within Christchurch.

·   The Mayor attended the 18 December 2015 Co-Governance Group meeting as an observer.

·   On 21 December the Mayor requested the Chief Executive to advise what the next steps would be in advance of the Council’s membership in the co-governance group.

·   The next two meetings of the Co-Governance Group, held on 4 March 2016 and 29 April 2016, were attended by Councillors Scandrett and Cotter respectively as observers.  

History

5.2       The Te Waihora Co-Governance Group was formed in 2010, as a formal agreement between Environment Canterbury and Ngāi Tahu.  It was expanded in 2014 to include Selwyn District Council.

5.3       The purpose of the co-governance group is to “provide for an enduring, collaborative relationship between the Parties that includes shared exercise of functions, duties and powers under the Resource Management Act 1991 and the Local Government Act 2002.”

·   The current agreement is attached as Attachment A.

·   A map of the Te Waihora/Lake Ellesmere catchment is attached as Attachment B.

5.4       A significant programme of work began in 2012 under a joint programme with the co-governance parties and the Crown.  Section 4.9 of the co-governance agreement states:

“The Parties have also jointly contracted with the Crown, in the spirit of co-governance, to an accelerated cultural and ecosystem restoration programme in the catchment known as Whakaora Te Waihora.”

5.5       The first phase of Whakaora Te Waihora was a three-year $11 million work programme jointly funded by central government, Environment Canterbury, Fonterra and Te Rūnanga o Ngāi Tahu to undertake ecosystem restoration.

5.6       Phase two of Whakaora Te Waihora is a 10-year work programme for 2016 to 2026.  Environment Canterbury and Te Rūnanga o Ngāi Tahu are exploring a variety of options to fund the programme, including co-funding arrangements with central government, private investment, and alternative regional council funding models.

5.7       A number of Christchurch City Council initiatives are contributing to improvement in lake water quality and ecosystem restoration.

Land ownership - lake and its margins

5.8       Virtually all of the lake bed is owned by Ngai Tahu. Much of the land along the perimeter of the lake within Christchurch's boundary is public land, most of which is managed by Environment Canterbury.

5.9       The Council owns 412 hectares adjoining the lakes margin on Kaitorete Spit and approximately 15 hectares of lakeside wetland beside the Rail Trail at Kaituna. 

5.10    Slightly less than 30 percent of the lake edge on the eastern side of the lake is privately owned.

5.11    Land management areas are shown in Attachment B.

Current Council activities

5.12    The Council has undertaken and continues to undertake a number of initiatives that relate directly to the aims, goals, objective and vision of the Te Waihora Co-Governance group.  Some of these activities entail significant investments in Council resources.

5.13    These include but are not limited to:

·   Christchurch District Plan.  The council has responsibility for the management of approximately one third of the lake pursuant to the Resource Management Act.  In giving effect to the purposes of the Act Council has had particular regard to the concept of kaitiakitanga. This has been provided for in the District Plan through zoning policy, rules and provisions such to protect the outstanding natural landscapes.

·   Halswell River vision and values.  The Halswell River vision and values document focuses on the headwaters of the Huritini/Halswell River.  The document describes the variety of programmes and projects the Council has underway and could undertake to better manage all waterways in the catchment and to restore ecosystem function.  The document outlines a suite of approaches to mitigate impacts of stormwater, reduce pollutants in the catchment and enhance ecological value.

·   Halswell River stormwater management plan.  The purpose of the Halswell River stormwater management plan is “management of stormwater in the Huritini/Halswell River catchment area located in south-west of Christchurch … particularly how healthy waterways will be protected and how degraded waterways will be enhanced.“   The plan’s objectives “have been developed to prevent further degradation of surface water quality and ecological values in the short term and to improve water quality and ecological value.”

·   Lake Opening Protocol Group.  The Council is a member of the Lake Opening Protocol Group, which also includes Ngāi Tahu, Environment Canterbury, Te Taumutu Rūnanga, Department of Conservation, Selwyn District Council, the Rating District Liaison Committee, Waihora Ellesmere Trust, North Canterbury Fish and Game Council, Lake Ellesmere Commercial Fishermen’s Association, with Waihora Ellesmere Trust as key advisor. This group assists Ngāi Tahu and Environment Canterbury identify when the lake should be opened or closed to the sea to control lake levels to benefit the various values of the lake.

·   Te Waihora Agencies Group.  This is a staff/technical group comprising representatives from Christchurch City Council, Environment Canterbury, Ngāi Tahu, Selwyn District Council, Department of Conservation, Ministry of Primary Industries, the Canterbury District Health Board and the Selwyn-Waihora Zone Committee with meetings facilitated by the Waihora Ellesmere Trust. The group, which meets quarterly, provides information and status reports on each participating agency's programmes to the Te Waihora Co-Governance Group. 

Current and planned Council funding

5.14    The Council has current and planned operational activities and capital works that align with the Whakaora Te Waihora programme.

5.15    This financial year $210,000 is being spent on re-modelling flood scenarios across the city, of which the Halswell catchment is a part. This work will inform the implementation of the Halswell stormwater management plan.

5.16    A suite of capital works totalling around $30.5 million are planned in the Halswell catchment as part of the implementation of the Halswell stormwater management plan from financial years 2016 to 2025.

5.17    Current operational funding that contributes to the Whakaora Te Waihora programme includes the following, at approximately $20,000 annually:

·   Rail Trail and Kaitorete Te Waihora edge pest control activities

·   annual Te Waihora bird survey and annual wader survey within the Council’s jurisdictional area

·   maintenance of fencing around Kaituna reserve

·   support to the Te Waihora Agency Group and Lake Margin Working Group.

5.18    Operational capital expenses over the last five years totalled approximately $52,000 for pest control traps and installation of fencing.

6.   Option 1 - Joining Te Waihora Co-Governance Group (preferred)

Option Description

6.1       Christchurch City Council has been invited to join Environment Canterbury, Ngāi Tahu and Selwyn District Council as a member of the Te Waihora Co-Governance Group.

6.2       The Te Waihora Governance Group was formed:

·   Because councils and Ngāi Tahu hold statutory and customary responsibilities respectively for the Te Waihora catchment;

·   To implement a goal in the Canterbury Water Management Strategy for a formal co-governance arrangement to manage the lake and its catchment;

·   In alignment with the principles of the Treaty of Waitangi, sections 6 through 8 of the Resource Management Act 1991, and parts 2 and 6 of the Local Government Act 2002.

6.3       The co-governance agreement sets out the purpose and responsibilities of the co-governance group (Attachment A).

Significance

6.4       The level of significance of this option is low consistent with section 2 of this report.  Engagement for this option was not considered to be required.

Impact on Mana Whenua

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

Alignment with Council Plans and Policies

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

Financial Implications

6.6.1   Cost of Implementation - It is anticipated that costs would be within existing budgets, assuming that the current work programmes are deemed in-kind resourcing for the Whakaora Te Waihora programme.

6.6.2   Maintenance / Ongoing Costs - It is not anticipated that there would be extra costs associated with this option.

Legal Implications

6.7       Not applicable

Risks and Mitigations

6.8       Approximately one-third of the area of the lake is within Christchurch's jurisdictional boundaries.  In addition, the head of the Halswell River, which drains into the lake, is within Christchurch, as are several streams along southern Banks Peninsula that also drain into the lake.  As such it is reasonable for the public to expect that the Council would accept the offer to join the co-governance group.

6.9       The lake and its management are of high importance to Ngai Tahu.  Lake and contributing catchment water quality issues are regionally important and of significant media interest. There is national level support for coordinated management initiatives that enhance the environmental quality of the lake.  Failure by the Council to partner with the Region, Selwyn District and Ngai Tahu to find solutions for a nationally important area partially within Christchurch district is likely to be perceived unfavourably by Ngai Tahu and at regional and national level.

6.10    There is a risk that there might be an expectation that the Council would provide funding for the Whakaora Te Waihora programme beyond what the Council has undertaken and committed to in its current work programmes in the event that the Council joins the Te Waihora Co-Governance Group.  However, given that the Council can demonstrate that there is already an investment in current operations and future capital investments that align well with the Whakaora Te Waihora programme, it is considered that the risk is negligible.

Implementation

6.11    Implementation dependencies  - not applicable

6.12    Implementation timeframe - not applicable

Option Summary - Advantages and Disadvantages

6.13    The advantages of this option include:

·   Demonstrates to partners, stakeholders and the public the Council’s interest in an importance natural resource that partially sits within the Council’s jurisdictional boundary;

·   Participation in governance decision-making on Te Waihora/Lake Ellesmere matters;

·   Aligns with the Council's Biodiversity Strategy, Surface Water Strategy, and Public Open Space Strategy;

·   Supports Council's obligations under the Local Government Act.

6.14    The disadvantages of this option include:

·   There may be some impact of staff and/or elected members due to the need to attend meetings and/or related activities.  However it is not anticipated that the demand on staff and/or elected member's time would be significant.

·   There may be an expectation of funding beyond current Council work programmes to support the Whakaora Te Waihora programme.

7.   Option 2 - Maintaining observer status on Te Waihora Co-Governance Group

Option Description

7.1       Under this option the Council would decline full membership in the Te Waihora Co-Governance Group and continue to maintain its observer status.

Significance

7.2       The level of significance of this option is low consistent with section 2 of this report.  Engagement for this option was not considered to be required.

Impact on Mana Whenua

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

Alignment with Council Plans and Policies

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

Financial Implications

7.5       Cost of Implementation - Not applicable

7.6       Maintenance / Ongoing Costs - Not applicable

Legal Implications

7.7       Not applicable

Risks and Mitigations

7.8       The lake and its management are of high importance to Ngai Tahu.  Lake and contributing catchment water quality issues are regionally important and of significant media interest. There is national level support for co-ordinated management initiatives that enhance the environmental quality of the lake.  Failure by the Council to partner with Environment Canterbury, Selwyn District and Ngai Tahu to find solutions for a nationally important area partially within Christchurch district is likely to be perceived unfavourably by Ngai Tahu and at regional and national level.

Implementation

7.9       Implementation dependencies  - not applicable

7.10    Implementation timeframe - not applicable

Option Summary - Advantages and Disadvantages

7.11    The advantages of this option include:

·   There may be avoidance of some demand on Council resources because the Council is not participating as a full member of the co-governance group.  However participation at the current level, as an observer, does include staff and elected member time and resources.

·   The Council could continue to undertake a number of initiatives with respect to the lake and its management.

7.12    The disadvantages of this option include:

·   A perception that the Council is viewing the catchment management on a governance level at arm’s length.  Both Environment Canterbury and Ngai Tahu jointly invited the Council to join the co-governance group as a full member. 

8.   Option 3 – Decline participation in Te Waihora Co-Governance Group

Option Description

8.1       Under this option the Council would decline participation in the Te Waihora Co-Governance Group.

Significance

8.2       The level of significance of this option is low consistent with section 2 of this report.  Engagement for this option was not considered to be required.

Impact on Mana Whenua

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

Alignment with Council Plans and Policies

8.4       This option is not consistent with Council’s Plans and Policies, in particular the Council’s Surface Water Strategy.

Financial Implications

8.5       Cost of Implementation - Not applicable

8.6       Maintenance / Ongoing Costs - Not applicable

Legal Implications

8.7       Not applicable

Risks and Mitigations

8.8       The lake and its management are of high importance to Ngai Tahu.  Lake and contributing catchment water quality issues are regionally important and of significant media interest. There is national level support for co-ordinated management initiatives that enhance the environmental quality of the lake.  Failure by the Council to partner with the Region, Selwyn District and Ngai Tahu to find solutions for a nationally important area partially within Christchurch district is likely to be perceived unfavourably by Ngai Tahu and at regional and national level.

Implementation

8.9       Implementation dependencies  - not applicable

8.10    Implementation timeframe - not applicable

Option Summary - Advantages and Disadvantages

8.11    The advantages of this option include:

·   There may be avoidance of some demand on Council resources because the Council is not participating as a full member of the co-governance group. 

·   The Council is already undertaking a number of initiatives with respect to the lake and its management, which it would continue to do whether or not the Council joins the co-governance group.

8.12    The disadvantages of this option include:

·   May be perceived as a reluctance to engage in Te Waihora catchment management matters on a governance level.  Both Environment Canterbury and Ngai Tahu have indicated a strong interest in the Council participating in the co-governance group. 

·     Does not align with elected members’ stated intent to maintain some degree of involvement with the co-governance group.

 

 

Attachments

No.

Title

Page

a

Te Waihora Co-Governance Agreement December 2014

399

b

Te Waihora area map

421

 

 

Confirmation of Statutory Compliance

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

(a) This report contains:

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

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

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

 

Signatories

Authors

Diane Shelander

Clive Appleton

Kelvin McMillan

Senior Policy Analyst

Team Leader Natural Environment