Christchurch City Council

Agenda

 

 

Notice of Meeting:

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

 

Date:                                     Thursday 26 January 2017

Time:                                    1.00pm

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

 

 

Membership

Chairperson

Deputy Chairperson

Members

Mayor Lianne Dalziel

Deputy Mayor Andrew Turner

Councillor Vicki Buck

Councillor Jimmy Chen

Councillor Phil Clearwater

Councillor Pauline Cotter

Councillor Mike Davidson

Councillor David East

Councillor Anne Galloway

Councillor Jamie Gough

Councillor Yani Johanson

Councillor Aaron Keown

Councillor Glenn Livingstone

Councillor Raf Manji

Councillor Tim Scandrett

Councillor Deon Swiggs

Councillor Sara Templeton

 

 

26 January 2017

 

 

 

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

26 January 2017

 

 

 


Council

26 January 2017

 

TABLE OF CONTENTS

 

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

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

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

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

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

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

Council

5.       Council Minutes - 8 December 2016........................................................................................ 5

6.       Council Minutes - 15 December 2016.................................................................................... 17

Audit and Risk Management Committee

7.       2016 Annual Report - Management Report from Audit New Zealand.............................. 27

STAFF REPORTS

8.       Proposed ground lease to North Hagley Community Sports and Recreation Charitable Trust over the part of Hagley Park where the former United Bowling Club rooms and green space is situated................................................................................................................................. 59

9.       Adoption of the 2017 meeting schedule for the Council's Committees, Subcommittees and Working Parties .................................................................................................................... 107

10.     Cathedral Square and Surrounds Regeneration Strategy................................................. 119

11.     Re-allocation of a Heritage Incentive Grant for Woods Mill, 14 Wise Street, Addington 123

12.     Heritage Incentive Grant Approval for 39 Kahu Road, Christchurch............................... 135

13.     Development Contributions Policy Review 2017............................................................... 147

14.     Submission on the Health (Fluoridation of Drinking Water) Amendment Bill................ 175

15.     Resolution to Exclude the Public......................................................................................... 190  

 

 

 


Council

26 January 2017

 

 

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.   Public Participation

3.1  Public Forum

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

3.2  Deputations by Appointment

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 

4.   Presentation of Petitions

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

 


Council

26 January 2017

 

 

5.        Council Minutes - 8 December 2016

Reference:

17/42507

Contact:

Jo Daly

Jo.daly@ccc.govt.nz

941 8581

 

 

1.   Purpose of Report

For the Council to confirm the minutes from the Council meeting held 8 December 2016.

 

2.   Recommendation to Council

That the Council confirm the Minutes from the Council meeting held 8 December 2016.

 

 

Attachments

No.

Title

Page

A

Minutes Council - 8 December 2016

6

 

 

Signatories

Author

Jo Daly - Council Secretary

  


Council

26 January 2017

 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


Council

26 January 2017

 

 

6.        Council Minutes - 15 December 2016

Reference:

16/1472393

Contact:

Chris Turner-Bullock

christopher.turner@ccc.govt.nz

941 8233

 

 

1.   Purpose of Report

For the Council to confirm the minutes from the Council meeting held 15 December 2016.

 

2.   Recommendation to Council

That the Council confirm the Minutes from the Council meeting held 15 December 2016.

 

 

Attachments

No.

Title

Page

A

Minutes Council - 15 December 2016

18

 

 

Signatories

Author

Christopher Turner-Bullock - Committee Advisor

  


Council

26 January 2017

 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


Council

26 January 2017

 

Report from Audit and Risk Management Committee  – 7 December 2016

 

7.        2016 Annual Report - Management Report from Audit New Zealand

Reference:

16/1455842

Contact:

Patricia Christie

Patricia.christie@ccc.govt.nz

941 8113

 

 

 

 

1.   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 2016 Annual Report.

2.         After consideration of the Management Report, the Committee recommend to the Council that it receive Audit New Zealand’s Management Report on the 2016 Annual Report.

 

2.  Audit and Risk Management Committee Recommendation to Council

 

Part A

The Audit and Risk Management Committee recommends to the Council:

1.         That it receive Audit New Zealand’s Management Report on the 2016 Annual Report.

 

 

Attachments

No.

Report Title

Page

1

2016 Annual Report - Management Report from Audit New Zealand

28

 

No.

Title

Page

a

Audit NZ 2016 Management letter to Council - final

31

 

 


Council

26 January 2017

 

 

2016 Annual Report - Management Report from Audit New Zealand

Reference:

16/1366727

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 in respect of its audit of the Council’s 2016 Annual Report.

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 reflects the above 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 2016 Annual Report.

2.         After consideration of the Management Report, the Committee recommend to the Council that it receive Audit New Zealand’s Management Report on the 2016 Annual Report.

 

 

4.   Key Points

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

4.2       The key points noted by Audit New Zealand in the Management Report are discussed below.

Property plant and equipment

4.3       The qualified audit opinion is driven from ongoing earthquake related issues on property, plant and equipment.

4.3.1   In 2016 the qualification for wastewater assets was removed following the additional valuation work undertaken during the year. As a result, the remaining asset classes with audit qualifications are Roading and Stormwater.

4.3.2   Staff are planning to revalue the following asset classes for the 2017 Annual report:

·     Wastewater (to incorporate the remaining SCIRT projects);

·     Roading;

·     Stormwater;

·     Water supply (due for revaluation on our three year cycle); and

·     Marine Structures (due for revaluation on our three year cycle).

4.3.3   Special mention has been made of the Council’s inability to analyse the SCIRT work in progress balance into completed assets that should be capitalised, assets under construction and operating expenditure. This has been the case throughout the SCIRT project as a result of the project information flows. The qualification based on the balance potentially including operating expenses has remained.

4.3.4   The treatment of $55.4 million of SCIRT overhead costs resulted in a 2016 qualification. Council had expensed this amount in the 2015 annual report but on review of this treatment these were considered to be capital and were added to the work in progress balance. Council and Audit New Zealand disagreed on the treatment and this resulted in a qualification.

4.3.5   With SCIRT expected to have handed over all its projects by 30 June 2017 Council are hopeful of clearing the qualifications relating to SCIRT in 2017.

Insurance receivable

4.4       The previous qualifications in relation to the Council’s insurance position were removed in the 2016 opinion.

Other focus areas

4.5       The audit team considered the various elements of the Cost Sharing Agreement and the Council’s accounting treatment of these. The overall conclusion was that the elements had been appropriately reflected in the Annual Report.

4.6       Audit New Zealand also looked at the following issues:

4.6.1   They discussed with Council staff the processes in place for the disestablishment of SCIRT and the transfer of information and knowledge.

4.6.2   Reviewed the Council’s project management and governance framework for large rebuild projects.

Issues identified for 2017 Audit

4.7       In relation to the organisational changes undertaken in early 2016 and the recent changes to the Executive Leadership Team – Audit New Zealand have indicated that they will assess the impact of these changes in the 2017 audit.

4.8       The setting of payment dates for excess water rates has been raised by Audit New Zealand as a potential issue. The Council in its rates resolutions does not set a payment date for excess water rates.

4.8.1   Management are considering the effect of the High Court decision on our excess water billing.

 

 

 

Attachments

No.

Title

Page

a 

Audit NZ 2016 Management letter to Council - final

 

 

 

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

Patricia Christie - Manager External Reporting and Governance

Approved By

Diane Brandish - Head of Financial Management

 


Council

26 January 2017

 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

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

26 January 2017

 

 

13.    Proposed ground lease to North Hagley Community Sports and Recreation Charitable Trust over the part of Hagley Park where the former United Bowling Club rooms and green space is situated

Reference:

16/1403246

Contact:

Elizabeth Hovell

elizabeth.hovell@ccc.govt.nz

941 8637

 

 

1.   Purpose of Report

1.1       The purpose of this report is to present to the Council the Reserves Hearing Panel recommendations following the consultation and hearings process on the proposed ground lease to North Hagley Community Sports and Recreation Charitable Trust over the part of Hagley Park where the former United Bowling Club rooms and green space is situated.

1.2       As leasing any part of Hagley Park is of metropolitan significance the final decision rests with the Council. The Reserves Hearing Panel considered the written and oral submissions received on the proposal and is now making recommendations to the Council. The Council can accept or reject the Hearing Panel’s recommendations as it sees fit bearing in mind that the Local Government Act 2002 s.82(e) 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.”  

1.3       As the final decision-maker the Council should put itself in as good as a position as the Hearings Panel, having heard and read all the submissions on the proposal. This report discusses the background, oral and written submissions and includes the Hearings Panel considerations and deliberations.           

 

2.   Hearing Panel Recommendations

That the Council:

1.         Approve the granting of a ground lease to North Hagley Community Sports and Recreation Charitable Trust over the part of Hagley Park where the former United Bowling Club rooms and green space is situated, an area of approximately 5387.5m2, part of Section 6 Survey Office Plan 467852 of 87.5600 hectares more or less, classified as recreation reserve notified in New Zealand Gazette number 107 pg 2706 on 11 September 1980 as shown on Attachment A Lease area Plan RPS 1332.

2.         Authorise the Property Consultancy Manager to manage and conclude the lease subject to:

a.    The lease including a provision that the lessee comply with the noise levels and time limits that are applicable to Hagley Park.

b.    It being understood that any further structural additions, including fencing, would require the approval of Council.

3.         Note that any request to transfer, assign or sublet the lease premise be referred for approval by the Council as lessor. 

 

 

3.   Background

3.1       The Hagley Park Management Plan became operative on 16 August 2007.  One of the key elements if the vision of the park is to have space that is “managed effectively for a variety of public recreational uses, with access and facilities provided to a level that is acceptable in terms of impact on the Park’s environment”. 

3.2       Hagley Park is classified as Recreation Reserve under the Reserves Act 1977 “for the purpose for providing areas for the recreation and sport activities and the physical welfare and enjoyment of the public… with emphasis on the retention of open spaces and on outdoor recreation actives…”

3.3       Clubs and organisations occupying the Park, with activities that are compatible with the purpose of the Park, and that do not compromise the optimum public benefit being achieved for the areas occupied, are required to enter into negotiation for formal lease agreements with the Council. 

3.4       The parcel of land Sec 6 SO 467852 is part of the wider North Hagley Park. It is partly occupied by clubrooms, an equipment storage shed, and two bowling greens, previously held under a lease to the United Bowling Club Incorporated (the “Bowling Club”). The Bowling Club have elected not to renew their lease and are seeking to sell these improvements in order to wind up their affairs. 

3.5       The Hagley Park Management Plan did not consider clubrooms and associated grounds for the purpose of rugby or petanque in this area of Hagley Park.   It would not have been envisioned that the Bowling Club would relinquish their lease leaving behind built assets such as the clubrooms and equipment sheds. However Objective 30 of the Management Plan entitled "Leases, Licences and Rights to Occupy Facilities" does specify the relevant policies to manage the use of Hagley Park by sports clubs and other organisations.  The relevant policies to achieve the above objective which needs to be considered prior to granting a lease include that leases shall be negotiated in accordance with Section 54 of the Reserves Act 1977, that the conditions of any lease shall be based on those prescribed in the First Schedule to the Reserves Act and other conditions and charges the Council may from time to time determine. 

3.6       A Request for Proposals process was undertaken by Council staff early in 2016, respondents were invited to submit proposals for any configuration of land areas that would suit their needs. High School Old Boys Rugby Club Incorporated and Christchurch Petanque Club Incorporated responding that they wished to establish a joint entity for the purpose of leasing and managing the land, subject to the successful purchase of the buildings. Council officers consider that sports clubs with direct links to Hagley Park should be encouraged to consolidate their clubrooms on the Park in favour of fewer buildings that can better provide for user needs.

3.6       The Trust's proposal is to utilise a building that was previously owned by a club that has now vacated Hagley Park.  The proposal utilises an existing building to bring together multiple sporting codes and recreational activities, and reduces the need for a new building in the Park.  This ensures maximum use is made of existing facilities as per Objective 17 of the Management Plan entitled "Buildings and Structures":

To keep to a minimum the number of new buildings on the park and to coordinate and integrate the existing Hagley Park buildings and structures into the Park environment.  To protect historic buildings and structures within the park.

The relevant policies to achieve the above objective which need to be considered prior to granting a lease are:

All opportunities for multiple use of Hagley Park's recreational facilities shall be investigated and, where possible and practical to do so, implemented to ensure the maximum use is made of existing facilities by a wide range of sports.

3.7       A staff report was considered by the Hagley Ferrymead Community Board on 15 June 2016 (included in report to Council in Attachment B), and outlined the background to the proposal, and sought approval of a lease to the new North Hagley Community Sports and Recreation Charitable Trust, subject to public notification of the proposal.

3.8       The Hagley Ferrymead Community Board resolved:

That the Board recommend to Council:

1.         That it publicly notify the proposal to grant a lease to North Hagley Community Sports and Recreation Charitable Trust over that part of Hagley Park where the former United Bowling Clubrooms and green space is situated, an area of approximately 5387.5m2, part of Section 6 Survey Office Plan 467852 of 87.5600 hectares more or less, classified as a recreation reserve notified in New Zealand Gazette number 107 page 2706 on 11 September 1980 as shown on Attachment A, Lease Area Plan RPS 1332.

2.         In its capacity of holding the Minister of Conservation's Delegation, pending the outcome of 1 above, to give consent to the lease in accordance with 54(1)(a)and (b) of the Reserves Act 1977.

3.         To authorise the Property Consultancy Manager to manage and conclude all issues and processes associated with the above resolutions including, but not limited to:

a.         Convening a hearings panel to consider any objections and making a recommendation back to the Council for a decision.

b.         Finalising lease documentation to North Hagley Community Sports and Recreation Charitable Trust for a period of up to 33 years broken into three 11 year terms at an annual rental set in accordance with the Council's Sports Lease Charges Policy.

c.         Granting permission to North Hagley Community Sports and Recreation Charitable Trust to enter into hire and sublease arrangements for utilisation of the grounds and buildings contained within the lease area specifically to High School Old Boys Rugby Club Incorporated, United Croquet Club Incorporated and Christchurch Petanque Club Incorporated as well as other sport and recreation user groups on terms and conditions to be approved by the Property Consultancy Manager on behalf of Council.

3.9       The Hagley Ferrymead Community Board’s recommendation to Council to publicly notify the proposal was considered through a report at the 14 July 2016 Council meeting (Attachment B).  This report noted that the proposed lease was the preferred option because it maximised the recreation potential of the park, minimised the number or new builds, utilised the building for more than one sporting code and concluded the occupation of the United Bowling Club. The Council resolved to:

1.        Publicly notify the proposal to grant a lease to North Hagley Community Sports and Recreation Charitable Trust over that part of Hagley Park where the former United Bowling Clubrooms and green space is situated, an area of approximately 5387.5m2, part of Section 6 Survey Office Plan 467852 of 87.5600 hectares more or less, classified as a recreation reserve notified in New Zealand Gazette number 107 page 2706 on 11 September 1980 as shown on Attachment A, Lease Area Plan RPS 1332.

2.         In its capacity of holding the Minister of Conservation's Delegation, pending the outcome of 1 above, to give consent to the lease in accordance with 54(1)(b)and (c) of the Reserves Act 1977.

3.        To authorise the Property Consultancy Manager to manage and conclude all issues and processes associated with the above resolutions including, but not limited to:

a.        Convening a hearings panel to consider any objections and making a recommendation back to the Council for a decision.

b.        Finalising lease documentation to North Hagley Community Sports and Recreation Charitable Trust for a period of up to 33 years broken into three 11 year terms at an annual rental set in accordance with the Council's Sports Lease Charges Policy.

c.         Granting permission to North Hagley Community Sports and Recreation Charitable Trust to enter into hire and sublease arrangements for utilisation of the grounds and buildings contained within the lease area specifically to High School Old Boys Rugby Club Incorporated, United Croquet Club Incorporated and Christchurch Petanque Club Incorporated as well as other sport and recreation user groups on terms and conditions to be approved by the Property Consultancy Manager on behalf of Council.     

 

4.   Notification and Submissions

4.1       Following the Council resolution of 14 July 2016 a public notice was published in the Christchurch Press on 16 August 2016 (Attachment C).  This meant that the period for submissions closed 16 September 2016.  The public notice provided the appropriate details to receive further information on the proposed lease.

4.2       A total of three submissions were received by the closing date 16 September 2016 (Attachment D). The three submissions consisted of one group and two individuals, with two of these submitters indicated they wish to be heard by the Reserve Hearing Panel. However due to availability only the Christchurch Civic Trust Incorporated appeared before the Hearings Panel. 

4.3       All three submissions were in opposition to the proposed ground lease with one submitter (Christchurch Civic Trust) identifying various procedural concerns. These are addressed in the submission analysis (Attachment E), but include:

4.3.1      Difficulty in accessing the Hagley Park Management Plan;

4.3.2      Delegation of power to the Property Consultancy Manager;

4.3.3      Concerns around inconsistencies in the public notice;

4.3.4      Withholding of relevant information following public request in response to public notice;

4.3.5      The registration of a charitable entity and the purpose of the Trust;

4.3.6      That all submissions should be referred to an independent hearing commissioner for consideration;

4.4       Various other issues raised by the submitters included:

4.4.1      Confusion about the right of the trust to sublease/sublet and the name of the Trust and its purpose;

4.4.2      Concerns that rugby has enough formal use at Hagley Park and is not complementary with petanque.  That this multi-use approach creates the impression of ad hoc management;

4.4.3      Granting of a ground lease pursuant to section 54 (1)(b) and (c) Reserves Act – “to carry out any business”; 

4.4.4      Objection to the length of lease; 

4.4.5      Concerns around noise at night.  

 

5.   The Hearing

5.1       The Hearings Panel consisted of Deputy Mayor Andrew Turner (Chair) and Councillors’ David East and Sarah Templeton.  The Hearings Panel convened on Thursday 1 December to consider and deliberate on all submissions received on the proposed lease. 

5.2       Prior to hearing oral submissions Council Officers present a staff report (Attachment F) and submission analysis to the Hearings Panel.  The Panel received legally privilege advice in regards to the submission from the Christchurch Civic Trust but did not find it necessary to move into public excluded to discuss this further.

5.3       Following the Council officers report and submission analysis, one submitter (the Christchurch Civic Trust) was heard by the Hearings Panel.  Key points raised through the oral submissions included:

5.3.1      Belief that the North Hagley Community Sports and Recreation Charitable Trust should have been incorporated before the public notice appeared in the Press and it is unclear around the right of the Trust to sublease/sublet. 

5.3.2      Concern around the wording “to carry out any business”.  Clarification was sought as it appeared that the potential lease was granting permission for the North Hagley Community Sports and Recreation Charitable Trust to operate a business.  It was clarified that the proposed lease is for the permitted use as clubrooms and playing areas for sports and recreational activities.  That is that the club rooms are only for sport and recreation activities.  A permitted activity for example would be a café for enjoyment for its club members and must be for the benefit of the members.  It is not for the public and is not to draw the public into the site and there could not be external signage.  It was noted also that it would be permitted for the Trust to hire out the clubrooms to club members but it would not be allowable to hire the venue out to non-club members. 

5.3.3      It was difficult to access copies of the Hagley Management Plan online.  Council Officers addressed that they were unaware that it had dropped off the website and these could have been obtained through Council officers. 

5.3.4      The issue of public access to the site was also address.  Council officers advised that the removal of fencing from around the site will make the area more accessible than previously. 

5.4    When considering the written and oral submissions the Hearings Panel felt it was necessary to include two additional recommendations to address the issues of noise and public access to the area raised by submitters.  The first recommendation focuses on the noise issues raised by one of the submitters and the Panel felt it was important that this be included in the lease to protect the amenity of the surrounding neighbours by ensuring that the lessee comply with the noise level and time limits applicable to Hagley Park.  The second recommendations purpose is to maintain the public’s access to the area when not being used by the Trust and that any further structural additions, including fencing, would require the approval of Council.

5.5    Addressing concerns raised by the Christchurch Civic Trust the Hearings Panel wished it to be noted that that any request to transfer, assign or sublet the lease premise be referred for approval by the Council as lessor. 

 

 

 


 

 

Attachments

No.

Title

Page

a

Lease Area Plan RPS 1332

65

b

Report to Council 14 July 2016

66

c

Public notice published 14 August 2016

83

d

Submissions to the proposed ground lease to North Hagley Community Sport and Recreation Trust

84

e

Submission anaylsis to the proposed ground lease to North Hagley Community Sport and Recreation Trust

94

f

Staff report to Reserves Hearing Panel 1 December 2016

103

 

 

Signatories

Author

Elizabeth Hovell - Hearings Adviser

Approved By

Deputy Mayor - Andrew Turner (Chair)

  


Council

26 January 2017

 

PDF Creator


Council

26 January 2017

 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

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

26 January 2017

 

PDF Creator


Council

26 January 2017

 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


Council

26 January 2017

 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


Council

26 January 2017

 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


Council

26 January 2017

 

 

9.        Adoption of the 2017 meeting schedule for the Council's Committees, Subcommittees and Working Parties

Reference:

16/1491281

Contact:

Megan Pearce

Megan.pearce@ccc.govt.nz

941 8140

 

 

1.   Purpose of Report

1.1       This report seeks the Council to adopt a schedule setting out the proposed times and dates of ordinary meetings of the Council’s committees, subcommittees and working parties for the current year until the end of 2017.

 

2.   Staff Recommendations

That the Council:

1.         Adopt the schedule of meetings attached to this report and delegate to the Team Leader Hearings and Council Support the ability to make any changes as necessary to meet circumstances as required.

 

 

3.   Key Points

3.1       At its meeting of 15 December 2016 the Council adopted a committee structure and requested that a proposed timetable and schedule of meetings be presented to Council for adoption.

3.2       In order that the business of the Council can be conducted in an orderly manner, and to allow for public notification of meetings to be given in compliance with the Local Government Official Information and Meetings Act 1987, it is necessary for the Council to adopt a schedule of meetings.

3.3       It is recognised that events may arise, or circumstances change that would mean the schedule may need to be revised or additional meetings added as required. It is therefore proposed that the Team Leader Hearings and Council Support be delegated the authority to make changes to the schedule in order to accommodate business needs.

 

Attachments

No.

Title

Page

a

Draft meeting schedule 2017

108

 

 

Signatories

Author

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

  


Council

26 January 2017

 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


Council

26 January 2017

 

 

10.    Cathedral Square and Surrounds Regeneration Strategy

Reference:

16/1504344

Contact:

Ceciel DelaRue

Ceciel.DelaRue@ccc.govt.nz

03 941 5237

 

 

1.   Purpose and Origin of Report

Purpose of Report

1.1       The purpose of this report is for the Council to agree to work with Regenerate Christchurch to develop a regeneration strategy to catalyse redevelopment of Cathedral Square and the surrounding area, broadly the area between Hereford, Cambridge, Manchester and Kilmore Streets. Strategy development will include identification and delivery of immediate actions to encourage momentum within the area.

1.2       The Council is asked to nominate two Councillors to be members of a proposed steering group that will guide the development of the regeneration strategy. The proposed steering group will include a range of stakeholders as well as representatives of the strategic partners (Crown, Christchurch City Council and Te Rūnanga o Ngāi Tahu).

Origin of Report

1.3       In October 2016 the Board of Regenerate Christchurch agreed to prepare a strategy to catalyse the redevelopment of the blocks of land around Cathedral Square and has requested that the Council works collaboratively with them to develop this strategy.

2.   Significance

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

2.1.1   The level of significance was determined by the high level of community and media interest in Cathedral Square and the surrounding areas, and the potential benefits of regenerating this area for the wider city.  There is also a high level of Crown and Council investment in this area and a relatively high degree of Iwi interest particularly along the Avon River.

2.1.2   The community engagement and consultation proposed for this project reflects the significance assessment.

 

3.   Staff Recommendations 

That the Council:

1.         Agrees to work with Regenerate Christchurch to develop a regeneration strategy to catalyse the redevelopment of Cathedral Square and the surrounding area;

2.         Nominates two Councillors to be members of a steering group for the proposed regeneration strategy, which includes a range of key stakeholders and representatives of the strategic partners;

3.         Notes that the Cathedral Square Anchor Project, identified in the Christchurch Central Recovery Plan for joint delivery by the Crown and the Council, will be informed by this process;

4.         Notes that the development of the proposed regeneration strategy will not delay already approved projects including the refurbishment of Victoria Square, the repairs to the Town Hall, the New Central Library development and the Avon River Precinct redevelopment.

 

 

4.   Context/Background

Overview

4.1       In October 2016, the Board of Regenerate Christchurch agreed to prepare a regeneration strategy to catalyse the redevelopment of the blocks of land around Cathedral Square, broadly the area between Hereford, Cambridge, Kilmore and Manchester Streets (see Attachment A).

4.2       It is acknowledged that the key partners and stakeholders cannot regenerate this area on their own. Collective agreement on a vision and a coordinated set of actions, including investment and redevelopment, is required to catalyse redevelopment.

4.3       The proposed regeneration strategy will be engagement driven. The strategy will promote a clear vision for this part of the central city which is broadly supported across the strategic partners, by key stakeholders and the wider public, and will identify what is needed to achieve this vision. The aim is to improve investor and public confidence through a programme of actions that involve public and private sector stakeholders and the community.

4.4       The Cathedral Square Anchor Project identified in the Christchurch Central Recovery Plan, and jointly funded by the Crown and Christchurch City Council up to $9.2M, would be informed by this process. The action plan is also likely to include the alignment of existing services delivered by Council, and requests for additional actions / resources may emerge from the process.

4.5       A statutory Regeneration Plan could be proposed as an outcome of the strategy, once engagement has identified the issues and opportunities. However, there is value in starting with a regeneration strategy and action plan to encourage momentum and identify immediate actions.

4.6       The strategy will need to acknowledge that the canvas is not blank.  Share an Idea, the ‘Public Space Public Life’ report (produced in partnership with Gehl Architects in 2007/8) and two earlier exercises provide valuable insights into peoples’ aspirations for the area.

Purpose of the proposed steering group

4.7       The purpose of the proposed steering group is to guide Regenerate Christchurch in the development and preparation of a regeneration strategy and action plan for Cathedral Square and the surrounding area.

4.8       The steering group will help ensure the strategy and actions are based upon community aspirations and priorities for the short, medium and long term.

4.9       It is proposed that the strategic partners (the Council, Crown and Te Rūnanga o Ngāi Tahu) will delegate the task of preparing a draft regeneration strategy and action plan to a steering group led by Regenerate Christchurch.

4.10    The strategic partners (including the Council) would be required to approve the draft regeneration strategy and action plan (with associated commitments).

Timeframes

4.11    It is proposed that the steering group will be formed by early February. As this group will have a role in shaping and driving the process much of the subsequent process is – quite appropriately - not yet detailed. The anticipated timeframe is for a draft strategy and sign off stages in June.

Why a Regeneration Strategy for this area

4.12    The focus in this area recognises a measurable lack of regeneration activity and the benefits of a collaborative approach, with collective agreement on the vision and actions that will catalyse redevelopment.

4.13    The strategy will explore the issues and opportunities for the area. Barriers to development include ongoing insurance negotiations and circumstances of individual landowners, the cost of construction and land, availability of tenants and rental/lease values, and certainty regarding larger public and private sector investments.

4.14    The central city district plan rules were reviewed and amended by the Independent Hearings Panel as part of the District Plan Review to reduce significantly “the number, extent, and prescriptiveness of development controls and design standards in the rules” (Statement of expectations for Independent Hearings Panel Schedule 4 (a)(ii)). Permitted activities include retail, commercial, office and residential uses.

4.15    A regeneration strategy provides an opportunity for collaboration between the strategic partners, key stakeholders and the private sector, and recognises that regeneration requires the support and buy-in of the wider community and private interests. The collaborative steering group model allows key stakeholders and the private sector to participate in developing a vision for the area and will encourage private investment and activities. 

4.16    A statutory Regeneration Plan is not precluded as an outcome of the strategy, however there is value in starting with a regeneration strategy and action plan to encourage momentum and identify immediate actions.

 

Attachments

No.

Title

Page

a

Attachment A - Catherdral Square and Surrounds Brief Regenerate Chch

122

 

 

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

Hugh Nicholson - Principal Advisor Urban Design

John Meeker - Principal Advisor

Ceciel DelaRue - Team Leader Urban Design

Approved By

Carolyn Ingles - Head of Urban Regeneration, Urban Design and Heritage

Brendan Anstiss - General Manager Strategy and Transformation

  


Council

26 January 2017

 

PDF Creator


Council

26 January 2017

 

 

11     Re-allocation of a Heritage Incentive Grant for Woods Mill, 14 Wise Street, Addington

Reference:

16/1332227

Contact:

Brendan Smyth

Brendan.smyth@ccc.govt.nz

941 8934

 

 

1.   Purpose and Origin of Report

Purpose of Report

1.1       The purpose of this report is for Council to consider the re-allocation of a Heritage Incentive Grant for Woods Mill.

Origin of Report

1.2       This report is staff generated in response to an application for Heritage Incentive Grant funding from the potential new owner of the buildings.

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 level of significance was determined by the heritage classification of the building and the amount of funding relative to that already approved for allocation to this building in the Long Term Plan.

 

 

3.   Staff Recommendations

That the Council:

1.         Approve the re-allocation of the Heritage Incentive Grant of $900,000 for Woods Mill, 14 Wise Street, to ‘Loprinzi Properties Limited’, subject to the completion of the agreed scope of works.

2.         Note that payment of this grant is subject to the owners entering into a full conservation covenant with the Council to cover the heritage buildings and the heritage setting.

 

 

4.   Key Points

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

4.1.1   Activity: Heritage Protection

·     Level of Service: 1.4.2 All grants meet Heritage Incentives Grants policy and guidelines

4.2       The following feasible options have been considered:

·     Option 1 – Re-allocation of a Heritage Incentive Grant of $900,000 (preferred option);

·     Option 2 - A reduced Heritage Incentive Grant of $600,000;

4.3       Option Summary - Advantages and Disadvantages (Preferred Option)

4.4       The advantages of this option include:

·   It supports the retention of a ‘Highly Significant’ and unusual industrial heritage building, the type which is now extremely rare

·   It promotes adaptive re-use of a heritage building to include mixed commercial and retail use

·   It supports a scheme to upgrade the building in a manner which retains the maximum possible heritage fabric and values

·   Through a conservation covenant the grant affords protection to the open space in front of the building from future development to protect the setting and landmark value of the buildings.

4.5       The disadvantages of this option include:

·   The Woods Mill buildings have been the subject of previous attempts at redevelopment which have faltered due to the scale and complexity of the task. The new and innovative approach to the engineering will make the chances of a successful completion more likely, however there is a risk that the project will not go ahead.

 

5.   Context/Background

Building Status

5.1       The heritage buildings at 14 Wise Street consist of the four storey ‘Mill Building’ and the two storey ‘Grain Store’. They were listed in the former Christchurch City Plan, Group 2 and are scheduled as ‘Highly Significant’ in the replacement Christchurch District Plan. The buildings are registered by Heritage New Zealand Pouhere Taonga (HNZPT) as Category II (register number 7339). Please refer to Attachment A.

5.2       The original four storey, six bay Mill Building was designed by the Architect J.C. Maddison for Wood Brothers and opened circa 1886. The accompanying Grain Store was built at the same time. The Mill Building was enlarged approximately ten years later with the addition of a further two bays at the southern end and then again with an extension to the east side built in 1923. The two additional bays were constructed in a very similar design to the original bays, with only minor differences in architectural detail, while the later eastern extension was built in a simplified style. The whole Mill Building has a relatively simple form and plan with decorated facades composed of brick and stone. Internally the structure is substantial timber posts and beams with timber floors. Originally there was a single ridge roof connecting two brick gables with parapets but a rooftop extension now disrupts this form. A further low architectural quality extension was added to the north end of the building in the 1960s which linked it more substantially to the adjacent Grain Store. The complex of buildings also included a brick boiler house attached to the south end of the Mill Building with a very substantial brick chimney.

5.3       The two storey Grain Store building was built adjacent to the Mill Building and alongside a spur of the railway line. The Grain Store is a relatively solid brick building with an internal structure of timber posts and beams. The western end was converted into a theatre for the ‘Riccarton Players’ prior to the 2010 and 2011 earthquakes and sits on a separate certificate of title.

5.4       The remaining Mill and Grain Store Buildings are two extremely rare examples of very large scale early industrial buildings in Canterbury. The buildings are of exceptionally high architectural quality with fine brick and stone facades, a beautifully simple but massive timber post and beam structure, and native timber windows, floors and roof trusses. The buildings have a refined design with distinct architectural proportions and a strong geometric order.

5.5       Both the Grain Store and the Mill Building are very resilient structures with massive brick walls and very sizeable timber structural members designed to take huge loads. The Mill Building was also designed to withstand substantial vibration from the milling process and these two factors seem to have enabled them to survive the series of earthquakes without irreparable damage, unlike many other similar scale heritage buildings. A number of other structures from the flour milling complex have now been demolished as a result of earthquake damage including the 1923 eastern extension to the mill. 

5.6       The buildings were damaged by the recent series of earthquakes with some parts, such as the tall brick chimney and the upper part of the southern gable end, being removed following partial collapse. The buildings have been made safe and are not the subject of a Section 38 CER Act notice or the replacement Section 77 notice under the Greater Christchurch Regeneration Act 2016.

5.7       The Woods Mill buildings are located in Addington, at the end of Wise Street off Lincoln Road. The unusual scale, materials, form and prominence of these two buildings makes them a strong feature of the landscape and a significant identity marker of the local environment. The proposed adaptive re-use will allow for public access.

5.8       For many years, Christchurch has been losing large scale industrial buildings which were strongly related to the development and growth of the City, Canterbury and the entire South Island. Notable losses include the Kaiapoi Woollen Mills on Manchester Street, The Edmonds Factory on Ferry Road and the PDL factory on Lincoln Road. The earthquakes and their aftermath have resulted in the further loss of significant industrial buildings including the Millers Textile Factory and Department Store on Tuam Street, the New Zealand Loan & Mercantile Woollen Store on Durham Street, the Wards Brewery on Fitzgerald Avenue, and the Nuggets Shoe Polish factory on Ferry Road, Woolston.

A Summary of Council Involvement with Woods Mill since 2011

 

5.9       Council staff have presented a number of different reports to Council and Council Committees over the last five years relating to grant applications in association with these buildings.

5.10    Soon after the 2011 earthquakes Council heritage staff were approached by a developer with proposals to repair and refurbish the Woods Mill buildings and with a request for Council grant funding.

5.11    The first application for a Heritage Incentive Grant (HIG) which went to Committee on the 15 June 2012. A grant for $884,750 was approved to the applicant 'Woods Mill Limited' a company set up specifically to undertake the project.

5.12    A grant of $750,000 was also approved by the Canterbury Earthquake Heritage Buildings Fund Trust (CEHBFT).

5.13    The owner of the mill was 'Plains Developments Limited'. The director of this company was John Grant Cameron.

5.14    A resource consent was submitted for the proposed works to the Mill and Grain Store Buildings (RMA 92019185). However, work did not proceed on this project. The $884,750 HIG and $750,000 CEHBFT grants were never paid out and were returned to the respective fund for re-allocation.

Second Heritage Incentive Grant application

5.15    Following the failure of the first scheme a new group was formed under the umbrella of Plains Developments Limited. This group included John Grant Cameron, Bruce Lindsay, and Stephen Gubb of Hughes Developments.  

5.16    In April 2014 a second HIG application was submitted to and approved by Council. This grant was for $900,000 based on amended plans. The second grant from the CEHBFT was reduced to $500,000 due to less funding being available.

5.17    In August 2015 a formal request was made to Council for an extension of time and to advise a change in the applicant to a new company called 'Woods Mill Investments Limited'.

5.18    This request was approved and the time extended to October 2016. Similar approvals were gained for the CEHBFT grant of $500,000.

5.19    In late 2015 Stephen Gubb and Bruce Lindsay advised that PACE Project Management Limited had been brought in to review the financial viability of the scheme. The resulting assessment resulted in a much higher estimated cost than previously thought. The purchase of the buildings did not proceed and ownership remained with Plains Developments Limited.

5.20    A new potential purchaser has approached Council staff and presented a revised scheme to redevelop the mill complex into office and retail space. The purchaser is a new company ‘Loprinzi Properties Limited’ formed to undertake the project with Michael King as director. Michael King is a chartered structural engineer who designed the engineering component on the building for one of the previous developers and is very familiar with the building. Loprinzi Properties limited has made an offer to purchase the buildings.

Council Heritage staff involvement with these buildings to secure a positive heritage outcome

5.21    As noted above these buildings are the last large scale industrial heritage buildings remaining in Christchurch. Council heritage staff have provided advice on the options for repair and retention of these highly significant buildings and have engaged with a number of different parties over the past five years.

5.22    It is clear that Council funding has been an essential factor in attracting developers and investors to the challenge of retaining of these buildings.

5.23    Staff have encouraged innovative approaches to reduce the impact of the necessary seismic strengthening on the buildings and to retain the maximum heritage fabric possible. The current developers have followed this direction and the scheme will facilitate maximum heritage fabric retention while reducing the amount of new engineering required for New Zealand Building Code compliance.

Current Repair and Reuse Proposals

5.24    The proposal is to undertake the repairs and seismic upgrade work to the buildings in order to turn them into a commercial and retail complex. The upper stories of both buildings will become commercial office space while the ground and first floor of the Grain Store will be used for commercial bars, restaurants and cafes. The ground floor of the Mill Building will also be offices although this could change if retail proved more appropriate at a later stage.

5.25    The engineers have been seeking alternative means by which to strengthen the building in a less invasive manner than previously considered. The aim was to design a method to strengthen the buildings with less structural steel and minimum loss of heritage fabric, reducing the impact on heritage values. The brickwork walls will be retained, cleaned and strengthened with mortar joint steel and modern fibre reinforcement systems. New concrete floors will be laid over the existing timber ones so as to provide both structural diaphragms and fire separation. A single new services core will be built to serve both the Grain Store and the Mill Building and will include a lift, staircase and washroom facilities on each floor. This component will be visually separate from the Mill and Grain Store Buildings and will be replace the existing low architectural quality 1960’s extension.

5.26    The office spaces will be simply finished with as much of the original fabric being exposed as the building code will allow. Original heritage features will be retained either for reuse or as decorative features. The windows and damaged doorways will be replaced in the appropriate form and style.

5.27    The two southern bays, added to the Mill Building in 1896, have begun to structurally separate from the main body of the building and will need to be structurally reconnected. The engineers plan to ‘stitch’ the two elements together with steel bars embedded within the walls and spanning across the ‘tear’.

5.28    The open space directly in front of the Mill and Grain Store buildings is an important element of the overall complex and has historic value in its own right. It was first used as a bowling green for the Mill workers illustrating an unusual and enlightened approach from the Mill owners for the time. The green has since been re-surfaced and is currently used as car parking. The current scheme will retain this area as landscaped, pedestrian focussed, open space. This will preserve views to the Mill Buildings from Wise Street and maintain the unique sense of place that has been created with the composition of buildings and open space as shown on the photograph below.

Woods Mill & Grain Store (7)

‘Woods Mill’ with the Grain Store on the left, February 2014

Funding

5.29    The most recent previous applicants have had a Council Heritage Incentive Grant of $900,000 approved and have also previously been awarded a grant of $500,000 from the Canterbury Earthquake Heritage Building Fund Trust (CEHBF). These grants were based on a projected overall cost in the region of $9,000,000.  With reduced engineering and initial development requirements, new costings prepared by Michael King put the total cost of the revised scheme at $7,600,000.

5.30    The previous HIG grant funding for these buildings of $900,000 was approved in 2014.

6.   Option 1 - Heritage Incentive Grant funding of $900,000

Option Description

6.1       Re-allocate the existing approved funding of $900,000 from the Heritage Incentive Grant fund to Loprinzi Property Limited for Woods Mill. This amount of grant funding would represent a contribution of less than twelve per cent of the total projected cost of the development.

Significance

6.2       The level of significance of this option is low consistent with Section 2 of this report. There are no engagement requirements in the Operational Guidelines or Policy for this grant scheme. 

Impact on Mana Whenua

6.3       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

6.4       The Heritage Incentive Grants scheme is aligned to the Community Outcomes ‘The city’s heritage and taonga are conserved for future generations’ and ‘The central city has a distinctive character and identity’. Heritage Incentive Grants contribute towards the number of protected heritage buildings, sites and objects, which is a measure for these outcomes.

Alignment with Council Plans and Policies

6.5       The recommendations of this report align with the relevant strategies and policies as listed below:

§    Christchurch Recovery Strategy

§    The new Christchurch District Plan

§    Heritage Conservation Policy

§    Greater Christchurch Urban Development Strategy

§    New Zealand Urban Design Protocol

§    International Council on Monuments and Sites (ICOMOS) New Zealand Charter 1993 for Conservation of Places of Cultural Heritage Value.

Financial Implications

6.6       The Heritage Protection activity includes the provision of advice, the heritage grants schemes, heritage recovery policy, and heritage education and advocacy. The Council aims to maintain and protect built, cultural and natural heritage items, areas and values which contribute to a unique city, community identity, character and sense of place and provide links to the past. The Council promotes heritage as a valuable educational and interpretation resource which also contributes to the tourism industry and provides an economic benefit to the city.

6.7       Cost of Implementation - The cost to the Council of this option would be $900,000. This funding was approved for these buildings in 2014 and has been committed for the strengthening and repair of Woods Mill since this time.

6.8       The repair methodology has developed due to a new and innovative engineering approach, however the financial scale remains significant and the grant at the proposed level would not be a high percentage of the total project cost.

6.9       Maintenance / Ongoing Costs - There will be no on-going maintenance costs to Council as a result of this grant.

6.10    Funding source - The Heritage Incentive Grant budget is an annual fund provided for in the 2015-25 Long Term Plan.

Legal Implications

6.11    Heritage Incentive Grants and conservation covenants provide financial assistance for the maintenance and enhancement of heritage areas and buildings.

6.12    Limited conservation covenants are required under the Heritage Conservation Operational Guidelines for properties receiving Heritage Incentive Grants of $15,000 to $149,999.  A full conservation covenant is required for grants of $150,000 or more.

6.13    Covenants are a comprehensive form of protection of the buildings because they are registered on the property title, ensuring that the Council’s investment is protected. As the grant will be above $150,000 there is a requirement for a full conservation covenant on this property title in association with this grant.

Risks and Mitigations

6.14    The grant scheme only allows funds to be paid out upon completion of the works, presentation of receipts, and certification by Council heritage staff. This ensures that the grant scheme is effective and that funds are not diverted or lost. Covenants also act as a protective mechanism, ensuring the building and setting is retained once the work is undertaken.

Implementation

6.15    Implementation dependencies - The grant recipient is expected to acquire all resource, building and other consents required for the works. A new resource consent may be required for this scheme as it varies from previously approved schemes.

6.16    Implementation timeframe - The grant recipient has an eighteen month time period to undertake the works and to claim the grant. An application to extend this timeframe can be made to the Council or relevant Committee.

Option Summary - Advantages and Disadvantages

6.17    The advantages of this option include:

·   It supports the retention of a ‘Highly Significant’ and unusual industrial heritage building, the type which is now extremely rare

·   It promotes adaptive re-use of a heritage building to include mixed commercial and retail use

·   It supports a scheme to upgrade the building in a manner which retains the maximum possible heritage fabric and values

·   Through a conservation covenant the grant affords protection to the open space in front of the building from future development to protect the setting and landmark value of the buildings.

6.18    The disadvantages of this option include:

·   The Woods Mill buildings have been the subject of previous attempts at redevelopment which have faltered due to the scale and complexity of the task. The new and innovative approach to the engineering will make the chances of a successful completion more likely, however there is a risk that the project will not go ahead.

7.   Option 2 – Heritage Incentive Grant funding of $600,000

Option Description

7.1       As for option 1 with a lower level of financial support to the project. This option proposes re-allocating funding of only $600,000 from the Heritage Incentive Grant fund. Other grant levels are obviously possible between the two options. This amount of grant funding would represent a contribution of less than eight per cent of the total cost of the development.

Option Summary - Advantages and Disadvantages

7.2       The advantages of this option include:

·   It supports the retention of a ‘Highly Significant’ and unusual industrial heritage building, the type which is now extremely rare

·   It promotes adaptive re-use of a heritage building to include mixed commercial and retail use

·   It supports a scheme to upgrade the building in a manner which retains the maximum possible heritage fabric and values

·   Through a conservation covenant the grant affords protection to the open space in front of the building from future development to protect the setting and landmark value of the buildings.

7.3       The disadvantages of this option include:

·   A lower level of funding risks the financial viability of the project and/or a reduced level of heritage conservation.

·   The Woods Mill Buildings have been the subject of previous attempts at redevelopment which have faltered due to the scale of the task and there is an increased risk that the project would not proceed.

 

Attachments

No.

Title

Page

a

14 Wise Street - Woods Mill - Statement of Significance

131

 

 

Confirmation of Statutory Compliance

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

(a) This report contains:

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

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

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

 

Signatories

Author

Brendan Smyth - Team Leader Heritage

Approved By

Carolyn Ingles - Head of Urban Regeneration, Urban Design and Heritage

Helen Beaumont - Head of Strategic Policy

  


Council

26 January 2017

 


 


 


Council

26 January 2017

 

 

12.    Heritage Incentive Grant Approval for 39 Kahu Road, Christchurch

Reference:

16/1399618

Contact:

Fiona Wykes

Fiona.wykes@ccc.govt.nz

941 8052

 

 

1.   Purpose and Origin of Report

Purpose of Report

1.1       The purpose of this report is for the Council to approve a Heritage Incentive Grant for two former farm buildings at 39 Kahu Road, Christchurch.

Origin of Report

1.2       This report is staff generated in response to an application for a Heritage Incentive Grant.

2.   Significance

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

2.1.1   The level of significance was determined by the heritage classification of the dwelling and the amount of funding requested being less than $500, 000.

 

3.   Staff Recommendations

That the Council:

1.         Approve a Heritage Incentive Grant of up to $62,326 for conservation, strengthening and repair work to the protected heritage buildings located at 39 Kahu Road, Christchurch.

2.         Note that payment of this grant is subject to the applicant entering into a 20 year limited conservation covenant with the signed covenant having the Council seal affixed prior to registration against the property title.

 

4.   Key Points

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

4.1.1   Activity: Heritage Protection

·     Level of Service: 1.4.2 All grants meet Heritage Incentives Grants policy and guidelines

4.2       The following feasible options have been considered:

·    Option 1 – Fifty per cent grant support of eligible items (preferred option)

·    Option 2 – Thirty per cent grant support of eligible items

4.3       Options Summary – Advantages and Disadvantages (Preferred Option)

             4.3.1 The advantages of this option include:

·    The work will ensure the future protection and use of these significant heritage buildings. The application meets all the criteria for a grant as provided in the Heritage Incentives Grants Policy – Operational Guidelines.

·    Some of the last, early brick farm buildings in Canterbury will be retained and repaired.

·    The buildings will have a compatible use which will enable them to be maintained and protected, and allow public access.

·    With the completion of the works outlined, the buildings will be repaired and upgraded, and the owner is committed to the continuing use and maintenance of the buildings.

4.3.2   The disadvantages of this option include:

·    The buildings will have to be altered both externally and internally in order to facilitate the proposed seismic upgrade works and to accommodate the new uses. Some original heritage materials will be lost in this process.

·    In spite of the insurance pay out and the money raised to date, the grant proposed will  still leave a large gap in funding for the works which may jeopardise the completion of the works. The proposed grant amount equates to less than one fifth of that gap.

 

5.   Context/Background

Building Status

5.1       The two former farm buildings at 39 Kahu Road are scheduled as Significant (Group 2) Buildings in the Christchurch District Plan. The buildings are not listed by Heritage New Zealand Pouhere Taonga (HNZPT). The buildings are of high significance as the only remaining built fabric of a farming nature that connects the nearby Riccarton House property, to the original Deans farming settlement, and thus to the first European agricultural activity on that site. Within the context of early Canterbury farms, the buildings are distinctive for their refined construction and the handsome and decorative architectural style. The use of purely decorative elements in their construction, such as the highly decorative cast iron apron, and the decorative brickwork, is extremely rare in 19th century New Zealand farm buildings. Please refer to Attachment A, “Statement of Significance” for further information.

5.2       The current owners of the building, and the applicants for the grant, are the Christchurch Boys’ High School Board of Trustees. The owners have $1,486,468 available from insurance and have raised a further $147,061, totalling $1,644,529 available to date for the repair and upgrades of these buildings to enable them to be reused.  The total costs to repair the buildings (including heritage and non-heritage related costs) is estimated at $2,120,000 excluding GST, leaving the owners with a gap of $546,395.  The buildings have not been the subject of previous Council Heritage Incentive Grant funding. As the buildings are wholly owned by the Board of Trustees, they are not eligible for funding from the Ministry of Education for capital works or maintenance.

5.3       The owners intend to repair and restore the two former farm buildings and to convert them into spaces that are more appropriate than the most recent uses which included storage sheds. It is intended that the larger of the two buildings, with the two storey element (Building A) will be used as a school museum and for the storage of the school’s archives. The intention is to encourage organised tours, preferably linked to those at Riccarton House, given the direct connection between the two properties. The single storey building (Building B) will house the school’s uniform shop, as well as a community room for the use of the Parent Teachers Association, the Old Boys Association and community group meetings. Public access will be allowed to both buildings. The Board of Trustees will be seeking a gold coin donation from visitors to help with the ongoing maintenance of the buildings and to fund, if possible, the employment of an archivist.

 

Photograph Farm buildings 39 Kahu Road, January 2015, M Vairpiova

6.   Option 1 – Fifty per cent grant support of eligible items (preferred)

Option Description

6.1       The former farm buildings consist of two brick buildings, dating from the mid-1870s to the mid-1880s. The larger of the two buildings consists of a brick, two storey component, with a hipped metal roof topped with a cast iron finial and a single storey barrel vaulted component. There is a decorative eaves level cornice formed by brick corbelling on the two storey section. The first floor windows feature a stilted arch head while the ground floor windows and doors have segmental arch heads. The single storey section has brick walls with a barrel vaulted corrugated metal roof. There is a small round window, known as an ‘oeil-de-beouf’, in the western gable end, and the remnants of a decorative cast iron apron hanging from the roof at the gable ends.

6.2       The second building is a single storey brick building, with a barrel vaulted corrugated metal roof, and corrugated metal to the upper part of the gable ends. Windows mostly consist of high level horizontal strip openings, although there are also some small, low level openings with segmental arch heads. Currently the large door openings in the gable ends have metal tilt-up garage doors instead of the original doors.

6.3       The buildings suffered extensive damage in the Canterbury earthquakes and have had to be propped externally (see photograph above). Since the earthquakes the buildings have also suffered damage from a fire. The buildings have been unused since the earthquakes. Earthquake repairs, strengthening upgrades, maintenance, and limited alterations to enable adaptive re-use (including the replacement of the tilt-up garage doors with frameless glass doors to fit the existing openings) have been granted resource consent (RMA 92033248)

6.4       The proposed grant would support the work necessary to repair, retain, and protect the heritage fabric of these important former farm buildings. With the completion of the works outlined, the building will be repaired and structurally upgraded, and the owner is committed to the ongoing use and future maintenance of the building.

6.5       All relevant costs of the heritage related works have been summarised in the table below:

 

Particulars

Costs

 (GST exclusive)

Preliminary & General & Contingency

$449,445.00

Preparation and Foundations – Building A

$201,230.00

Preparation and Foundations – Building B

$145,780.00

Wall structure and strengthening – Building A

$108,035.00

Wall structure and strengthening – Building B

$60,565.00

Upper floor structural repair and strengthening – Building A

$17,160.00

Roofing – Building A

$43,170.00

Roofing – Building B

$58,890.00

Brickwork repair – Building A

$89,945.00

Brickwork repair – Building B

$51,205.00

Windows, doors, interior repairs – Building A

$46,510.00

Windows, doors, interior repairs – Building B

$62,800.00

External stair – Building A

$30,000.00

Services, including fire – Building A

$69,325.00

Services, including fire – Building B

$33,155.00

Electrical – Building A

$71,555.00

Electrical – Building B

$46,400.00

Professional fees/ consents

$173,000.00

Total of conservation and restoration related work

$1,758,180.00

Insurance payment

-$1,486,468.00

Money raised outside any grants or insurance

-$147,061.00

Total of conservation and restoration related work requiring

assistance

$124,651.00

 

6.6       The Operational Guidelines for the Heritage Incentive Grants Policy provide for a grant of up to fifty percent of the total heritage related costs. The buildings have high historical and social significance to Canterbury, as well as architectural, aesthetic and technological signification. Their retention and repair is worthy of support. A grant of fifty percent would be appropriate for this project.

 

Proposed Heritage Incentive Grant (fifty per cent of cost of itemised works requiring assistance)

$62,326.00

 

Significance

6.7       The level of significance of this option is low consistent with section 2 of this report.  There are no engagement requirements in the Operational Guidelines or Policy for this grant scheme.

Impact on Mana Whenua

6.8       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

6.9       The Heritage Incentive Grants Scheme is aligned to the Community Outcomes ‘The city’s heritage and taonga are conserved for future generations’ and ‘The central city has a distinctive character and identity’. Heritage Incentive Grants contribute towards the number of protected heritage buildings, sites and objects, which is a measure for these outcomes.

Alignment with Council Plans and Policies

 

6.10    The recommendations of this report align with the relevant strategies, plans and policies as listed below:

·           Christchurch Recovery Strategy

·           The replacement Christchurch District Plan

·           Heritage Conservation Policy

·           Greater Christchurch Urban Development Strategy

·           New Zealand Urban Design Protocol

·           International Council on Monuments and Sites (ICOMOS) New Zealand Charter 1993

 

Financial Implications

             Cost of implementation:

 

Annual Budget for the Heritage Incentive Grant (HIG) fund                     

$740,800.00

Approved grant to 34 St David’s Street, Lyttelton

$13,462.00

Approved grant to 13 Oxford Street, Lyttelton

$29,250.00

Approved grant to 39 Kahu Road, Christchurch (War Memorial)

$3,312.00

Approved grant to 75 St David’s Street, Lyttelton

$127,415.00

Approved grant to 311 Montreal Street, Christchurch

$3,667.00

Proposed grant to 39 Kahu Road, Christchurch

$62,326.00

Total Available Funds 2016/2017

$501,368.00

 

6.11    The Heritage Protection activity includes the provision of advice, the heritage grants schemes, heritage recovery policy, and heritage education and advocacy. The Council aims to maintain and protect built, cultural and natural heritage items, areas and values which contribute to a unique city, community identity, character and sense of place and provide links to the past. The Council promotes heritage as a valuable educational and interpretation resource which also contributes to the tourism industry and provides an economic benefit to the city.

6.12    Heritage Incentive Grants and conservation covenants provide financial assistance for the maintenance and enhancement of heritage areas and buildings.

6.13    Funding source - The Heritage Incentive Grant budget is an annual fund provided for in the 2015-25 Long Term Plan.

Legal Implications

6.14    Limited conservation covenants are required under the Heritage Conservation Operational Guidelines for properties receiving Heritage Incentive Grants of $15,000 to $149,999.  A full covenant is required for grants of $150,000 or more.

6.15    Covenants are a comprehensive form of protection of the buildings because they are registered against the property title, ensuring that the Council’s investment is protected. A 20 year limited conservation covenant will be required in association with this grant.

Risks and Mitigations

6.16    The grant scheme only allows funds to be paid out upon completion of the works and upon presentation of receipts. This ensures that the grant scheme is effective and that funds are not diverted or lost. Covenants also act as a protective mechanism, ensuring the building is retained once the work is undertaken.

Implementation

6.17    Implementation dependencies - The grant recipient is expected to acquire all resource, building and other consents required for the works. A resource consent has been granted for the works in this application (RMA 92033248).

6.18    Implementation timeframe - The grant recipient has an eighteen month time period to undertake the works and to claim the grant. An application to extend this timeframe can be made to the Council.

 

Option Summary - Advantages and Disadvantages

6.19    The advantages of this option include:

·   The work will ensure the future protection and use of these significant heritage buildings. This application meets all the criteria for a grant as provided in the Heritage Incentive Grants Policy – Operational Guidelines.

·   Some of the last, early brick farm buildings in Canterbury will be retained and repaired.

·   The buildings will have a compatible use which will enable them to be maintained and protected and also that will allow public access.

·   With the completion of the works outlined, the buildings will be repaired and upgraded, and the owner is committed to the continuing use and maintenance of the buildings.

6.20    The disadvantages of this option include:

·   The buildings will have to be altered both externally and internally in order to facilitate the proposed seismic upgrade works and to accommodate the new uses. Some original heritage materials will be lost in this process.

·   In spite of the insurance pay out and the money raised to date, the grant proposed will  still leave a large gap in funding for the works which may jeopardise the completion of the works. The proposed grant amount equates to less than one fifth of that gap.

 

7.   Option 2 – A lower level of funding

Option Description

7.1       As for option 1 but with a lower level of financial support to the project. Previous HIG Grant support to other projects in the city has varied but has been generally between thirty and fifty percent of the cost of eligible works. A lower grant of thirty percent ($37,395.00) is shown in the table below. Other grant levels are obviously possible between the two options.

 

Annual Budget for the Heritage Incentive Grant (HIG) fund                     

$740,800.00

Approved grant to 34 St David’s Street, Lyttelton

$13,462.00

Approved grant to 13 Oxford Street, Lyttelton

$29,250.00

Approved grant to 39 Kahu Road, Christchurch (War Memorial)

$3,312.00

Approved grant to 75 St David’s Street

$127,415.00

Approved grant to 311 Montreal Street, Christchurch

$3,667.00

Proposed grant to 39 Kahu Road, Christchurch

$37,395.00

Total Available Funds 2016/2017

$526,299.00

 

Option Summary - Advantages and Disadvantages

7.2       The advantages of this option include:

·   Would leave more funds available for other projects.

7.3       The disadvantages of this option include:

·   This would be a lower level of support from Council for a significant heritage building repair project at a time of significant loss and damage to heritage buildings in Christchurch and Banks Peninsula.

·   Risk that the owner would not progress the works or would scale back some of the heritage conservation components.

 

Attachments

No.

Title

Page

a

Statement of Significance - 39 Kahu Road - Former Deans' Farm Buildings

142

 

 

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

Fiona Wykes - Senior Heritage Advisor

Approved By

Brendan Smyth - Team Leader Heritage

Carolyn Ingles - Head of Urban Regeneration, Urban Design and Heritage

Helen Beaumont - Head of Strategic Policy

  


Council

26 January 2017

 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


Council

26 January 2017

 

 

13.    Development Contributions Policy Review 2017

Reference:

16/1245391

Contact:

Gavin Thomas

Gavin.thomas@ccc.govt.nz

941-8834

 

 

1.   Purpose and Origin of Report

Purpose of Report

1.1       To seek Council approval of the proposed amendments to the Development Contributions Policy for community consultation. 

1.2       To seek Council agreement to extend the use of catchments, so that development contributions more closely match actuals costs in different parts of the district, in the Development Contributions Policy.

Origin of Report

1.3       This report is staff generated and was referred to in a report to the Council on 22 September 2016. That report, on the review to the Development Contributions Policy being undertaken at that time, detailed the intention for a further review in 2016/17. Paragraph 5.14 of that report said:

A full review of the Development Contributions Policy is planned to be undertaken the 2016-17 year. This will include a review of the wording of the Policy, the possible introduction of sub-district catchments for more activities, a review of Household Unit Equivalent (HUE) assessment methodology and an update of the capital expenditure programme and development contribution charges if required.

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 an assessment of the issues covered. It is important to note that there will be community consultation undertaken on the draft Development Contributions Policy.

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

 

3.   Staff Recommendations

That the Council:

1.         Agrees to the amendments to the draft Development Contributions Policy as detailed in Attachment 1 for the purposes of community consultation.

2.         Agrees to further work on the proposal to extend the use of catchments, so that development contributions more closely match the cost of development in different parts of the district, in the Development Contributions 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: 17.0.1 Advice is provided to Council on high priority policy and planning issues that affect the City

4.2       The following feasible options have been considered:

·  Option 1 – Agree to the proposed minor policy amendments detailed in Attachment 1 and further work on catchments (preferred option).

·  Option 2 – Agree to the proposed minor policy amendments detailed in Attachment 1.

·  Option 3 – Do not amend or further review the Development Contributions Policy.

4.3       Option Summary - Advantages and Disadvantages (Preferred Option)

4.3.1   The advantages of this option include:

·  Enables the review of the Development Contributions Policy to proceed with policy amendments agreed (subject to the community engagement process).

·  Enables front-end engagement on major policy issues with key stakeholders including the Christchurch Development Forum.

4.3.2   The disadvantages of this option include:

·  There are a relatively large number of policy issues to be considered at once.

 

5.   Context/Background

Development Contributions Policy (DCP)

5.1       Christchurch City Council has had a Development Contributions Policy (the Policy) since 2004. The Policy enables the Council to recover a share of the costs of providing new infrastructure to service growth demand from developers who place additional demand on the Council’s infrastructure networks and therefore benefit from the Council’s investment.

5.2       The Policy must comply with requirements detailed in the Local Government Act 2002 (the Act). It is required to be reviewed at least every three years and can be reviewed at any time, as long as the review process meets the requirements of the Act.

5.3       The Policy was reviewed in 2015, in parallel with the preparation of the Council’s Long Term Plan 2015-25, and amended in 2016 to ensure it remained consistent with the Council’s amended Long Term Plan. This review reflected the Council’s adoption of a revised capital expenditure programme, and changes to the assumed future interest and inflation rates used for development contribution calculations.

The current review process

5.4       While the current Policy meets legislative requirements there are a range of policy provisions proposed to be changed to ensure continued compliance with best practice.  There are also a number of minor amendments proposed to improve the clarity and efficiency of various aspects of the policy. The proposed changes are in response to opportunities identified by staff to improve the implementation of the policy, from their experience over the past two years.

5.5       A project steering group and a project team, comprising key staff within the development contributions process, have been established to oversee and undertake the review process. The proposals for change presented in Attachment 1 have been agreed by the steering group and the project team.

5.6       There is work currently being undertaken on reviewing the way catchments are used to allocate development contribution costs and charges. The recommended policy approach will see catchments introduced for many activities which are currently assessed on a district-wide basis. This will enable the development contribution charges to more accurately reflect the cost of providing infrastructure to different parts of the district.  Further work is required before the revised catchment approach can be recommended to Council.

5.7       The amended Development Contributions Policy and the proposed extension of the use of catchments will be presented to the Christchurch Development Forum and their feedback sought.

5.8       The review of the Policy has recognised the principles detailed in the Act as well those agreed by the Council as part of the 2015 review process.

5.9       In summary, the seven principles in the Act are that councils’ approach to development contributions should promote:

·    transparency

·    simplicity ( including practicality and administrative efficiency)

·    fair and reasonable charges (proportional to demand)

·    certainty

·    beneficiary/causer pays

·    intergenerational equity 

·    compliance with the law.

5.10    The additional principles agreed by the Council are:

·    wherever possible developments should pay the full capital cost to the Council of servicing new development

·    variation in development contribution charges is acceptable to reflect variation in costs of servicing different types of demand in different areas

·    intentional cost sharing be avoided wherever feasible to support fair and reasonable charges (recognising that some cost sharing is inevitable and desirable).

5.11    The Council’s current DCP is available on the Council website at https://ccc.govt.nz/the-council/plans-strategies-policies-and-bylaws/policies/building-and-planning-policies/development-contributions-policy/

Summary of the proposed amendments

5.12    The proposed amendments are a mix of minor policy changes, clarifications and editorial improvements:

·    Tidy up of references to the Christchurch District Plan – previously the Christchurch City Plan and/or the Banks Peninsula District Plan

·    Clarify that pipes and lines installed by network utilities are not liable for development contributions

·    Add an explicit ‘development test’ to the methodology

·    Small residential unit adjustments: remove the garaging clause; assess storm-water on actual impervious surface area; and remove the rebate scheme

·    Family flats: clarify description

·    Clarify requirements for special assessments for non-residential development

·    Clarify methodology for valuation of land taken for reserves

·    Require a legal agreement where a developer is to provide infrastructure and/or land in lieu of  cash contributions

·    Clarify Crown exemptions

·    Provide guidance on remissions and reductions

·    Clarify timing and methodology for staged developments

·    Link the temporary building provision to the Christchurch District Plan and the Greater Christchurch Regeneration Act

·    Clarify the rationale for and approach to catchments (defined geographic areas)

·    Clarify how the ‘growth model’ is used to forecast development at a catchment level.

6.   Option 1 - Agree to the proposed policy amendments detailed in Attachment 1 and agree to further work on catchments (preferred)

Option Description

6.1       Amend the policy provisions to ensure compliance with best practice, and to improve clarity and efficiency – proposed amendments are detailed in Appendix 1. For each policy provision Appendix 1 explains the deficiency of the current policy, proposes an amended policy approach and, where applicable, explains any implications a change in policy may raise.

6.2       Agree to further work to introduce catchments for many activities which are currently assessed on a district-wide basis. This will enable the development contribution charges to more accurately reflect the cost of providing infrastructure in different parts of the district. 

Significance

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

6.4       Engagement requirements for this level of significance are that no additional engagement is required over and above that required for a review of the Policy. A review of the policy must meet the requirements of section 82 of the Local Government Act.

Impact on Mana Whenua

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

Community Views and Preferences

6.6       The development community are specifically affected by this option due to it resulting in changes to the Council’s Development Contributions Policy.  The views of the Christchurch Development Forum will be sought on introducing catchments prior to further amendments of the Policy being presented to the Council for approval.

6.7       When the Council has approved a draft Policy the community engagement process used will be targeted to the development community and open to the wider community.

Alignment with Council Plans and Policies

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

Financial Implications

6.9       Cost of Implementation – some of the proposed policy changes have minor financial implications in terms of the development contributions revenue. These changes are impossible to predict precisely and are considered to be immaterial in the context of the Council’s overall development contributions revenue.

6.10    Maintenance / Ongoing Costs – none applicable

6.11    Funding source – not applicable

Legal Implications

6.12    The Legal Services Unit has reviewed the proposed changes and their feedback has been incorporated into the proposals detailed in Attachment 1.

Risks and Mitigations  

6.13    There are no risks identified with the Council agreeing to the proposed policy changes.

Implementation

6.14    Implementation dependencies - The policy amendments detailed in this report are part of a wider review of the Policy.

6.15    Implementation timeframe – It is proposed that the full review of the Policy is completed by 30 June 2017. There is no legislative or other requirement to complete the review by this date and there may be reasons why a later adoption may be preferred as this would enable the Council’s latest capital works programme to be accurately captured in the schedule of assets and development contribution charges.

Option Summary - Advantages and Disadvantages

6.16    The advantages of this option include:

a)  Enables the review of the Policy to proceed with the policy amendments agreed (subject to Council consideration of a full draft Policy and the community engagement process).

b)  Enables front-end engagement on major policy issues with the Christchurch Development Forum.

c)   The reviewed Policy will be more transparent, easier to understand and easier to implement.

6.17    The disadvantages of this option include:

a)  There are costs associated with a policy review.

7.   Option 2 - Agree to the proposed policy amendments detailed in Attachment 1

Option Description

7.1       As for option 1 but with no further work on catchments.

Significance

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

7.3       Engagement requirements for this level of significance are as for option 1.

Impact on Mana Whenua

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

Community Views and Preferences

7.5       The development community are specifically affected by this option due to it resulting in changes to the Council’s Development Contributions Policy.  The views of the Christchurch Development Forum will be sought as part of community engagement.

Alignment with Council Plans and Policies

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

Financial Implications

7.7       Cost of Implementation – as for option 1.

7.8       Maintenance / Ongoing Costs – Not applicable.

7.9       Funding source – Not applicable.

Legal Implications

7.10    As for option 1.

Risks and Mitigations  

7.11    There are no risks identified with the Council agreeing to the proposed policy changes.

Implementation

7.12    Implementation dependencies – as for option 1.

7.13    Implementation timeframe – as for option 1.

Option Summary - Advantages and Disadvantages

7.14    The advantages of this option include:

a)  As for option 1.

7.15    The disadvantages of this option include:

a)  Development contribution charges do not match costs across the district.

8.   Option 3 – Make no changes to the Development Contributions Policy

Option Description

8.1       The Council does not agree to the proposed policy changes detailed in Attachment 1 or to any further review of the Development Contributions Policy at this time.

Significance

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

8.3       Engagement requirements for this level of significance are consistent with those proposed.

Impact on Mana Whenua

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

Community Views and Preferences

8.5       The development community are specifically affected by this option due to their requirement to pay development contributions.  Their views are yet to be sought.

Alignment with Council Plans and Policies

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

Financial Implications

8.7       Cost of Implementation – Nil.

8.8       Maintenance / Ongoing Costs – Not applicable.

8.9       Funding source - Not applicable.

Legal Implications

8.10    Not applicable.

Risks and Mitigations  

8.11    Not reviewing and improving the Policy may lead to suboptimal decisions being made in implementing the current policy.

8.12    Risk – the Policy is not improved as proposed.

8.12.1 Treatment: Review in parallel with preparing the LTP.

8.12.2 Residual risk rating: the rating of the risk is Low.

Implementation

8.13    Implementation dependencies – not applicable.

8.14    Implementation timeframe – not applicable.

Option Summary - Advantages and Disadvantages

8.15    The advantages of this option include:

a)  Resource allocation – none required.

8.16    The disadvantages of this option include:

a)  The Development Contributions Policy is not improved as proposed. While there is no direct legal risk identified with this option the proposed changes to the Policy are being made to improve the usability of the policy and to ensure the policy continues to evolve to reflect current best practice and compliance requirements. 

 

Attachments

No.

Title

Page

a

Development Contributions Policy – proposed policy amendments 2017

154

 

 

Confirmation of Statutory Compliance

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

(a) This report contains:

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

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

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

 

Signatories

Author

Gavin Thomas - Principal Advisor Economic Policy

Approved By

Helen Beaumont - Head of Strategic Policy

Brendan Anstiss - General Manager Strategy and Transformation

  


Council

26 January 2017

 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

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

26 January 2017

 

 

14.    Submission on the Health (Fluoridation of Drinking Water) Amendment Bill

Reference:

17/37984

Contact:

Judith Cheyne

Judith.cheyne@ccc.govt.nz

9418649

 

 

1.   Purpose of Report

1.1       This report is to advise Council about the Health (Fluoridation of Drinking Water) Bill and present a draft submission for approval.

 

2.   Staff Recommendations

That the Council:

1.         Approve the draft submission.

2.         Decide whether to appear in support of the submission or not.

 

 

3.   Key Points

3.1       Councillors were sent a briefing note on the Bill on 16 December 2016, which is attached to this report (attachment 1).  The briefing note sets out the background on the Bill, the LGNZ remit, and a table setting out the implications for the Council of the proposals.

3.2       One Councillor provided an emailed response in relation to the questions asked by staff, but we have also received informal views.  The written response was opposed to the DHB having the right to direct local authorities to fluoridate water.  However, staff understand the general view is that this is because it should be a central government decision; not handed to any layer of local government, including DHBs. 

3.3       The written response agreed the cost associated with fluoridating water should not be met by the local authority, and questioned the cost to implement this for a city the size of Christchurch, and also questioned changing the image of Christchurch’s pure water against the benefit of fluoridating the water.

3.4       The costs to Christchurch of setting up fluoridation of the water supplies have been estimated by staff (a rough estimate only, completed without a site by site assessment or any in depth investigation): “….based on 55 water supply pump stations in Christchurch (around 155 wells) plus six water supply schemes on Banks Peninsula make it expensive compared to single point source supplies, we would need about 70 dosing sites.  Likely setup cost 80 to 150 k per site (plastic tank and dosing pump or, hopper bin and stainless "shaker" auger).  Total $10.5m.”

3.5       The costs to Christchurch of maintaining fluoridation: “..to dose our total minimum  production of around 50 million cubic metres of water a year we would need about:


120 ton of sodium silico  NZ $1350 / tonne  or
220 ton of hydroflorosilic NZ $950 / tonne

Estimated chemical cost 160,000 to $200,000 per year
Plus O+M of around $250,000 a year . Therefore about half a million dollars a year as a rough order of cost to keep it all running.”

3.6       Support was also expressed that the Bill should provide for full consultation with the City before any decision on fluoridation was considered (with support for using a referendum to make the decision).

3.7       The draft LGNZ submission (as at 22 December 2016) has the following conclusion and recommendations:

“Conclusion

As drafted the Bill fails to meet LGNZ’s and indeed the Government’s stated objective to remove local government from any form of decision-making about whether or not to add fluoride to a drinking water supply. Without some form of duty on the decision-maker to actively consider the case the Bill creates a policy vacuum that may expose councils to ongoing pressure from interest groups to consider the fluoridation option.

…..

Recommendations

1. Amend the Bill to remove any obligations for DHBs and instead require the Director General of Health to consider the issue of fluoridation of drinking water supplies.

2. Confirm that the costs of fluoridation will rest with the decision-maker.

3. Amend the Bill to require the decision-maker to at least inform councils and communities that it is considering fluoridation and seek comments on any such proposal.” 

3.8       The draft Council submission (attachment 2) proposes supporting the LGNZ submission and Canterbury Mayoral Forum submission, and makes additional points relevant to this Council.

 

Attachments

No.

Title

Page

a

Briefing Note

177

b

Draft submission

185

 

 

Signatories

Author

Judith Cheyne - Senior Solicitor

Approved By

John Mackie - Head of Three Waters and Waste

David Adamson - General Manager City Services

  


Council

26 January 2017

 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


Council

26 January 2017

 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator

 

 


Council

26 January 2017

 

 

15.  Resolution to Exclude the Public

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

 

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

 

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

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

 

Note

 

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

 

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

 

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

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

 

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


Council

26 January 2017

 

 

 

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

16

Public Excluded Council Minutes - 15 December 2016

 

 

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

 

17

Public Excluded Council Minutes - 8 December 2016

 

 

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

 

18

Internal Audit Status Report

s7(2)(e), s7(2)(f)(ii), s7(2)(j)

Prevention of Material Loss, Protection from Improper Pressure or Harassment, Prevention of Improper Advantage

Prevent the use of Internal Audit findings being utilised for improper advantage.

Consideration of release when reported findings have been closed.

19

Risk Management Status Report

s7(2)(c)(ii), s7(2)(f)(ii)

Prevent Damage to the Public Interest, Protection from Improper Pressure or Harassment

Prevent the improper use of information.

Consideration of release pending status of risks and management activity.