Christchurch City Council

Agenda

 

 

Notice of Meeting:

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

 

Date:                                     Thursday 15 September 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

 

 

9 September 2016

 

 

 

Principal Advisor

Dr Karleen Edwards

Chief Executive

Tel: 941 8554

 

Christopher Turner-Bullock

Committee Advisor

941 8233

christopher.turner@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

15 September 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

15 September 2016

 

TABLE OF CONTENTS

 

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

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

3.       Confirmation of Previous Minutes.......................................................................................... 4

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

4.1       Public Forum....................................................................................................................... 4

4.2       Deputations by Appointment............................................................................................... 4

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

Christchurch Civic Awards Subcommittee

6.       Christchurch Civic Awards Subcommittee Minutes - 22 August 2016............................... 29

Strategy and Finance Committee

7.       Statements of Intent 2017-19 - Christchurch City Holdings Limited and subsidiaries and Canterbury Development Corporation Holdings Ltd and subsidaries............................... 33

8.       Corporate Finance Report for the period ending 30 June 2016....................................... 223

9.       Strategy and Finance Committee Minutes - 18 August 2016............................................ 233

STAFF REPORTS

10.     Vehicle Windscreen Washers 12 month report................................................................. 241

11.     Multicultural Strategy Update............................................................................................. 245

12.     Intersection Improvement: Cashmere / Hoon Hay / Worsleys......................................... 251

13.     Rates Remission Consideration for South Awatea............................................................. 263

14.     Establish a Health and Safety Committee of Council........................................................ 269

15.     Lyttelton Design Review Panel - Correction of an Administration Error......................... 273

16.     Resolution to Exclude the Public......................................................................................... 275  

 

 

 


Council

15 September 2016

 

 

1.   Apologies

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

2.   Declarations of Interest

Members are reminded of the need to be vigilant 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

The minutes of the Council meeting held on Thursday, 8 September 2016 will be confirmed at the Council meeting on 22 September 2016.

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 Presentation of Petitions at the time the agenda was prepared.  


Council

15 September 2016

 

 

6.        Christchurch Civic Awards Subcommittee Minutes - 22 August 2016

Reference:

16/1018182

Contact:

Yani Johanson

Yani.johanson@ccc.govt.nz

9418999

 

 

1.   Purpose of Report

The Christchurch Civic Awards Subcommittee held a meeting on 22 August 2016 and is circulating the Minutes recorded to the Council for its information.

 

2.   Recommendation to Council

That the Council receives the Minutes from the Christchurch Civic Awards Subcommittee meeting held 22 August 2016.

 

 

Attachments

No.

Title

Page

A

Minutes Christchurch Civic Awards Subcommittee - 22 August 2016

30

 

 

Signatories

Author

Petrea Downey - Committee Advisor

  


Council

15 September 2016

 


 



Council

15 September 2016

 

Report from Strategy and Finance Committee  – 18 August 2016

 

7.        Statements of Intent 2017-19 - Christchurch City Holdings Limited and subsidiaries and Canterbury Development Corporation Holdings Ltd and subsidaries

Reference:

16/1000000

Contact:

Patricia Christie

Patricia.christie@ccc.govt.nz

941 8113

 

 

 

 

1.  Staff and Strategy and Finance Committee Recommendation to Council

 

Part A

         That Council:

1.      Accepts the 2017-2019 Statement of Intent for Christchurch City Holdings Ltd; and

2.      Notes the 2017-2019 Statements of Intent for Christchurch City Holdings Ltd’s subsidiaries:

·     Orion New Zealand Ltd

·     Christchurch International Airport Ltd

·     Lyttelton Port Company Ltd

·     Enable Services Ltd

·     City Care Ltd

·     Red Bus Ltd

·     EcoCentral Ltd

·     Development Christchurch Ltd

3.    Accepts the 2017-2019 Statement of Intent for Canterbury Development Corporation Holdings Ltd (including Canterbury Development Corporation Ltd); and

         4.   Notes the 2017-2019 Statement of Intent for Canterbury Development Corporation Ltd’s   subsidiary CRIS Ltd.

 

 

Attachments

No.

Report Title

Page

1

Statements of Intent 2017-19 - Christchurch City Holdings Limited and subsidiaries and Canterbury Development Corporation Holdings Ltd and subsidaries

34

 

No.

Title

Page

a

Statements of Intent 2017-19 Christchurch City Holdings Ltd and subsidiaries and Canterbury Development Corporation Holdings Ltd and subsidiaries

39

 

 


Council

15 September 2016

 

 

Statements of Intent 2017-19 - Christchurch City Holdings Limited and subsidiaries and Canterbury Development Corporation Holdings Ltd and subsidaries

Reference:

16/781549

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 for the Strategy and Finance Committee to recommend that the Council accept the final Statement of Intents (SOI) for Christchurch City Holdings Limited (CCHL), its subsidiaries, Canterbury Development Corporation Holdings Ltd (CDCHL), (including Canterbury Development Corporation (CDC)) and CDC’s subsidiary CRIS Ltd for the period 2017 –2019.

Origin of Report

1.2       This report is staff generated to meet the requirements of clause 3(b) of Schedule 8 of the Local Government Act 2002 which requires Council Controlled Organisations (CCOs) to “deliver the completed statement of intent to the shareholders on or before 30 June each year”.

2.   Significance

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

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

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

 

Staff Recommendations

That the Strategy and Finance Committee recommends that the Council:

1.    Accepts the 2017-2019 Statement of Intent for Christchurch City Holdings Ltd; and

2.    Notes the 2017-2019 Statements of Intent for Christchurch City Holdings Ltd’s subsidiaries:

·    Orion New Zealand Ltd

·    Christchurch International Airport Ltd

·    Lyttelton Port Company Ltd

·    Enable Services Ltd

·    City Care Ltd

·    Red Bus Ltd

·    EcoCentral Ltd

·    Development Christchurch Ltd

3.    Accepts the 2017-2019 Statement of Intent for Canterbury Development Corporation Holdings Ltd (including Canterbury Development Corporation Ltd); and

4.    Notes the 2017-2019 Statement of Intent for Canterbury Development Corporation Ltd’s subsidiary CRIS Ltd.

 

 

3.   Key Points

CCHL, CDCHL and their subsidiaries’ final Statements of Intent

3.1       CCHL’s final SOI and the final SOIs for its subsidiaries are attached.  The final SOIs address the comments made by the Council on the draft SOIs, at its meeting on 28 April 2016 with one exception (discussed in Table 1 below, regarding Lyttelton Port Company Ltd).

3.2       The final SOIs for CDCHL (incorporating CDC) and CDC’s subsidiary CRIS Ltd are also attached.  The SOIs address the comments made by the Council on the draft documents, at its meeting on 28 April 2016.

Amended SOIs

3.3       Comments made by the Council on the draft SOIs for CCHL and its subsidiaries, and CDCHL and its subsidiaries, and the amendments made to address the comments are noted in Table 1 below. 

Table 1:  Shareholder comments on CCHL’s draft SOI – April 2016

Council comment on CCHL’s draft SOI

Amendment to CCHL’s draft SOI

All companies consider including within their SOIs a section which demonstrates what they plan to deliver to the city, both in terms of the Council’s documented Community Outcomes, support for the local community and how they will demonstrate environmental leadership.

CCHL has included a new objective “to promote the Council’s community outcomes of good governance, liveable city, strong communities, healthy environment and prosperous economy be reflected in the subsidiaries’ operating cultures”.

This requirement is reflected in each of the subsidiaries’ SOIs, some with more detail than others.  However, it provides a base upon which to seek improvements in subsequent years.

CCHL considers the inclusion of a new performance target to provide support to Development Christchurch Ltd (DCL) for its establishment phase.

The Council also sought more clarity on the establishment phase for DCL, when it will end and the subsequent reduction in CCHL dividends [to the Council].

CCHL has recorded its commitment to continue to provide funding support to DCL as directed by the Council of $3 million per annum for the next five years.

It also provides that it will report back to Council on a regular basis during the establishment and development phase of DCL.

Christchurch International Airport Ltd gives health and safety a higher priority in the SOI; and that wider outcomes be considered in terms of urban design and social outcomes regarding the property portfolio.

The SOI identifies a safety mission of ‘Protect our People’ focussing on a continuous journey of seeking to eliminate and manage three core risk areas – catastrophic risk, fatal risk, personal injury risk.

There are a number of references to urban design and social outcomes that have been included in the SOI relating to these requirements.  These include ensuring effective stewardship of the city’s airport asset and creating and maintaining an attractive and well-designed airport environment.  The Purpose Statement has been updated to reflect CIAL’s intent to make a significant contribution to the social and economic wellbeing of the communities and economies of Christchurch.

 


Lyttelton Port Company Ltd (LPC) gives community engagement a higher priority; the SOI stresses a commitment to achieving the outcomes directed by the Lyttelton Port Recovery Plan; and the SOI includes a higher priority to work with Antarctic programmes particularly as regards berthing of vessels.

LPC notes in its SOI that it regularly engages with, and values its relationships with Lyttelton and the wider Christchurch community.  It also specifies its ongoing community initiatives.

It has recorded its commitment to delivering its undertakings as agreed in the Lyttelton Port Recovery Plan.

LPC has not made any amendment or addition to its SOI regarding the Antarctic programmes.  It considers that it could not attain a higher priority threshold than the level it gives the programmes currently.  LPC notes that emphasis on the berthing of vessels could lead to it being required to prioritise an Antarctic vessel over one that was carrying essential cargo.

Canterbury Development Corporation’s SOI performance targets should include the levels of service that have been agreed with the Council as part of the Long Term Plan process and show the split between what is funded by the Council and by other entities.

The SOI notes the Council’s goal for the city in its Long Term Plan of a prosperous economy and identifies the community outcomes of Christchurch being a good place to do business, and having a strong economic base as being appropriate to its activities.

Levels of service that have been agreed with the Council as part of the Long Term Plan have been added to the SOI along with non-LTP levels of service.

 

CCHL’s SOI

3.4       CCHL’s SOI describes its objectives, and the nature and scope of its operations, its governance practices and financial performance targets for 2016/17, 2017/18 and 2018/19.  This largely relates to:

3.4.1   maximising shareholder value in the subsidiaries;

3.4.2   assisting the Council implement its capital release programme;

3.4.3   promoting the Council’s community outcomes of good governance, liveable city, strong communities, healthy environment and prosperous economy through the operating cultures of the subsidiaries;

3.4.4   supporting the establishment of DCL and its initial operations by providing equity of $3 million per annum for five years, at the Council’s request;

3.4.5   supporting the establishment and maintenance of resilient infrastructure in the city and region; and

3.4.6   promoting good corporate governance practice.

3.5       Table 2 presents CCHL’s key financial forecasts for 2016/17.  A comparison with actual results for 2014/15 is shown.  Financial results for 2015/16 have not yet been finalised.

Table 2:  Year-end financial results – 2016/17

Key performance measure

2016/17

Forecast

$m

2014/15

Actual

$m

Net profit after tax – subsidiaries

64.9

132.3

Net profit after tax – CCHL

58.2

68.8

Dividends from CCHL to Council

40.6

46.0

Total assets funded by debt/equity

Debt 28%

Equity 72%

Debt 25%

Equity 75%

 

3.6       CCHL’s forecast of its financial outcomes over the three year period of its SOI reflects the Council’s capital release programme of $600 million over four years.  This includes the effects of the $90 million already returned and the expectation at the time the SOI was prepared that City Care Ltd would be sold. 

3.7       With the Council’s recent decision not to sell City Care Ltd, options for meeting the capital release requirements are being considered. 

CCHL’s subsidiaries’ SOIs

3.8       The SOIs identify the nature and scope of activities for the subsidiaries within the CCHL group.  They are attached for noting as per the schedule at the end of this report.

3.9       The subsidiaries are owned by, and accountable to CCHL on behalf of the Council. Their SOIs have been reviewed and accepted by CCHL, in accordance with clause 3(b) of Schedule 8 of the Local Government Act 2002.

CDCHL’s and its subsidiaries’ SOIs

3.10    CDCHL is owned by the Council but the responsibility for exercising governance activities and requirements is held by CCHL under a Memorandum of Understanding with the Council.

3.11    The changes to the SOI following Councillors’ comments at its meeting on 28 April 2016 are noted in Table 1 on page 2.

 

4.   Context/Background

Schedule 8, Local Government Act 2002 – Statements of intent

4.1       CCHL, CDCHL and their subsidiaries have complied with clause 3 of schedule 8 of the Local Government Act 2002 having considered the comments made by the Council on the draft SOIs, amended them as they considered appropriate and delivered the final SOIs to shareholders by 30 June.   

4.2       Clause 4 of schedule 8 of the Local Government Act 2002 provides a process for modifying the SOI.  It is probable that CCHL may need to modify its SOI following the Council’s decision not to divest City Care Ltd.  To do so, the board must first give written notice to shareholders of the proposed modification and consider any comments made on the proposed modification by the shareholders within one month after the date on which the notice was given or any shorter period that the shareholders may agree.

4.3       Under a Memorandum of Understanding between the Council and CCHL, the latter is responsible for undertaking matters relating to monitoring and reporting, and general governance activities for CDCHL and its subsidiaries.

4.4       CCHL has been consulted in the preparation of this report.

 

 

Attachments

No.

Title

Page

a 

Statements of Intent 2017-19 Christchurch City Holdings Ltd and subsidiaries and Canterbury Development Corporation Holdings Ltd and subsidiaries

 

 

 

 

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

Linda Gibb - Performance Advisor

Patricia Christie - Manager External Reporting and Governance

Approved By

Diane Brandish - Head of Financial Management

Peter Gudsell - General Manager Finance and Commercial

 


Council

15 September 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


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

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

15 September 2016

 

Report from Strategy and Finance Committee  – 18 August 2016

 

8.        Corporate Finance Report for the period ending 30 June 2016

Reference:

16/1000092

Contact:

Patricia Christie and Steve Ballard

Patricia.christie@ccc.govt.nz       Steve.ballard@ccc.govt.nz

941 8113        941 8447

 

 

 

 

1.  Staff and Strategy and Finance Committee Recommendation to Council

 

Part A

That the Council

1.         Receives this report.

 

 

Attachments

No.

Report Title

Page

1

Corporate Finance Report for the period ending 30 June 2016

224

 

No.

Title

Page

a

Debt Written Off - Summary - 30 June 2016

232

 

 


Council

15 September 2016

 

 

Corporate Finance Report for the period ending 30 June 2016

Reference:

16/893315

Contact:

Patricia Christie Steve Ballard

Patricia.Christie@ccc.govt.nz Steve.ballard@ccc.govt.nz

941 8113 941 8447

 

 

1.   Purpose and Origin of Report

Purpose of Report

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

Origin of Report

1.2       This report is staff generated.

2.   Significance

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

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

 

3.   Staff Recommendations

That the Strategy and Finance Committee recommend to the Council that it receives this report.

 

 

 

4.   Key Points

Treasury Risk versus Policy Limits

4.1       Council's Net Debt for treasury risk management purposes is $713 million, $136 million lower than in June 2015.  Key movements over the year have been:

4.1.1   The February 2016 insurance settlement, which significantly increased cash holdings (and consequently lowered Net Debt).

4.1.2   Borrowing from Vbase Limited and Tuam Ltd – these subsidiaries have lent their insurance settlement to Council in order to obtain more favourable term deposit rates.  Most are expected to be repaid in 2016/17.

4.1.3   Continued growth in Council on-lending to Christchurch City Holdings Limited (CCHL), to fund Enable investments (up by $180.5 million over the year, to $388.5 million).


 

 

Current Debt and Investments versus June 2015

* Borrowing from Capital Endowment Fund (CEF) – ratepayer-funded interest is paid by Council to CEF, rather than CEF investing in low-returning external investments.  $31 million is still in external investments.

* Local Government Funding Agency (LGFA) Borrower Notes – Each time Council borrows from LGFA it must invest a small proportion into a matching LGFA Note to maintain LGFA’s required capital adequacy.

 

4.2       Treasury risk positions are within policy limits, except for interest rate re-pricing.  This temporary breach was approved at the 10 March 2016 Council meeting (details below).

Debtors

4.3       At 30 June 2016, the debtors' balance stood at $13.0 million, $11.9 million lower than reported in March 2016. The decrease is primary due to General Debtors which decreased by $12.3 million to $8.3 million at 30 June 2016. This change is due to a decrease in invoices for the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet from $10.1 million to $0.4 million and Vbase from $7.4 million to $4 million. This decrease in General Debtors was partially offset by a $1 million increase in Resource Management debt to $1.9 million.

4.4       Debts of $511,303 have been written-off for the year to 30 June 2016, compared to $220,643 for year to 30 June 2015. The significant increase is due to the write off of $367,329 owed by companies that have been placed into liquidation or receivership. Further detail is provided in paragraph 6.4 below.

 

5.   Treasury Report

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

Treasury Risk

Description

Short-Term Liquidity Risk

The risk of disrupted payments and/or increased cost of funding arising from having insufficient cash and committed borrowing facilities available to meet day-to-day operating and capital requirements.

Long-Term Funding Risk

The risk of un-budgeted costs arising from difficulty in accessing term borrowing when required.

Interest Rate Re-pricing Risk

The risk of adverse variation to budget, or unacceptable variability in interest costs from one year to the next, arising from movements in market interest rates.

Counterparty Credit Risk

The risk of financial loss arising from a counterparty's inability or unwillingness to make payments to Council as they fall due.

Policy Snapshot

Risk Area

Policy Compliance

Liquidity

Within

Funding

Within

Interest Rate Re-pricing

Breach

Counterparty Credit

Within

 

Short-term Liquidity Risk

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

5.2.1   Policy Limit - LGFA Liquidity Ratio* (must >110%)

  Within Limit

* Ratio is calculated as the sum of all three, divided by external debt
* Investments include Borrower Notes plus $29.5 million of realisable external CEF investments

 

Long-term Funding Risk

5.3       To ensure that debt maturities are spread so as to minimise re-financing risk in future years

5.3.1   Policy Limit (existing maturities only)

Within Limit

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

Notes:

5.4.1   Existing maturities (blue bars) include the maturity of internal borrowing from Vbase and Tuam Ltd ($117 million, mostly maturing in 2016/17).  The chart excludes $100 million of external debt maturing in 2027.

5.4.2   Expected new borrowings (green bars) total around $650 million over the period.

 

Interest Rate Re-pricing Risk

5.5       To ensure that debt maturities are spread so as to minimise re-financing risk in future years.

5.5.1   Policy Limits (chart)  Breach

Notes:

5.6       The blue & green lines represent Council’s expected Net Debt position as at 30 June each year.

5.7       The red bars show how much of this Net Debt is at contractually fixed rates as at 30 June each year.  This fixed-rate profile is in excess of Policy limits out to 2020, and there is an outright over-hedged position in 2018:

5.7.1   The breach has been caused by the significant fall in projected debt (the level of hedging has not changed since December 2014), and was approved at the 10 March 2016 Council meeting.

5.7.2   Management of the over-hedged position is a matter of on-going discussion with Council’s External Treasury Advisor (PricewaterhouseCoopers (PwC)).

5.7.3   Key variables in the debt profile going forward are the amount and timing of Capital Release (receipt of which will lower debt), and Council’s ability to deliver the capital programme (any under-spending of which will also lower debt).

 


 

Credit Risk

5.8       To minimise risk of loss due to a counterparty's inability or unwillingness to pay liabilities to Council.

Within Limit

Notes:

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

5.8.2   Additional credit limits were approved at the 10 March Council meeting, and are highlighted orange in the table.  These higher limits simplify the efficient investment of current cash balances, and will revert to normal limits from 1 July 2017.

 

6.   Debtors Report

Debtors' balance at 30 June 2016

6.1       At 30 June 2016, the debtors' balance stood at $13.0 million, $11.9 million lower than reported in March 2016.

6.1.1   The decrease is primary due to General Debtors which decreased by $12.3 million to $8.3 million at 30 June 2016. This decrease is due to a change in the amount owed by the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet from $10.1 million to $0.4 million and Vbase Limited from $7.4 million to $4.0 million. This decrease in General Debtors was partially offset by a $1 million increase in Resource Management debt to $1.9 million. All other categories remained largely unchanged.

6.2       The significant debtors within the General Debtors balance of $13 million include Vbase and the Christchurch Earthquake Appeal Trust. These two debtors account for approximately $4.8 million of the balance. These amounts have since been paid.

 

 

 

Overdue Debtors

6.3       Overdue debtors, (older than 92 days), have increased by $0.16 million to $0.92 million (7.08 per cent of total debt compared to 3.05 per cent reported in March 2016).This is covered in more detail in the Overdue Debtors report in the PX Agenda.

 

Debts Written off

6.4       Debts of $511,303 have been written-off for the year to 30 June 2016, compared to $220,643 for year to 30 June 2015. The detail is below:

6.5       Sundry debtors written off for June 2016 include $9,862 of internal staff time which was written off a long overdue debt of $26,862 as part of a negotiated settlement. The invoice was for damage created by a contractor in decommissioning an artesian well.

6.6       The significant increase in debt written off compared to the same period in 2016 relates to the $367,329 owed by companies that have been placed into liquidation or receivership.  These debts were written off following Council approval with the majority being provided for at 30 June 2015.  A summary report is provided in Attachment A.

 

6.6.1   The companies who have had debts written off due to liquidation or receivership are:

Highfield Park Limited

$111,340.44

Global Developments (NZ) Limited

$190,706.72

Williams & Co Limited

$7,867.45

Christchurch Yarns NZ Limited

$20,818.04

Containers Direct

$255.00

Sanders Limited

$16.00

Bruce Buchanan Limited

$1,171.81

Serra Natural Foods Limited

$10,528.12

Global Developments 511 Madras Street Limited

$22,938.00

TJ & JBG Limited

$186.88

PBC Developments Limited

$795.50

LTM Contracting Limited

$705.44

 

6.7       The main reason for the write-off of residential rents continues to be that debtors cannot be located. 

6.8       The library debt written off comprises a large number of relatively small amounts where debtors cannot be located and/or the individual debt is considered to be uneconomical to collect.  This reflects the cost associated with the Libraries current lending policy which allows customers to borrow up to 30 books at a time.  A review has been requested through Internal Audit to ensure that proper process is being followed.

 

 

 

Attachments

No.

Title

Page

a 

Debt Written Off - Summary - 30 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

Authors

Steve Ballard - Manager Funds and Financial Policy

Patricia Christie - Manager External Reporting and Governance

Andrea Olsen - Financial Accountant

Approved By

Diane Brandish - Head of Financial Management

Peter Gudsell - General Manager Finance and Commercial

 


Council

15 September 2016

 

 

 

PDF Creator


Council

15 September 2016

 

 

9.        Strategy and Finance Committee Minutes - 18 August 2016

Reference:

16/1006822

Contact:

Margaret Henderson

Margaret.henderson@ccc.govt.nz

941 8185

 

 

1.   Purpose of Report

The Strategy and Finance Committee held a meeting on 18 August 2016 and is circulating the Minutes recorded to the Council for its information.

 

2.   Recommendation to Council

That the Council receives the Minutes from the Strategy and Finance Committee meeting held on    18 August 2016.

 

 

Attachments

No.

Title

Page

A

Minutes Strategy and Finance Committee - 18 August 2016

234

 

 

Signatories

Author

Margaret Henderson - Committee Advisor

  


Council

15 September 2016

 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


Council

15 September 2016

 

 

10.    Vehicle Windscreen Washers 12 month report

Reference:

16/968288

Contact:

Claire Bryant

claire.bryant@ccc.govt.nz

8876

 

 

1.   Purpose and Origin of Report

Purpose of Report

1.1       The purpose of this report is to update the Council on the exercise by New Zealand Police of their delegated role as enforcement officers for the Public Places Bylaw with respect to vehicle windscreen washing activity.

Origin of Report

1.2       This report is being provided to fulfil the October 2015 Council resolution 23.3.4 “that staff review and provide the Council with an update on the Police exercise of the delegation after twelve months of this resolution.”

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.

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

 

3.   Staff Recommendations

That the Council:

1.         Note the information in this report on the effective reduction in vehicle windscreen washing activity at intersections.

 

4.   Key Points

4.1       New Zealand Police staff report that, in their view, the resolution has been an effective intervention.  Windscreen washing activity largely ceased overnight throughout the City following the Council resolution and they currently have no serious concerns about health and safety or crime related to this activity.  The Police attribute the reduced activity partly to the warning period given to windscreen washers; partly to the media coverage of the Council resolution; and to increased Police presence in the locations where the activity was popular.

4.2       Since October 2015 the Police report they have prosecuted five people in total including two younger people for windscreen washing.  In the case of the young people, the windscreen washing charges were added to serious charges that they were already appearing on before the Youth Court.  The prosecutions relate to windscreen washing in Main North Road, Waltham Road, Moorhouse Avenue and Riccarton Road.

4.3       The local youth worker is aware of the group of young windscreen washers and reports that “some are working, some have gone back to school or into training courses or moved up North.”  The youth worker also noted that some windscreen washers had been earning money for rent or to help their parents out financially, and that those with criminal records or drug/alcohol issues will find it difficult to get more traditional jobs.


 

4.4       Local businesspeople previously affected by the younger windscreen washers have noted a significant improvement since the resolution in terms of “virtually no vandalism, fights, intimidation and abuse” and attribute the success to the Police presence and their willingness to use the new enforcement powers. 

4.5       The Hagley Ferrymead Community Board note there are “no vehicle windscreen washers at the Buckleys Road-Linwood Avenue intersection anymore;  that they are hearing fewer complaints from residents who have been abused or confronted by windscreen washers; and that there is less theft of squeegies from the local Countdown, MaxOut and BP Station.” 

4.6       Overall, it appears the delegation to the Police has been effective in reducing windscreen washing activity and has had a positive result for local businesses and the community. While two young people have been prosecuted, others have gone back to school or other training or on to paid employment.   

 

5.   Context/Background

Original issues

5.1       Between 2012 and 2015 there had been a gradual increase in the numbers of young people offering windscreen washing services at intersections.  Coinciding with the increase in windscreen washers the calls for Police services to the area within 50 metres of the Buckleys Road-Linwood Avenue intersection rose from 218 to 411. Over the same period there was a nearly fourfold increase, from 34 to 120, of reported violence and disorder offences in this area.  The Police together with Council staff and other agencies attempted to address these problems through a range of community and design-based measures and initiatives.

5.2       This approach had marginal impact and, in October 2015, the Council resolved to delegate enforcement of clause 6 of the Christchurch City Council Public Places Bylaw 2008 to the New Zealand Police with respect to the washing of car windscreens for payment or reward, carried out on roads under the control of the Council, without the written permission of the Council.

 

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

Claire Bryant - Team Leader Policy

Approved By

Helen Beaumont - Head of Strategic Policy

Emma Davis - Acting General Manager Strategy and Transformation

  


Council

15 September 2016

 

 

11.    Multicultural Strategy Update

Reference:

16/873489

Contact:

Ester Vallero

Ester.Vallero@ccc.govt.nz

8097

 

 

1.   Purpose of Report

1.1       This report is to update the Council on the next steps for the draft Multicultural Strategy and outcomes of the public consultation.

 

2.   Staff Recommendations

That the Council:

1.         Receive the information in this report.

 

3.   Key Points

Multicultural Strategy Development

3.1       In June 2015, the Community Housing and Economic Development Committee resolved to establish a fixed term Multicultural Working Party, comprised of 4 elected members and 6 community representatives to co-create a Multicultural Strategy for the Christchurch City Council.

3.2       From August 2015 to May 2016 the Working Party met to discuss, identify issues and opportunities and provide recommendations for a strategy framework. This included vision, goals and possible actions.

3.3       On 9 June 2016 the draft Multicultural Strategy discussion document was endorsed by the Council and approved for public consultation.

4    Consultation

4.1       Public consultation opened on 15 June 2016 and closed 31 July 2016.

4.2       See attachment 1 - Consultation Report and Public Feedback

5    Next steps

5.1       The strategy is being developed in 3 stages

·     Stage 1: Community led research, content development - completed

·     Stage 2: Development of the consultation document and report to CHED and Council - completed

·     Stage 3: Public consultation, multi-unit action planning, implementation planning and strategy ratification and launch – in progress

5.2       In response to feedback from the public consultation, staff sought advice from the Senior Adviser for Ngai Tahu and Maori relationships.

5.3       Following this advice, it has been agreed to develop the final version of the Strategy in partnership with Mana Whenua.

5.4       The draft Strategy will be tabled at Te Hononga Committee on 1 September 2016 and discussed in greater detail at the following meeting in November 2016.

5.5       The draft Strategy will be amended as required to include feedback from the public consultation and recommendations from Te Hononga Committee.

5.6       The final Strategy will be presented to the Council for approval. This is likely to be in early 2017.

5.7       It is proposed that the Strategy be launched in March 2017 to coincide with Culture Galore.

 

 

Attachments

No.

Title

Page

a

16 943875  Attachment 1 Draft Multicultural Strategy consultation feed back for CHED 1 September 2016

247

 

 

Signatories

Author

Ester Vallero - Community Development Advisor, Multicultural

Approved By

Claire Phillips - Manager, Community Support Team

Lester Wolfreys - Head of Community Support, Governance and Partnerships

Mary Richardson - General Manager Customer and Community

  


Council

15 September 2016

 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


Council

15 September 2016

 

 

12.    Intersection Improvement: Cashmere / Hoon Hay / Worsleys

Reference:

16/973137

Contact:

Michael Ferigo

michael.ferigo@ccc.govt.nz

941 8925

 

1.   Purpose and Origin of Report

Purpose of Report

1.1       The purpose of this report is to respond to a Council resolution to provide it with funding options to accommodate bringing the scheduled improvements for the Cashmere Rd/ Hoon Hay Rd / Worsleys Rd intersection forward in the Long Term Plan.  

Origin of Report

1.2       This report is being provided to Council in response to its resolution on an item in the Spreydon/ Heathcote Community Board’s submission to the draft Annual Plan. Council resolved on 21 June 2016, that a report be provided on options to bring forward the intersection improvements and that the report include options for projects within the capital programme that could be re-phased: and options for alternative funding mechanisms, noting that the Christchurch Adventure Park (CAP) has expressed support for a cycle underpass near this intersection.

2.   Significance

2.1       The decisions in this report have 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 project primarily only changing the timing of a local area intersection and the funding mechanism for an amount, at a city wide level whilst not insignificant does not have any significant capital impact.

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

3.   Staff Recommendations

That the Council:

1.         Resolve that the intersection improvements at Cashmere/Hoon Hay/Worsleys intersection be funded by Council,

2.         Resolve that the intersection improvements at Cashmere/ Hoon Hay/ Worsleys intersection be scheduled for construction within the 2017/18 year.

3.         That the project ID # 17092 ‘RONS Downstream Route improvements: Marshland (Queen Elizabeth 2 – Shirley)’ be removed from the LTP programme for reconsideration at the 2018 review and the available funds of $26,520 - 2016/17, $265,200 - 2017/18 be redirected and the $742,560 -2018/19 be re-directed and re-phased to the 2017/18 year, for improvements at Cashmere/Hoon Hay/Worsleys intersection.

4.         That the project ID # 17120 ‘Intersection Safety: Cashel/Fitzgerald’ be removed from the LTP programme for reconsideration at the 2018 review and the available funds of $250,000 - 2016/17 and $760,946 - 2017/18 be redirected to the intersection improvements at Cashmere/Hoon Hay/ Worsleys intersection.

5.         That the current LTP scheduled present day funds of $795,600 for Cashmere/Hoon Hay/ Worsleys intersection improvements spread over the 2021/22 and 2022/23 years be re-phased into the 2017/18 year. 

6.         Note that the staff assessment on the Canterbury Community Cycling Trust’s concept of an underpass proposal will be reported to Council for it to consider prior to the next Annual Plan.

4.   Key Points

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

4.1.1   Activity: Road Operations

·     Level of Service: 10.0.6 Improve Road Safety: Reduce the number of reported crashes on the network

4.2       The following feasible options have been considered:

·     Option 1 – Bringing forward the intersection improvements funding for Cashmere/Hoon Hay/Worsleys intersection for the earliest practical construction date in the 2017/18 year and increase the funding available via the recommended changes to the capital programme.

·     Option 2 – Make no changes now (and wait for the threshold conditions to activate over the future residential development to fund the intersection improvements at the Cashmere/Hoon Hay/ Worsleys intersection) and re-assess as part of the 2018 review of the Long Term Plan.

4.3       Option Summary - Advantages and Disadvantages (Preferred Option)

4.3.1   The advantages of this option include:

·     Responding to meeting the local community concerns over perceptions of current lack of safety for intersection users and with forecast increasing levels of usage lowering levels of safety.

·     Improves the current poor safety performance as identified within the CAS system and the latest KiwiRap intersection safety assessment.

·     Allows the Council to eliminate the uncertainty of timing for the intersection improvements thus reducing the user crashes and lowering the worst delay movements.

·     Supports the local community by improving the function of the intersection and improves the city’s main access to the Canterbury Adventure Park.

·     Provides higher levels of comfort and safety to the high numbers of people walking and cycling through this intersection.

4.3.2   The disadvantages of this option include:

·     There is an investment cost on Council that would have otherwise likely been with an external party in the future.

·     The loss of the benefits from the projects that have been impacted on (by either removal or delay) to allow this project to proceed by Council.  

5.   Context/Background

Background

5.1       Spreydon Heathcote Community Board submission to the 2016/17 Draft Annual Plan

·   The Spreydon Heathcote Community Board made a submission to the Councils Draft Annual Plan supporting the community that had made unprecedented public expressions of concern on the issue of right turning at a number of intersections, especially where there are few options and everyone is funnelled to one intersection – residents singled out and highlighted the Worsleys/ Cashmere intersection where the imminent opening of the Canterbury Adventure Park coupled with ongoing residential building has meant that the residents believe the intersection is now unsafe and needs to be advanced with planning in this financial year. 

Current situation

5.2       The Cashmere/Hoon Hay/ Worsleys intersection is scheduled within the LTP for planning in 2021/22 and construction in 2022/23 totalling $ 931,000. However the amount scheduled is insufficient as it is based on an older concept plan whereas the updated 2014 assessment gave a present day estimated cost of $2.8M to realign and signalise the intersection. Whilst the funding was a place holder in the programme it is now questionable as to why it is in LTP as the project is potentially superseded by a recent condition over an external party to pay for the improvements.

5.3       There is a condition over plans for a 380 residential housing development leading onto Worsleys Road that requires the developer to pay for the intersection improvements once it crosses a threshold of 250 units. There is no certainty over when, or to a lesser degree, if the development will eventuate which leaves the intersection improvements on an unknown tenure.

5.4       The Canterbury Adventure Park (CAP) is due to open in December this year. It is expected to be very popular with local residents and also be a major draw card for tourists to come to Christchurch or stay longer in Christchurch. Its consenting hearing process considered its effects on the roading network and concluded that whilst it was contributing to the loading on the local network, the expected peak traffic usage when the Park was fully operational would not overload the function of the Worsleys and Cashmere intersection nor Worsleys Road. The December opening is a staged opening so additional demand generating facilities such as the restaurant / cafe and accommodation are opening later. The operational hours of CAP are such that it is outside the peak time morning traffic.

5.5       The intersection in fact encapsulates two closely spaced give way T-intersections. These being the Cashmere / Hoon Hay and the Cashmere / Worsleys Road T-intersections.  (Attachment A, Aerial view of existing off set T-intersections). The proposed improvements include aligning the two T-intersections into one and signalising it. (Attachment B, Intersection improvements plan)

5.6       The Cashmere/ Worsleys intersection’s performance was assessed and shows that at peak time the right turning movement out of Worsleys suffers from a low level of service and that this will deteriorate with higher delay times into the future as the intersection traffic levels increase. (Attachment C, Cashmere/Worsleys intersection modelling) 

5.7       In the five year period, 2010 -2014 the intersection has had six reported crashes – three resulting in serious injuries, two of which resulted from motorist making right hand turns but failing to give way to cyclists. Collectively the social cost of these six crashes are estimated to be $2.5M, The Road safety assessment programme called KiwiRap rates this intersection - in safety terms only - as the 154th priority intersection in Christchurch (out of 5,379).

5.8       The proposed intersection improvements are expected to significantly improve the intersection’s safety performance and reduce the delays for the lowest level of service movements.

5.9       The Canterbury Community Cycling Trust have presented to the Infrastructure, Transport and Environment Committee in September 2015 a proposal of constructing an underpass at the Cashmere Road Bridge for many of the pedestrians and cyclists looking to access the new park and wanting to avoid Cashmere Road and its Worsleys Road intersection. The underpass would connect cyclists and pedestrians from Ashgrove Terrace under the Cashmere Road Bridge to enter Worsleys Road near the southern end of Worsleys Road Reserve.

5.10    The CAP is very supportive of this underpass proposal and has offered to assist where is can with this proposal. CAP is also supportive of the intersection improvements going ahead but also sees additional benefits if an underpass is constructed to provide separation for many cyclists from the motor vehicles on Cashmere Road and at its intersection with Worsleys Road. CAP recognises that this separation would be particularly useful for inexperienced, young and school students who they are looking to cater for by providing graduated skill development opportunities. Staff are working through an assessment of the concept proposal’s feasibility and costs and will report to the ITE Committee or its equivalent, post elections, to allow consideration prior to the Annual Plan.

5.11    Regardless of an underpass being constructed there will still be high levels of cyclists travelling through the Cashmere/Hoon Hay/Worsleys intersection as it serves very popular cycle routes and would continue to provide the most direct route for cycle access to the Park and the hills from the north/west of the city.

Proposal Discussion

5.12    The intersection improvements proposed will improve the currently poor safety performance and improve its performance for the local users trying to exiting Worsleys Road in the peak periods.

5.13    In the normal progression the intersection issues when set alongside other city priority demands suggest that the intersection improvements may be best left to the process laid out i.e. that waits for the residential development condition to be activated to improve the intersection and puts up with the less than satisfactory outcomes of the existing intersection until that time arrives. This approach also recognises the need to ‘put up with’ the incremental increasing volumes of traffic on the intersection through increases in local traffic levels into the future.

5.14    The additional factors that add to the possible intervention considerations and possibly raise the comparative priority of the needed intersection improvements over other scheduled projects is the recognition of the level of development that is imminent with the CAP opening in December. This will noticeably shift up the levels of motor vehicle and cycle usage through the intersection, essentially serving as the main entrance to what is an international and national tourist generator for the city. The type of users would particularly benefit from any early intervention to improve the intersection.

5.15    As instructed a scenario has been recommended that tries to minimise the impacts on other scheduled projects in the LTP from introducing a Council early intervention to improve the intersection. The earliest practical construction delivery date is in the 2017/18 year with some funds identified for preparation processes needed in this 2016/17 year.

5.16    The proposed changes to the current Long Term Plan to accommodate the intersection improvements being able to be delivered within the 2017/18 year are as follows:

5.17    A) Removing the RONS Downstream Route improvements: Marshland (Queen Elizabeth ll – Shirley)’ from the LTP programme for reconsideration at the 2018 review and the available funds of $20,000 - 2016/17, $265,200 - 2017/18 and the $742,560 -2018/19 be re-directed.

5.18    This project was placed in the programme to assist or mitigate the local network effects of the introduction of the Northern Arterial. The redirection means that it would not be possible to make minor changes to the configuration of Marshland Road and its various intersections to the south of QEII Drive that would have assisted in accommodated changed traffic demands that result from the construction impacts of the Northern Arterial, the Northern Arterial Extension, and Cranford Street upgrade.   

5.19    By reconsidering the Northern Arterial downstream effects on Marshlands road closer to its actual occurrence (operational in four to five years) whilst being less pro-active will provide a firmer basis of what may be required for Council budget consideration.  

5.20    B) Removing the Intersection Safety: Cashel/Fitzgerald project from the LTP programme for reconsideration at the 2018 review and the available funds of $250,000 - 2016/17 and $760,946 - 2017/18 be redirected.

5.21    The intersection is one of a number of safety projects within the ten year LTP programme, this intersection has had 21 crashes in the 2010 – 2014 five year period and has a KiwiRap Christchurch priority listing at 47th (out of 5,379) . Work on determining appropriate improvements is at an early stage and the recommendation is that the intersection is reconsidered alongside all other safety funding for intersections for review in the 2018 LTP review.

5.22    C) Bringing forward the Cashmere/Hoon Hay/ Worsleys intersection improvements scheduled funds of $795,600 (present day funds) from the 2021/22 and 2022/23 years into the 2017/18 year.

5.23    These three changes to the LTP are considered by Transport staff to represent the least dis-benefit achievable to allow the delivery of the Cashmere/Hoon Hay/Worsleys intersection improvements in the 2017/18 year. The resultant available funds from these changes will provide $270,000 in the 2016/17 year and $ 2,563,803 in the 2017/18 year totalling $2,833,803.

 


 

6.   Option 1 – Council undertake delivery of intersection improvements Cashmere/Hoon Hay/Worsleys intersection

Option Description

6.1       Council provides the funds for intersection improvements at the Cashmere/Hoon Hay/Worsleys intersection for construction in the 2017/18 year,

Significance

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

6.3       Engagement requirements for this level of significance are per the usual localised project consultation.

Impact on Mana Whenua

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

Community Views and Preferences

6.5       Following from the recent Annual Plan review the Council will be aware of the community views of the specifically affected communities that the local Community Board has raised.

Alignment with Council Plans and Policies

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

6.6.1   Inconsistency – is over the issue of whether the Council elects to step in to fund the project to ensure the improvements are delivered and in a timely manner, as opposed to passively waiting for the improvements to eventuate at an unknowable date. 

Financial Implications

6.7       Cost of Implementation is estimated at $ 2,820,000

6.8       Maintenance / Ongoing Costs – negligible increase

6.9       Funding source via the Long Term Plan per the report recommendations.

Legal Implications

6.10    There are no legal implications to the Council of this option.

Risks and Mitigations    

6.11    The level of risk of taking this option is considered low and is mainly concerned around the impacts on the two other projects in the Long Term Plan however this is minimised with the option for reconsidering their priorities within the 2018 LTP review.

Implementation

6.12    Implementation dependencies are not significant to this intersection project and standard processes for planning and coordinating the capital delivery will be undertaken.

Option Summary - Advantages and Disadvantages

6.13    The advantages of this option include:

·   Responding to meeting the local community concerns over perceptions of current lack of safety for intersection users and with forecast increasing levels of usage lowering levels of safety.

·   Improves the current poor safety performance as identified within the CAS system and the latest KiwiRap intersection safety assessment.

·   Allows the Council to eliminate the uncertainty of timing for the intersection improvements thus reducing the user crashes and lowering the worst delay movements.

·   Supports the local community by improving the function of the intersection and improves the city’s main access to the Canterbury Adventure Park.

·   Provides higher levels of comfort and safety to the high numbers of people walking and cycling through this intersection.

6.14    The disadvantages of this option include:

·   There is an investment cost on Council that would have otherwise likely been with an external party in the future.

·   The loss of the benefits from the projects that have been impacted on (by either removal or delay) to allow this project to proceed by Council.

·   An application to the NZ Transport Agency would need to be made as funding for the intersection works is not guaranteed.

7.   Option 2 – Make no changes and reassess at the 2018 review of the Long Term Plan

Option Description

7.1       Make no changes now (and wait for the threshold conditions to activate over the future residential development to fund the intersection improvements at the Cashmere/Hoon Hay/ Worsleys intersection) and re-assess as part of the 2018 review of the Long Term Plan.

Significance

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

Impact on Mana Whenua

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

Community Views and Preferences

7.4       Have been expressed via the Spreydon Heathcote Community Board in its submission to the Annual Plan. As this option retains the current LTP programme that was consulted on no further actions are needed.

Alignment with Council Plans and Policies

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

Risks and Mitigations    

7.6       There is a low reputational risk related to the levels of service for the city’s main entrance to the Canterbury Adventure Park.

Implementation

7.7       Implementation dependencies - the time frame for provision of the intersection improvements is entirely out of the hands of the Council and dependent on the vagaries of the residential development plan being developed past the threshold level.

Option Summary - Advantages and Disadvantages

7.8       The advantages of this option include:

·   There are no intersection improvement costs to Council

7.9       The disadvantages of this option include:

·   There is no control over the time frame for the delivery of intersection improvements resulting in the community experiencing the current and increasing short comings of the existing intersection. Including crash rates, delays and lack of comfort in using the intersection. 

·   The intersection serving the city’s main access route to the new international and national tourist attraction - the Canterbury Adventure Park may detract from the experience and may discourage people from cycling and driving to the facility particularly at peak evening traffic periods.    Attachments

No.

Title

Page

a

Aerial view of the two off set T intersections

259

b

Intersection improvement plans

260

c

Cashmere Worsleys Intersection modelling

261

 

 

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

Michael Ferigo - Transport Planner, Sustainable Transport

Approved By

Steffan Thomas - Operations Manager

Peter Langbein - Finance Business Partner

David Adamson - General Manager City Services

  


Council

15 September 2016

 

PDF Creator


Council

15 September 2016

 

PDF Creator


Council

15 September 2016

 

PDF Creator


Council

15 September 2016

 

 

13.    Rates Remission Consideration for South Awatea

Reference:

16/998865

Contact:

Steve Ballard

steve.ballard@ccc.govt.nz

942 8447

 

 

1.   Purpose and Origin of Report

Purpose of Report

1.1       The purpose of this report is for the Council to consider a rates remission for properties in the South Awatea area, similar to the North-West Review Area 3 remission recommended by the 18 August 2016 Strategy & Finance Committee meeting.

Origin of Report

1.2       This report responds to a Strategy & Finance Committee request at its 18 August 2016 meeting.

1.3       Key facts in this case are:

1.3.1   Prior to the 2013 general rates revaluation, valuations and rates charges for properties in North and South Awatea were consistent with similar lifestyle properties in the area.

1.3.2   For most of these properties, 2013 valuations (and therefore rates) were significantly increased due to Council’s signalled re-zoning of both areas as “Residential New Neighbourhood” (i.e. higher values reflected the land’s development potential).

1.3.3   North Awatea is subsequently being developed, and its values will increase again in the 2016 general revaluation.  However, South Awatea has been subject to significant development restrictions due to delays in relocating the neighbouring Cart Club; its values will fall somewhat in the 2016 general revaluation, although some future development value will remain.

1.3.4   Changing property values are an inherent risk of property ownership, and no rates adjustment is normally made in between the three-yearly general revaluations.  This Report considers whether the extent of misalignment between rates and current market values in South Awatea is sufficiently large and unusual to justify a remission on equity grounds.

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 a consideration of the potential dollar cost of the options presented, off-set by the potential negative perception of other ratepayers.

 

3.   Staff Recommendations

That the Council:

1.         Declines a rates remission for properties in the South Awatea area, on the grounds that:

a.         Market value movements in between three-yearly general revaluations are an inherent part of property ownership which should not be adjusted through the rates system other than in exceptional circumstances.

b.         The extent of misalignment between South Awatea rates charges and current market values is not significant enough to justify exceptional treatment (and such treatment in this case would set an unhelpful precedent for other properties suffering value losses).

 

4.   Key Points

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

4.2       The following feasible options have been considered:

·     Option 1 – Do nothing (preferred option).

·     Option 2 – Provide a 25% rates remission for the period from 1 July 2014 to 30 June 2017, for the four South Awatea properties which experienced a 50% increase in both land values and rates charges following the 2013 general rates revaluation.  The cost of this remission would be around $15,000.

4.3       Option Summary – Do nothing (preferred option);  Advantages and Disadvantages

The advantages of this option are simplicity and consistency. It is worth noting that the assessment of exceptions from our standard Rating Policies are complex and time consuming – as evidenced by this report:

4.3.1   Rating Valuations must be re-calibrated to market prices every three years, precisely to maintain equitable rates treatment in the face of relative market price movements.  Adjustments in between general revaluations should only made be in exceptional circumstances, and there is an assumption that temporary misalignments between current market values and rates charges in between revaluations are an inherent risk of property ownership.

4.3.2   Although South Awatea properties have been affected by uncertainty around the Cart Club relocation and therefore their ability to be developed, the impact is not considered sufficient to justify special treatment.  In particular:

·     Only four of the twenty-two properties in the area experienced a rates increase of 50% or more after the 2013 revaluation.  Around one thousand other properties across the city experienced rates increases of more than 50% without remission.

·     The 2013 valuations were reasonable at the time (no objections were made), and there was genuine potential for owners to gain from the area’s development.  The failure for such gains to be realised is not considered a sufficient condition to justify support from other ratepayers.

·     The area still has some development potential (albeit probably reduced), so the fall in market value since 2013 has not been as significant as for the recent remission granted to Russley Road properties (where 2013 values had almost trebled and development potential had subsequently been virtually eliminated).

4.3.3   The disadvantage of this option is that it does not address the underlying equity claim that the properties are very difficult to sell due to Cart Club uncertainty, and rates are being charged based on valuations that are significantly higher than current market values.

4.4       Option summary – Provide a 25% remission (not recommended);  Advantages and Disadvantages

4.4.1   The advantage of this option is that it acknowledges a significant change of circumstance since 2013 due to factors outside the affected ratepayers’ control.  The affected area is easy to define (as the area affected by Council’s development restrictions), and the rates impact on some of the affected properties has been significant.

·     Qualification for such a remission should be a minimum rates increase of 50% after the 2013 revaluation, as any lesser threshold would create a potential precedent for a greater number of other properties (for context, around 1,000 other properties experienced a rates increase greater than 50% after the 2013 revaluation, rising to 2,000 properties with an increase greater than 40%, and 4,400 greater than 30%).

·     A remission of 25% is recommended, as this is broadly consistent with the fall in rating valuations currently expected in 2016 (although noting that work on the 2016 general revaluation has not yet been finalised, so the actual change Notified in early December may be different).

4.4.2   The disadvantages of this option are that

·     The rates impact that is being compensated for is not extraordinarily large, in terms of both the rates increases after the 2013 general revaluation and the extent of subsequent market value reductions.

·     Some properties in the area have been affected quite differently to others (which is why only 4 of the 22 would qualify for a remission under this option).  The nature and extent of remission under this option may be perceived as ad hoc.

 

5.   Context/Background

The Awatea Area (location & valuation history)

5.1       The Awatea area refers to land on the Wigram / Halswell border, straddling the southern motorway between Awatea Road to the north and Halswell Junction Road to the south.  The area is shown in the map below, with North and South Awatea highlighted separately.

Map:  North & South Awatea Areas (including Cart Club track in the South)

5.2       The Rating Valuation history of the areas can be roughly summarised as follows:

·   Prior to the 2013 general revaluation, lifestyle block land in both areas were valued at around $20-$30 per square metre, the same as nearby rural lifestyle blocks (note, smaller plots were somewhat different, because there are different markets for lifestyle blocks and smaller properties – see para 5.8 below for details).

·   In 2013, Awatea lifestyle land values increased to around $50-$60 per square metre, reflecting their development potential (nearby rural lifestyle blocks were unchanged).

·   Although these valuations were considered accurate at the time, the continued delay in the Cart Club’s relocation and the associated restriction on development by Council has made it impossible for South Awatea properties to be sold at close to 2013 Rating Valuations.

5.3       Work to date on the 2016 general revaluation suggests the following current market pricing (NB these are indicative only – work on the 2016 revaluation will not be completed until December):

·   North Awatea valuations will increase significantly, perhaps doubling, reflecting the development currently under way.

·   Nearby rural lifestyle blocks will increase, perhaps by up to 20%, reflecting general market movements.

·   South Awatea lifestyle blocks will fall, perhaps by around a quarter, reflecting uncertainty around the extent and timing of future development (note, they will still be more valuable than nearby rural lifestyle blocks, but not by as much as in 2013).

Cart Club Issues

5.4       The Cart Club leases Council-owned reserve land in South Awatea on a long-term lease (to around 2050).  The intended relocation to a less developed location has not yet occurred, and its likelihood remains uncertain.  The current situation is as follows:

·   The Club has signed a Surrender of Lease Agreement with the Council and a Sale & Purchase Agreement for a McLeans Island site, both of which are subject to Resource Consent over the use of the McLeans Island site as a cart club.

·   Council is progressing the Resource Consent application, which conceivably could be completed as early as the end of this year – Council could then lift the current South Awatea development restrictions, allowing the area to be developed.

·   However, objections to the Resource Consent appear likely, particularly from the Lady Isaac Conservation & Wildlife Trust (which runs a nearby aviary).  There is a high risk that Resource Consent will not be obtained at all, resulting in the Cart Club remaining in its current location for the remainder of the lease period and South Awatea properties remaining un-developable; Council may then consider a formal change of zoning back to Rural.

Rates Remission Issues

5.5       South Awatea residents’ remission claim is on the grounds that their rates are based on a development potential that does not currently exist (and may never eventuate).  This claim is valid, in the sense that the land’s current market value is lower than in the 2013 revaluation, meaning that rates charges are superficially “too high”.

5.6       However, what matters for rates is market value at a specific point in time, not current market value.  Importantly, there is no suggestion that 2013 rating valuations were inaccurate, and no objections to these valuations was lodged for any of these properties at the time.

5.7       Moreover, not all properties in the South Awatea area were affected by the 2013 revaluation in the same way, creating practical difficulties in constructing a sensible remission policy.  In particular (and excluding the two larger plots owned by Council and MBIE):

·   Land area:  Seven of the 22 South Awatea properties are small (less than 1 hectare), resulting in 2013 valuation movements different from the lifestyle block figures in para 5.2 above.  Land values for these properties only increased by around 20% in 2013 (compared to an average 86% for the 15 larger properties).

·   Rates impact:  a remission is obviously intended to compensate for rates, not land values, but rates are also affected by each property’s level of Improvements and the number of targeted rates it pays.  For the seven smaller South Awatea properties, the 2013 land value increase of 20% resulted in an average rates increase of only 13%; for the 15 larger properties, the 86% land value increase drove an average rates increases of 41%.

5.8       The land value and rates increases for all 22 privately-owned properties are tabulated below.  Importantly, only two experienced rates increases of more than 60% as a result of the 2013 revaluation, and half had rates increases of less than 25%.  Given the relatively small fall in subsequent market value (perhaps a quarter, from para. 5.3 above), it is difficult to construct a remission which provides meaningful relief to the most affected properties while maintaining a degree of equity between all properties in the area.

Table:  South Awatea area, value, and rates details around the 2013 revaluation

 

5.9       If Councillors wished to provide a South Awatea remission, it would be recommended that:

·   Qualification should be restricted to properties experiencing an increase of at least 50% in both Land Value and rates after the 2013 revaluation.  This threshold would provide some relief to the most affected, while minimising the number of properties with similar increases that might want to claim similar circumstances (i.e. precedent risk).

·   The amount of remission should be 25%, which is a reasonable current estimate of how much the qualifying properties’ Rating Valuations will decrease between 2013 and 2016.

 

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

Steve Ballard - Manager Funds and Financial Policy

Approved By

Diane Brandish - Head of Financial Management

Peter Gudsell - General Manager Finance and Commercial

  


Council

15 September 2016

 

 

14.    Establish a Health and Safety Committee of Council

Reference:

16/1003733

Contact:

Sharon Butt

sharon.butt@ccc.govt.nz

9415472

 

 

1.   Purpose of Report

1.1       This report provides Council with the draft Terms of Reference for the establishment of a Health and Safety Committee of Council and the appointment process for independent advisor/s as required by resolution CNCL/2016/20027.

 

2.   Staff Recommendations

That the Council:

1.         Receive, review and provide feedback on the draft terms of reference document and appointment process.

 

 

3.   Key Points

3.1       The Audit and Risk Management Committee on the 24 May 2016 requested that the Council consider the establishment of a Health and Safety Committee of Council

3.2       The Chief Executive was to provide draft Terms of Reference and the appointment process for independent members, with the view of establishing the committee in September 2016.

 

Attachments

No.

Title

Page

a

Draft H&S Committee Terms of Reference

270

 

 

Signatories

Author

Sharon Butt - Manager Health and Safety

Approved By

Emma Davis - Acting General Manager Strategy and Transformation

  


Council

15 September 2016

 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


Council

15 September 2016

 

 

15.    Lyttelton Design Review Panel - Correction of an Administration Error

Reference:

16/1026384

Contact:

Chris Turner-Bullock

christopher.turner@ccc.govt.nz

941 8233

 

 

1.   Purpose of Report

1.1       The purpose of this report is to correct an administrative error in the Lyttelton Design Review Panel report that the Council considered at its meeting on 11 August 2016.

1.2       Staff supporting the Lyttelton/Mt Herbert Community Board (the Board) have identified that between the Board making their recommendation to Council, and subsequently the Council considering the report, reference to the Lyttelton Design Panel as being a subordinate decision making body of the Board has changed to being a subordinate decision making body of the Council. The change was unintentional and has the impact of removing the decision making authority from the Board to the Council (such as appointing Panel membership).

 

2.   Staff Recommendations

That the Council amend resolution line 1 made at the Council meeting on 11 August 2016 regarding Item 8 – Chairperson’s Report – Lyttelton Design Review Panel, which should now read:

1.         Approve establishing a Lyttelton Design Review Panel as an eighteen month trial, to inform the 2018 Long Term Plan, as a subordinate decision making body of the Lyttelton/Mt Herbert Community Board under the Local Government Act 2002.

 

3.   Key Points

3.1       At the Council meeting on 11 August 2016, the Council made the following decision regarding Item 8 – Chairperson’s Report – Lyttelton Design Review Panel:

1.    Approve establishing a Lyttelton Design Review Panel as an eighteen month trial, to inform the 2018 Long Term Plan, as a subordinate decision making body of the Council under the Local Government Act 2002.

2.    The scope for the Panel being the consideration of developments which trigger a restricted discretionary activity status in relation to design in the Lyttelton Character Area Overlay (of the Banks Peninsula Residential Zone) or the Commercial Banks Peninsula Zone. Panel membership is proposed to be design professionals and community representatives, all with good local knowledge and an understanding of design and development.

3.    Approve the attached draft Terms of Reference for the Lyttelton Design Review Panel with the following amendments:

Amend Section 6 – Role of the Lyttelton Design Advisory Panel: Move the third bullet point to be the last bullet point in Section 6.

Amend Section 9 – Review of development proposals by the Lyttelton Design Advisory Panel: The advice given must give effect to the objectives and policies of the District Plan and, in particular, should seek to: achieve the following.

4.    Resolve that the Panel shall continue uninterrupted for 18 months from the time of establishment.

3.2       Pursuant to Standing Order 3.9.18, where a Local Authority may revoke or amend any previous resolution, staff are requesting that the Council make the above decision to correct the administrative error that has occurred.

3.3       The Chairperson’s recommendation to the Lyttelton/Mt Herbert Community Board was recommending that the Lyttelton Design Panel to be a subordinate decision making body of the Community Board however, the system used to create the report incorrectly amended the words “Community Board” to “Council” and this was only discovered following the Council meeting on 11 August 2016.

 

Attachments

There are no attachments to this report.

 

Signatories

Authors

Christopher Turner - Committee Advisor

Megan Pearce - Team Leader Hearings and Council Support

Approved By

Lester Wolfreys - Head of Community Support, Governance and Partnerships

Mary Richardson - General Manager Customer and Community

Karleen Edwards - Chief Executive

   

 


Council

15 September 2016

 

 

16.  Resolution to Exclude the Public

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

 

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

 

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

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

 

Note

 

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

 

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

 

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

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

 

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


Council

15 September 2016

 

 

ITEM NO.

GENERAL SUBJECT OF EACH MATTER TO BE CONSIDERED

SECTION

SUBCLAUSE AND REASON UNDER THE ACT

PLAIN ENGLISH REASON

WHEN REPORTS CAN BE RELEASED

17

Quarterly Procurement Report - Quarter 4 - 2015/16

s7(2)(b)(ii), s7(2)(h), s7(2)(i)

Prejudice Commercial Position, Commercial Activities, Conduct Negotiations

The following information may prejudice the Council's commercial position.

At the expiry of the Agreement.

18

Christchurch Civic Awards 2016

s7(2)(a)

Protection of Privacy of Natural Persons

Protection of Privacy

Only names of successful candidates will be released after Council confirmation. No personal information will be released.

19

Public Excluded Christchurch Civic Awards Subcommittee Minutes - 22 August 2016

 

 

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

 

20

Overdue Debtors over $20,000 at 30 June 2016

s7(2)(a)

Protection of Privacy of Natural Persons

Overdue debtors should remain confidential to assist in the collection of these debts.

When legal proceedings are commenced.

21

Public Excluded Strategy and Finance Committee Minutes - 18 August 2016

 

 

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

 

22

Options for addressing 'fast food' retail outlets

s7(2)(g)

Maintain Legal Professional Privilege

If the Council decides to take a regulatory approach the legal opinion highlights our legal vulnerabilities.

22 September 2017

23

Property Purchase

s7(2)(b)(ii), s7(2)(i)

Prejudice Commercial Position, Conduct Negotiations

Neogitations to purchase and subsequently sell the land could be jeopardised.

A resale of the land is completed