Christchurch City Council

Agenda

 

 

Notice of Meeting:

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

 

Date:                                     Thursday 23 March 2017

Time:                                    9.30am

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

 

 

Membership

Chairperson

Deputy Chairperson

Members

Mayor Lianne Dalziel

Deputy Mayor Andrew Turner

Councillor Vicki Buck

Councillor Jimmy Chen

Councillor Phil Clearwater

Councillor Pauline Cotter

Councillor Mike Davidson

Councillor David East

Councillor Anne Galloway

Councillor Jamie Gough

Councillor Yani Johanson

Councillor Aaron Keown

Councillor Glenn Livingstone

Councillor Raf Manji

Councillor Tim Scandrett

Councillor Deon Swiggs

Councillor Sara Templeton

 

 

17 March 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

23 March 2017

 

 

 


Council

23 March 2017

 

TABLE OF CONTENTS

 

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

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

3.       Public Participation.................................................................................................................. 5

3.1       Public Forum....................................................................................................................... 5

3.2       Deputations by Appointment............................................................................................... 5

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

Council

5.       Council Minutes - 23 February 2017........................................................................................ 7

6.       Council Annual Plan 2017 - 18 Minutes - 28 February 2017................................................ 15

7.       Council Minutes - 2 March 2017............................................................................................ 23

8.       Council Minutes - 9 March 2017............................................................................................ 29

Audit and Risk Management Committee

9.       Audit and Risk Management Committee Minutes - 20 February 2017.............................. 41

Finance and Performance Committee

10.     Performance report for the six months to 31 December 2016........................................... 45

11.     Corporate Finance Report for the period ending 31 December 2016................................ 77

Infrastructure, Transport and Environment Committee

12.     An Accessible City: Hereford Street (Manchester - Madras)............................................... 87

13.     Infrastructure, Transport and Environment Committee Minutes - 8 March 2017.......... 111

Regulatory Performance Committee

14.     Urban Design Panel Update and Terms of Reference........................................................ 121

15.     Regulatory Performance Committee Minutes - 8 March 2017......................................... 131

Social and Community Development Committee

16.     Heritage Incentive Grant and Covenant Consent Approval for 37 Valley Road, Cashmere 135

17.     Social and Community Development Committee Minutes - 1 March 2017.................... 149

STAFF REPORTS

18.     Council Submission - Government Policy Statement on Land Transport 2018............... 155

19.     Housing Infrastructure Fund ............................................................................................... 161

20.     Financial Delegation to the Chief Executive....................................................................... 163

21.     Resolution to Exclude the Public......................................................................................... 170  

 

 

 


Council

23 March 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 and to stand aside from decision making when a conflict arises between their role as an elected representative and any private or other external interest they might have.

3.   Public Participation

3.1  Public Forum

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

3.2  Deputations by Appointment

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

23 March 2017

 

 

5.        Council Minutes - 23 February 2017

Reference:

17/122159

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 23 February 2017.

 

2.   Recommendation to Council

That the Council confirm the Minutes from the Council meeting held 23 February 2017.

 

 

Attachments

No.

Title

Page

A

Minutes Council - 23 February 2017

8

 

 

Signatories

Author

Jo Daly - Council Secretary

  


Council

23 March 2017

 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


Council

23 March 2017

 

 

6.        Council Annual Plan 2017 - 18 Minutes - 28 February 2017

Reference:

17/235395

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 on 28 February 2017.

 

2.   Recommendation to Council

That the Council confirm the Minutes from the Council meeting held on 28 February 2017.

 

 

Attachments

No.

Title

Page

A

Minutes Council Annual Plan 2017 - 18 - 28 February 2017

16

 

 

Signatories

Author

Christopher Turner-Bullock - Committee Advisor

  


Council

23 March 2017

 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


Council

23 March 2017

 

 

7.        Council Minutes - 2 March 2017

Reference:

17/256035

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 2 March 2017.

 

2.   Recommendation to Council

That the Council confirm the Minutes from the Council meeting held 2 March 2017.

 

 

Attachments

No.

Title

Page

A

Minutes Council - 2 March 2017

24

 

 

Signatories

Author

Jo Daly - Council Secretary

  


Council

23 March 2017

 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


Council

23 March 2017

 

 

8.        Council Minutes - 9 March 2017

Reference:

17/249329

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 on 9 March 2017.

 

2.   Recommendation to Council

That the Council confirm the Minutes from the Council meeting held 9 March 2017.

 

 

Attachments

No.

Title

Page

A

Minutes Council - 9 March 2017

30

 

 

Signatories

Author

Christopher Turner-Bullock - Committee Advisor

  


Council

23 March 2017

 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


Council

23 March 2017

 

 

9.        Audit and Risk Management Committee Minutes - 20 February 2017

Reference:

17/193160

Contact:

Margaret Henderson

Margaret.henderson@ccc.govt.nz

941 8185

 

 

1.   Purpose of Report

The Audit and Risk Management Committee held a meeting on 20 February 2017 and is circulating the Minutes recorded to the Council for its information.

 

2.   Recommendation to Council

That the Council receives the Minutes from the Audit and Risk Management Committee meeting held 20 February 2017.

 

 

Attachments

No.

Title

Page

A

Minutes Audit and Risk Management Committee - 20 February 2017

42

 

 

Signatories

Author

Margaret Henderson - Committee Advisor

  


Council

23 March 2017

 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


Council

23 March 2017

 

Report from Finance and Performance Committee  – 1 March 2017

 

10.    Performance report for the six months to 31 December 2016

Reference:

17/210850

Contact:

Diane Brandish

Diane.brandish@ccc.govt.nz

941 8454

 

 

 

 

1.  Finance and Performance Committee Consideration

 

The Committee considered the report and asked that a workshop be held around the reporting of the Levels of Service performance.

 

2.   Staff Recommendations

 

That the Finance and Performance Committee recommend that the Council:

1.         Receive the information in the report.

 

3.  Finance and Performance Committee Decisions Under Delegation

 

Part C

The Committee resolved to:

1.       Receive the information in the report.

 

2.         Request an urgent report to the Finance and Performance Committee’s 5 April 2017 meeting on the maintenance on the roads, footpaths, parks and greenspace and what can be done to address the failing Levels of Service.

 

3.         Request a report regarding the Earthquake Improvement Allowance including recommendations on how the balance can be utilised.

 

4.  Finance and Performance Committee Recommendation to Council

 

Part A

That the Council:

1.         Receive the information in the report.

 

 

Attachments

No.

Report Title

Page

1

Performance report for the six months to 31 December 2016

47

 

No.

Title

Page

a

Dec 2016 - LOS Exceptions

54

b

Dec 2016 - Financial Performance

64

c

Dec 2016 - Significant Capital Projects

71

d

Dec 2016 - Special Funds

76

 

 


Council

23 March 2017

 

 

Performance report for the six months to 31 December 2016

Reference:

17/76074

Contact:

Diane Brandish

diane.brandish@ccc.govt.nz

941 8454

 

 

1.   Purpose and Origin of Report

1.1       The purpose of this report is for the Finance and Performance Committee and Council to be updated on service delivery, financial and Capital Works Programme performance results for the first six months of the 2016/2017 financial year.

 

2.   Staff Recommendations

That the Finance and Performance Committee recommend that the Council:

1.         Receive the information in the report.

 

3.   Key Points

3.1       The Council’s operational financial results for the first six months are positive with a year to date net underspend.  As previously signalled the full year savings target will not be met, but this shortfall will be offset by increased revenue. At this stage a small $1.1m surplus is forecast for year end. 

3.2       Capital expenditure of $296 million was delivered during the first half of the year, $9 million less than budgeted. The current financial forecast is for 2016/17 delivery to be $39.7 million ahead of budget meaning budget will need to be brought back from next year and funds borrowed earlier. We don’t think that this timing difference will have a material effect on the operating result. 

 

4.   Context/Background

Levels of Service

4.1       The December data indicates that 91.3 percent of Levels of Service performance targets are forecast to be achieved in 2016/17. This result is well above the 85 percent set as the overall Christchurch City Council objective.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

4.2       Attachment A lists details of those Levels of Service where forecasts indicate that the target will not be met, or will require corrective action to be achieved.

 

Financial Performance Summary

 

Year to Date Results

Forecast Year End Results

After Carry Forwards

$m

Actual

Plan

Var

Forecast

Plan

Var

Carry Fwd

Result

Operational

 

 

 

 

 

Expenditure

281.3

277.2

-4.1

553.0

550.4

-2.6

7.8

-10.4

Revenues and Funding

-263.4

-252.8

10.6

-516.0

-500.4

15.6

4.1

11.5

Ratepayer financing required

17.9

24.4

6.5

37.0

50.0

13.0

11.9

1.1

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Capital

 

 

 

 

 

 

Programme Expenditure

296.0

384.1

88.1

657.8

695.7

37.9

32.1

5.8

Less planned Carry Forwards

-

-79.1

-79.1

-64.0

-141.6

-77.6

-77.6

-

Expenditure to be financed

296.0

305.0

9.0

593.8

554.1

-39.7

-45.5

5.8

Revenues and Funding

-246.1

-336.7

-90.6

-455.5

-485.6

-30.1

-4.6

-25.5

Ratepayer borrowing

49.9

-31.7

-81.6

138.3

68.5

-69.8

-50.1

-19.7

 

 

 

 

 

Total Ratepayer financing required

67.8

-7.3

-75.1

175.3

118.5

-56.8

-38.2

-18.6

 

4.3       Key commentary on operational and capital year to date results are given below.  This is followed by a section for each area giving further details.  A view of the Council’s financial results by Group of Activity is provided in Attachment B.


 

4.4       Operational expenditure is higher than budget year to date, as a result of unspecified operational savings not found ($3.9 million).  The unfavourable forecast variance is due to the expectation that $8.9 million of unspecified operational savings that were included in the Annual Plan will not be found this year without reducing levels of service. Work to identify these savings is still ongoing and an additional $2.5 million has been identified and built into the 2017/2018 Draft Annual Plan.  The balance will be addressed as part of the next Long Term Plan.

4.5       Operational revenues and funding are higher than budget year to date due to a combination of higher dividends and interest, rates and parking revenue. These variances are forecast to be permanent and increase slightly by year end. Clause 4.10 to 4.14 provides details.

4.6       Capital expenditure is below budget year to date due to timing differences, but is forecast to be $39.7 million ahead of budget by year end due mainly to facilities rebuild work.  Budget bring backs from 2017/18 of $45.5 million have been signalled to cover this advance spending.  Clauses 4.16 and 4.17 provides details.

4.7       Capital revenues/recoveries are below budget year to date mainly due to timing of CCHL capital release.  An unfavourable variance is forecast for the year.  Clause 4.20 to 4.25 provides details.

4.8       Required borrowing is currently $75.1 million more than budget and forecast to be $56.8 million higher at year end, ($40.0 million of which is due to the changed CCHL capital release). $38.2 million is signalled as a budget bring back (timing) resulting in a permanent difference of $18.6 million.

 

Operational

 

 

Year to Date Results

Forecast Year End Results

After Carry Forwards

$m

Actual

Plan

Var

Forecast

Plan

Var

C/F

Result

Personnel costs

93.8

91.9

-1.9

182.8

180.8

-2.0

-

-2.0

Less recharged to capital

-17.1

-17.1

-

-34.7

-35.2

-0.5

-

-0.5

Grants and levies

28.0

28.7

0.7

43.2

47.8

4.6

6.3

-1.7

Operating costs

84.4

82.6

-1.8

172.6

169.3

-3.3

1.5

-4.8

Maintenance costs

50.0

51.0

1.0

107.4

107.8

0.4

-

0.4

Debt servicing

42.2

40.1

-2.1

81.7

79.9

-1.8

-

-1.8

Expenditure

281.3

277.2

-4.1

553.0

550.4

-2.6

7.8

-10.4

 

 

 

 

 

Operating revenue

-72.4

-68.3

4.1

-143.2

-137.5

5.7

-

5.7

Interest and dividends

-49.2

-44.4

4.8

-89.9

-81.5

8.4

3.9

4.5

Rates income

-211.2

-209.9

1.3

-422.1

-421.1

1.0

-

1.0

Revenue

-332.8

-322.6

10.2

-655.2

-640.1

15.1

3.9

11.2

 

 

 

 

 

 

Net Cost

-51.5

-45.4

6.1

-102.2

-89.7

12.5

11.7

0.8

Funding Sources

 

 

 

 

Transfers from Special Funds

-3.1

-2.7

0.4

-6.4

-5.9

0.5

0.2

0.3

Less Rates reqd for capex / debt

72.5

72.5

-

145.6

145.6

-

-

-

Funds not available for Opex

69.4

69.8

0.4

139.2

139.7

0.5

0.2

0.3

 

 

 

 

 

Ratepayer financing required

17.9

24.4

6.5

37.0

50.0

13.0

11.9

1.1

 

4.9       Operational expenditure year to date is $4.1 million higher than budget, with a forecast of $10.4 million over at year end after adjusting for carry forwards. Other than the $8.9 million covered under clause 4.4 there are no other material variances.

4.10    Operating revenues for Council activities are $4.1 million higher than budget year to date mainly due to unplanned Crown contributions for Three Waters ($2.4 million), and increased parking revenue ($1 million).  A forecast favourable result of $5.7 million is largely made up of the Crown contributions (above), increased parking revenue ($1.3 million), and trade waste and excess water charges ($1m).

4.11    Higher interest and dividends revenue results from a $3.9 million Transwaste dividend being received a year earlier than budgeted and higher interest revenue due to investments of the remaining insurance proceeds.  

4.12    Rates revenue is proving to be higher than budget and the forecast has been updated.

4.13    Special fund drawdowns are slightly higher than budget year to date due to unplanned grant payments to Ōtautahi Community Housing ($0.9 million), offset by lower capital endowment fund drawdowns ($0.6 million). The forecast is higher than budget due to lower interest on fund balances.

4.14    The residual net borrowing for operational costs is $6.5 million under budget year to date, and forecast to be $1.1 million under budget at year end after proposed carry forwards are accounted for.

4.15    The net cost of individual activities are shown in Attachment B.


 

Capital Programme

 

 

Year to Date Results

Forecast

After Carry Forwards

$m

Actual

Plan

Var

Forecast

Plan

Var

C/F

Result

Three Waters

26.6

45.2

18.6

80.8

85.9

5.1

4.7

0.4

Roading and Transport

22.1

19.9

-2.2

75.0

65.9

-9.1

-10.7

1.6

Strategic Land

0.1

-

-0.1

12.0

6.5

-5.5

-5.5

-

IM&CT

7.4

11.5

4.1

17.8

20.0

2.2

2.0

0.2

Other

10.4

15.7

5.3

40.2

53.9

13.7

12.9

0.8

Works Programme

66.6

92.3

25.7

225.8

232.2

6.4

3.4

3.0

 

 

 

 

 

Infrastructure - SCIRT

142.3

150.9

8.6

171.2

171.2

-

-

-

Infrastructure - Non SCIRT

31.6

57.9

26.3

109.4

104.6

-4.8

-5.4

0.6

Transitional / Recovery Projects

6.0

6.9

0.9

15.0

16.0

1.0

0.7

0.3

Facilities Rebuild

48.9

70.4

21.5

132.8

160.8

28.0

27.3

0.7

Rockfall and Improvmt Allowce

0.6

5.7

5.1

3.6

10.9

7.3

6.1

1.2

Rebuild Programme

229.4

291.8

62.4

432.0

463.5

31.5

28.7

2.8

 

 

 

 

Gross Capital Spend

296.0

384.1

88.1

657.8

695.7

37.9

32.1

5.8

Planned Carry forwards

-

-79.1

-79.1

-64.0

-141.6

-77.6

-77.6

-

Funded Capital Spend

296.0

305.0

9.0

593.8

554.1

-39.7

-45.5

5.8

 

 

 

 

 

Development Contributions

-17.3

-8.7

8.6

-26.3

-17.4

8.9

-

8.9

Less DC Rebates

3.0

7.4

4.4

8.6

14.7

6.1

5.5

0.6

DPMC Recoveries

-9.5

-44.5

-35.0

-44.5

-44.5

-

-

-

NZTA Capital Subsidy

-87.2

-62.8

24.4

-117.3

-125.6

-8.3

-13.8

5.5

Vbase recovery - Town Hall

-13.6

-16.3

-2.7

-33.3

-29.2

4.1

4.1

-

Capital release / Special dividends

-71.0

-151.9

-80.9

-116.0

-151.9

-35.9

-

-35.9

Misc Capital Revenues

-1.3

-0.7

0.6

-1.9

-1.4

0.5

-

0.5

Asset Sales

-0.1

-0.2

-0.1

-6.3

-11.3

-5.0

-

-5.0

Capital Revenues

-197.0

-277.7

-80.7

-337.0

-366.6

-29.6

-4.2

-25.4

 

 

 

 

Net Cost

99.0

27.3

-71.7

256.8

187.5

-69.3

-49.7

-19.6

 

 

 

 

 

Rates (Renewals /Landfill /Tsfrs)

-56.3

-56.3

-

-113.1

-113.1

-

-

-

Special Funds

7.2

-2.7

-9.9

-5.4

-5.9

-0.5

-0.4

-0.1

Available Funding Sources

-49.1

-59.0

-9.9

-118.5

-119.0

-0.5

-0.4

-0.1

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Borrowing Required

49.9

-31.7

-81.6

138.3

68.5

-69.8

-50.1

-19.7

 

4.16    Capital expenditure is $296 million for the first half of the year (97 percent of year to date funded budget). Over 75% of spend is on the rebuild programme with the SCIRT works making up the majority of these and forecast to be completed in this financial year.  A further $297.8 million is currently forecast to be spent by year end which equates to 107% of total budget.

4.17    The $5.8 million forecast underspend after net budget bring back is made up of a number of variances the largest of which are:

4.17.1    Roading and Transport - due to savings in numerous projects, including road lighting renewals.

4.17.2    Rockfall and improvement allowance - surpluses have been identified as all sites are now in construction.

4.18    Group of Activity level variance commentary for the Capital programme is included in
Attachment B.

4.19    Financial results of significant (>$250,000) capital works programme projects are shown in Attachment C.

4.20    Development contributions are higher than budget year to date as development is higher than planned outside of the rebate areas.

4.21    The large variance to plan for recoveries is due to timing of rebuild infrastructure expenditure.

4.22    Capital release/special dividends are lower than budget year to date due to timing of CCHL capital release.  The forecast includes a lower CCHL capital release ($40 million), offset by higher Tuam dividend ($3.9 million).

4.23    Miscellaneous capital revenues are higher than budget year to date due to higher water connection fees.

4.24    Property asset sales forecast is a $5 million shortfall for the year due to sales not likely to eventuate in this financial year.  

4.25    Special funds drawdowns are $9.9 million lower than budget year to date, mainly due to increased developer contributions set aside to fund future growth works. Timing of central city rebates are also contributing.

4.26    Borrowing for the Capital Programme is expected to be significantly more than budget at year end, although budget bring backs due to timing reduce this to permanent extra borrowing of $19.7 million.  This largely relates to the decreased capital release from CCHL ($40 million).

Special Funds

4.27    The current and forecast movements and balance of the Housing Account, Capital Endowment Fund and Earthquake Mayoral Relief Fund are shown in Attachment D.

4.28    The balance of 2016/17 funds currently unallocated in the Capital Endowment Fund is $232,838.

Earthquake Improvement Allowance

4.29    The Earthquake Improvement Allowance, which is borrowed for, currently has $1,118,796 unallocated. It is reported as $6,118,796 as it includes $5 million relating to the New Brighton Hot Water Pools project.  This has been forecast to be carry forward.

 

Attachments

No.

Title

Page

a 

Dec 2016 - LOS Exceptions

 

b 

Dec 2016 - Financial Performance

 

c 

Dec 2016 - Significant Capital Projects

 

d 

Dec 2016 - Special Funds

 

 

 

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

Bruce Moher - Manager Planning & Reporting Team

Diane Brandish - Head of Financial Management

Ryan McLachlan - Reporting Accountant

Approved By

Diane Brandish - Head of Financial Management

Carol Bellette - General Manager Finance and Commercial (CFO)

 


Council

23 March 2017

 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


Council

23 March 2017

 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


Council

23 March 2017

 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


Council

23 March 2017

 

PDF Creator


Council

23 March 2017

 

Report from Finance and Performance Committee  – 1 March 2017

 

11.    Corporate Finance Report for the period ending 31 December 2016

Reference:

17/210972

Contact:

Patricia Christie
Steve Ballard

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

941 8113
941 8447

 

 

 

 

1.  Finance and Performance Committee Consideration

 

The Committee asked that staff prepare a report providing information on the number of library books able to be borrowed and the library debt write-off.

 

2.   Staff Recommendations

 

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

 

3.  Finance and Performance Committee Recommendation to Council

 

Committee Decided FPCM/2017/00001

Part A

That the Council receive the report.

 

 

Attachments

No.

Report Title

Page

1

Corporate Finance Report for the period ending 31 December 2016

78

 

No.

Title

Page

a

Debt Written Off - Summary - 31 December 2016

86

 

 


Council

23 March 2017

 

 

Corporate Finance Report for the period ending 31 December 2016

Reference:

17/142602

Contact:

Patricia Christie
Steve Ballard

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

941 8113
941 8447

 

 

1.   Purpose and Origin of Report

Purpose of Report

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

Origin of Report

1.2       This report is staff generated.

2.   Significance

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

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

 

 

3.   Staff Recommendations

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

 

 

4.   Key Points

 

Treasury Risk versus Policy Limits

4.1       Net Debt for treasury risk management purposes is defined as Council’s borrowing (including borrowing from subsidiaries and the Capital Endowment Fund, but excluding any finance leases), less amounts on-lent to CCHL, “borrower note” investments in LGFA (explained under the table below), and cash holdings.

4.2       Movements in this Net Debt figure represent Council’s net operating and capital spending flows over the period.

4.3       At 31 December 2016, Net Debt was $868 million, a year-to-date increase of $155 million.  Key movements in the year to date have been:

a)         Repayment of $67 million to Vbase (part of Vbase’s insurance settlement, temporarily lent to Council because of the higher interest rates Council can access on term deposits).

b)        $76 million of new borrowing from LGFA, $26 million of which was on-lent to CCHL to fund its investment in Enable.

c)         $174 million reduction in cash and deposits.

4.4       These changes are shown in the table below:

 

Current Debt and Investments versus June 2016

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

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

 

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

 

Debtors

4.6       At 31 December 2016, the debtors' balance stood at $11.9 million, $1.1 million lower than reported in June 2016. The decrease is primarily due to Resource Consenting debt which decreased by $1.0 million from $1.9 million as at 30 June to $0.9 million at 31 December 2016. General Debtors remained consistent at $8.3 million.

4.7       Debts of $79,656 has been written-off during the first half of the financial year compared to $453,193 for the 6 months ending June 2016. The significant decrease is due to the write off of $365,642 owed by companies that were placed into liquidation or receivership in the first 6 months of 2016 financial year.  Further detail is provided in paragraph 6.4 below.

 


 

5.   Treasury Report

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

Treasury Risk

Description

Short-Term Liquidity Risk

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

Long-Term Funding Risk

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

Interest Rate Re-pricing Risk

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

Counterparty Credit Risk

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

 

Policy Snapshot

Risk Area

Policy Compliance

Liquidity

Within

Funding

Within

Interest Rate Re-pricing

Breach

Counterparty Credit

Within

 

5.2       Short-term Liquidity Risk

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

 

Policy Limit (LGFA Liquidity Ratio must >110%) – Within Limit

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

 

5.3       Long-term Funding Risk

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

 

Policy Limit (existing maturities only) – Within Limit

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

 

 

 

 

Council Funding Risk (current maturities plus expected future new borrowing)

* Existing maturities (blue bars) include the maturity of internal borrowing from Vbase ($49 million). 

* New Borrowing reflects 31 December 2016 projections, NOT the draft 2017/18 Plan.

 

5.4       Interest Rate Re-pricing Risk

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

 

Policy Limit – Breach

* Red bars show how much debt is at a contractually fixed rate as at each 30 June.

* Projected debt (green line) is at 31 December 2016, NOT the draft 2017/18 Plan.

 

5.4.1   The Policy breach in the financial years 2017 to 2019 has been caused by the significant fall in projected debt – the level of hedging has not changed since December 2014.  The breach was noted and ratified at the 10 March 2016 Council meeting.

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

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

 

5.5       Credit Risk

To minimise risk of loss due to a counterparty's inability to make payments to Council when due.

 

Policy Limit – Within Limit

 

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

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

 


 

6.   Debtors Report

6.1       At 31 December 2016, the debtors' balance stood at $11.9 million, $1.1 million lower than reported in June 2016.

6.1.1   The decrease is primarily due to Resource Consenting debt which decreased by $1.0 million from $1.9 million as at 30 June to $0.9 million at 31 December 2016. General Debtors remained consistent at $8.3 million.

6.2       The significant debtors within the General Debtors balance of $8.3 million include Vbase Limited and Land Information New Zealand. These two debtors account for approximately $5.8 million of the balance.

Overdue Debtors

6.3       Overdue debtors, (older than 92 days), have decreased by $0.075 million to $0.845 million (7.09 per cent of total debt compared to 7.08 per cent reported in June 2016). This is covered in more detail in the Overdue Debtors report in the public excluded agenda.

Debts Written off

6.4       Debts of $79,656 have been written-off during the first half of the financial year compared to $453,193 for the 6 months ending June 2016. The detail is below:

6.5       Regulatory debts written off during the period include $11,500 of resource consent fees approved by Council on 14 July 2016. Sundry debtors written off include $14,309 of service fees approved by Council on 8 September.

6.6       The significant decrease in debt written off compared to the same period in 2015 relates to the $365,642 owed by companies that have been placed into liquidation or receivership.  These debts were written off following Council approval with the majority being provided for at 30 June 2015.  A summary report is provided in Attachment A.

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

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

 

 

Attachments

No.

Title

Page

a 

Debt Written Off - Summary - 31 December 2016

 

 

 

Confirmation of Statutory Compliance

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

(a) This report contains:

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

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

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

 

Signatories

Authors

Andrea Olsen - Financial Accountant

Steve Ballard - Manager Funds and Financial Policy

Patricia Christie - Manager External Reporting and Governance

Approved By

Diane Brandish - Head of Financial Management

Carol Bellette - General Manager Finance and Commercial (CFO)

 


Council

23 March 2017

 

PDF Creator


Council

23 March 2017

 

Report from Infrastructure, Transport and Environment Committee  – 8 March 2017

 

12.    An Accessible City: Hereford Street (Manchester - Madras)

Reference:

17/254331

Contact:

Neil Gillon

neil.gillon@ccc.govt.nz

941 8127

 

 

 

 

1.  Infrastructure, Transport and Environment Committee Consideration

 

1.         The Committee considered a report seeking its recommendation to the Council to approve the scheme design and resolutions relating to An Accessible City, Hereford Street (Manchester – Madras).

2.         The Committee agreed on the staff recommendations and also requested that staff investigate an option for at least one disability park on this stretch of street and report back to the Council.

 

2.   Staff Recommendations

 

That the Infrastructure, Transport and Environment Committee recommend that the Council approves the scheme design and resolutions relating to the following An Accessible City Phase 2 network transformation project as detailed in Attachment 1:

 

Existing Hereford Street – Madras Street to Manchester Street: Traffic Control

3.1.     Approve that all traffic controls on both sides of Hereford Street from its intersection with Madras Street to its intersection with Manchester Street be revoked.

New Hereford Street – Madras Street to Manchester Street: Traffic Control

3.2.     Approve the road marking changes, kerb alignment changes on both sides of Hereford Street from its intersection with Madras Street to its intersection with Manchester Street as detailed on Attachment A.

Existing Hereford Street – Madras Street to Latimer Square (West Side): Parking and Stopping Restrictions

3.3.     Approve that all parking and stopping restrictions on both sides of Hereford Street from its intersection with Madras Street to its intersection with Manchester Street be revoked.

New Hereford Street – Madras Street to Latimer Square (West Side): Parking and Stopping Restrictions

3.4.     Approve that the stopping of vehicles be prohibited at any time on the north side of Hereford Street, commencing at its intersection with Latimer Square (west side) and extending in an easterly direction to its intersection with Madras Street.

Existing Intersection – Hereford Street / Latimer Square (West Side)

3.5.     Approve that all traffic controls at the intersection of Hereford Street and Latimer Square (west side) be revoked.

3.6.     Approve that all parking and stopping restrictions on both sides of Latimer Square (west side) commencing at its intersection with Hereford Street and extending in a northerly direction for a distance of 18 metres be revoked.

New Intersection – Hereford Street / Latimer Square (West Side)

3.7.     Approve that the stopping of vehicles be prohibited at any time on the west side of Latimer Square (west side) commencing at its intersection with Hereford Street and extending in a northerly direction for a distance of 17 metres.

3.8.     Approve that the stopping of vehicles be prohibited at any time on the east side of Latimer Square (west side) commencing at its intersection with Hereford Street and extending in a northerly direction for a distance of 18 metres.

3.9.     Approve that a Give Way control be placed against Latimer Square (west side) at its intersection with Hereford Street.

Existing Intersection – Hereford Street / Liverpool Street: Traffic Control

3.10.   Approve that all traffic controls at the intersection of Hereford Street and Liverpool Street be revoked.

New Hereford Street- Latimer Square (West Side) to Manchester Street: Parking and Stopping Restrictions

3.11.   Approve that the stopping of vehicles be prohibited at any time on the north side of Hereford Street, commencing at its intersection with Latimer Square (west side) and extending in a westerly direction for a distance of 14 metres.

3.12.   Approve that the parking of vehicles be restricted to a maximum period of 60 minutes on the north side of Hereford Street commencing at a point 14 metres west of its intersection with Latimer Square (west side) and extending in a westerly direction for a distance of 6 metres.

3.13.   Approve that a Bus Stop be created on the north side of Hereford Street commencing at a point 27 metres west of its intersection with Latimer Square (west side) and extending in a westerly direction for a distance of 14 metres.

3.14.   Approve that the stopping of vehicles be prohibited at any time on the north side of Hereford Street, commencing at a point 41 metres west of its intersection with Latimer Square (west side) and extending in a westerly direction for a distance of 8 metres.

3.15.   Approve that the parking of vehicles be restricted to a maximum period of 60 minutes on the north side of Hereford Street commencing at a point 50 metres west of its intersection with Latimer Square (west side) and extending in a westerly direction for a distance of 5 metres.

3.16.   Approve that the stopping of vehicles be prohibited at any time on the north side of Hereford Street, commencing at a point 55 metres west of its intersection with Latimer Square (west side) and extending in a westerly direction to its intersection with Manchester Street.

3.17.   Approve that the stopping of vehicles be prohibited at any time on the south side of Hereford Street, commencing at its intersection with Madras Street and extending in a westerly direction for a distance of 55 metres.

3.18.   Approve that the parking of vehicles be restricted to a maximum period of 60 minutes on the south side of Hereford Street commencing at a point 55 metres west of its intersection with Madras Street and extending in a westerly direction for a distance of 17 metres.

3.19.   Approve that the stopping of vehicles be prohibited at any time on the south side of Hereford Street, commencing at a point 72 metres west of its intersection with Madras Street and extending in a westerly direction for a distance of 10 metres.

3.20.   Approve that a Bus Stop be created on the south side of Hereford Street commencing at a point 82 metres west of its intersection with Madras Street and extending in a westerly direction for a distance of 14 metres.

3.21.   Approve that the stopping of vehicles be prohibited at any time on the south side of Hereford Street, commencing at a point 96 metres west of its intersection with Madras Street and extending in a westerly direction to its intersection with Manchester Street.

New Hereford Street- Manchester Street to Madras : Special vehicle lanes (Cycle Lanes)

3.22.   Approve that a special vehicle lane (Cycle Lane) for east bound cyclists only, be installed on the north side of Hereford Street commencing at its intersection with Manchester Street and extending in an easterly direction to its intersection with Latimer Square (east side).

3.24.   Approve that a special vehicle lane (Cycle Lane) for west bound cyclists only, be installed on the south side of Hereford Street commencing at its intersection with Madras Street and extending in a westerly direction to its intersection with Manchester Street.

3.25.   Approve that a special vehicle lane (Cycle Lane) for west bound cyclists only, be installed on the south side of Hereford Street commencing at its intersection with Madras Street and extending in an easterly direction for a distance of 15 metres.

New Intersection – Hereford Street / Madras Street: Traffic Control

3.26.   Approve that a Give Way control be placed against the Madras Street left turn slip lane into Hereford Street at its intersection with Hereford Street.

3.27.   Approve that a pedestrian crossing (Zebra) be installed across the Madras Street left turn slip lane into Hereford Street at a point approximately 7 metres south of its intersection with Hereford Street.

 

3.  Infrastructure, Transport and Environment Committee Recommendation to Council

 

Part A

That the Council approves the scheme design and resolutions relating to the following An Accessible City Phase 2 network transformation project as detailed in Attachment 1:

Existing Hereford Street – Madras Street to Manchester Street: Traffic Control

1.         Approve that all traffic controls on both sides of Hereford Street from its intersection with Madras Street to its intersection with Manchester Street be revoked.

New Hereford Street – Madras Street to Manchester Street: Traffic Control

2.         Approve the road marking changes, kerb alignment changes on both sides of Hereford Street from its intersection with Madras Street to its intersection with Manchester Street as detailed on Attachment A.

Existing Hereford Street – Madras Street to Latimer Square (West Side): Parking and Stopping Restrictions

3.         Approve that all parking and stopping restrictions on both sides of Hereford Street from its intersection with Madras Street to its intersection with Manchester Street be revoked.

New Hereford Street – Madras Street to Latimer Square (West Side): Parking and Stopping Restrictions

4.         Approve that the stopping of vehicles be prohibited at any time on the north side of Hereford Street, commencing at its intersection with Latimer Square (west side) and extending in an easterly direction to its intersection with Madras Street.

Existing Intersection – Hereford Street / Latimer Square (West Side)

5.         Approve that all traffic controls at the intersection of Hereford Street and Latimer Square (west side) be revoked.

6.         Approve that all parking and stopping restrictions on both sides of Latimer Square (west side) commencing at its intersection with Hereford Street and extending in a northerly direction for a distance of 18 metres be revoked.

New Intersection – Hereford Street / Latimer Square (West Side)

7.         Approve that the stopping of vehicles be prohibited at any time on the west side of Latimer Square (west side) commencing at its intersection with Hereford Street and extending in a northerly direction for a distance of 17 metres.

8.         Approve that the stopping of vehicles be prohibited at any time on the east side of Latimer Square (west side) commencing at its intersection with Hereford Street and extending in a northerly direction for a distance of 18 metres.

9.         Approve that a Give Way control be placed against Latimer Square (west side) at its intersection with Hereford Street.

Existing Intersection – Hereford Street / Liverpool Street: Traffic Control

10.       Approve that all traffic controls at the intersection of Hereford Street and Liverpool Street be revoked.

New Hereford Street- Latimer Square (West Side) to Manchester Street: Parking and Stopping Restrictions

11.       Approve that the stopping of vehicles be prohibited at any time on the north side of Hereford Street, commencing at its intersection with Latimer Square (west side) and extending in a westerly direction for a distance of 14 metres.

12.       Approve that the parking of vehicles be restricted to a maximum period of 60 minutes on the north side of Hereford Street commencing at a point 14 metres west of its intersection with Latimer Square (west side) and extending in a westerly direction for a distance of 6 metres.

13.       Approve that a Bus Stop be created on the north side of Hereford Street commencing at a point 27 metres west of its intersection with Latimer Square (west side) and extending in a westerly direction for a distance of 14 metres.

14.       Approve that the stopping of vehicles be prohibited at any time on the north side of Hereford Street, commencing at a point 41 metres west of its intersection with Latimer Square (west side) and extending in a westerly direction for a distance of 8 metres.

15.       Approve that the parking of vehicles be restricted to a maximum period of 60 minutes on the north side of Hereford Street commencing at a point 50 metres west of its intersection with Latimer Square (west side) and extending in a westerly direction for a distance of 5 metres.

16.       Approve that the stopping of vehicles be prohibited at any time on the north side of Hereford Street, commencing at a point 55 metres west of its intersection with Latimer Square (west side) and extending in a westerly direction to its intersection with Manchester Street.

17.       Approve that the stopping of vehicles be prohibited at any time on the south side of Hereford Street, commencing at its intersection with Madras Street and extending in a westerly direction for a distance of 55 metres.

18.       Approve that the parking of vehicles be restricted to a maximum period of 60 minutes on the south side of Hereford Street commencing at a point 55 metres west of its intersection with Madras Street and extending in a westerly direction for a distance of 17 metres.

19.       Approve that the stopping of vehicles be prohibited at any time on the south side of Hereford Street, commencing at a point 72 metres west of its intersection with Madras Street and extending in a westerly direction for a distance of 10 metres.

20.       Approve that a Bus Stop be created on the south side of Hereford Street commencing at a point 82 metres west of its intersection with Madras Street and extending in a westerly direction for a distance of 14 metres.

21.       Approve that the stopping of vehicles be prohibited at any time on the south side of Hereford Street, commencing at a point 96 metres west of its intersection with Madras Street and extending in a westerly direction to its intersection with Manchester Street.

New Hereford Street- Manchester Street to Madras : Special vehicle lanes (Cycle Lanes)

22.       Approve that a special vehicle lane (Cycle Lane) for east bound cyclists only, be installed on the north side of Hereford Street commencing at its intersection with Manchester Street and extending in an easterly direction to its intersection with Latimer Square (east side).

23.       Approve that a special vehicle lane (Cycle Lane) for west bound cyclists only, be installed on the south side of Hereford Street commencing at its intersection with Madras Street and extending in a westerly direction to its intersection with Manchester Street.

24.       Approve that a special vehicle lane (Cycle Lane) for west bound cyclists only, be installed on the south side of Hereford Street commencing at its intersection with Madras Street and extending in an easterly direction for a distance of 15 metres.

New Intersection – Hereford Street / Madras Street: Traffic Control

25.       Approve that a Give Way control be placed against the Madras Street left turn slip lane into Hereford Street at its intersection with Hereford Street.

26.       Approve that a pedestrian crossing (Zebra) be installed across the Madras Street left turn slip lane into Hereford Street at a point approximately 7 metres south of its intersection with Hereford Street.

Disability Park

27.       Staff to investigate an option for at least one disability park on this stretch of street and report back to the Council.

 

Secretarial Note:  A memorandum providing information on investigation into a disability park is attached to this report as Attachment B.

 

 

Attachments

No.

Report Title

Page

1

An Accessible City: Hereford Street (Manchester - Madras)

93

 

No.

Title

Page

a

Final Scheme Plan for Approval

103

b

Memorandum regarding Mobility Parking

104

 

 


Council

23 March 2017

 

 

An Accessible City: Hereford Street (Manchester - Madras)

Reference:

17/89720

Contact:

Neil Gillon

Neil.Gillon@ccc.govt.nz

9418127

 

 

1.   Purpose and Origin of Report

Purpose of Report

1.1       The purpose of this report is to advise the Infrastructure, Transport and Environment Committee on the outcome of community consultation and to request that they recommend approval to Council the proposed design relating to An Accessible City (AAC) transport project for a section of Hereford Street from the Madras Street intersection westward to the East Frame, as shown in Attachment 1.  The section of Hereford Street in the East Frame is being delivered by Ōtākaro Ltd.  The resolutions for the Manchester Street intersection with Hereford Street were approved by Council on 10 September 2015.

Origin of Report

1.2       This report is staff generated following community consultation.  The proposal was advised to the Council and Linwood-Central-Heathcote Community Board by memorandum dated 13 January 2017.  Funding for the length of Hereford Street between Madras Street and the East Frame public realm work has been brought forward from FY23 and FY24 to allow construction with the remainder of the block of Hereford Street, which is being delivered by Ōtākaro Ltd this financial year.

2.   Significance

2.1       The decisions in this report are of low significance in relation to the Christchurch City Council’s Significance and Engagement Policy.  The proposed change is part of the Central City travel network designed to make better use of public spaces for all transport choices and to achieve improvements to the public realm of this section of Hereford Street.  That proposed change will affect a proportion of Christchurch residents who use Hereford Street to access the inner city, as well as businesses, developments and land uses that abut or achieve their primary means of access from this street.

2.2       The Central Recovery Plan and its transport chapter (An Accessible City) provides the strategic direction for the proposed change.  Key elements of this project are to provide cycle lanes on the north and south sides of Hereford Street, to remove on-street parking in the East Frame portion of Hereford Street and to provide a raised central median in the East Frame portion of Hereford Street.

2.3       Accordingly, the decision sought here is of low significance as it relates to the implementation of the provision of cycle lanes, the removal of on-street parking, the addition of a raised central median and the associated traffic resolutions to give effect to these street works and traffic network alterations.

 

3.   Staff Recommendations

That the Infrastructure, Transport and Environment Committee recommend that the Council approves the scheme design and resolutions relating to the following An Accessible City Phase 2 network transformation project as detailed in Attachment 1:

 

Existing Hereford Street – Madras Street to Manchester Street: Traffic Control

3.1.     Approve that all traffic controls on both sides of Hereford Street from its intersection with Madras Street to its intersection with Manchester Street be revoked.

New Hereford Street – Madras Street to Manchester Street: Traffic Control

3.2.     Approve the road marking changes, kerb alignment changes on both sides of Hereford Street from its intersection with Madras Street to its intersection with Manchester Street as detailed on Attachment A.

Existing Hereford Street – Madras Street to Latimer Square (West Side): Parking and Stopping Restrictions

3.3.     Approve that all parking and stopping restrictions on both sides of Hereford Street from its intersection with Madras Street to its intersection with Manchester Street be revoked.

New Hereford Street – Madras Street to Latimer Square (West Side): Parking and Stopping Restrictions

3.4.     Approve that the stopping of vehicles be prohibited at any time on the north side of Hereford Street, commencing at its intersection with Latimer Square (west side) and extending in an easterly direction to its intersection with Madras Street.

Existing Intersection – Hereford Street / Latimer Square (West Side)

3.5.     Approve that all traffic controls at the intersection of Hereford Street and Latimer Square (west side) be revoked.

3.6.     Approve that all parking and stopping restrictions on both sides of Latimer Square (west side) commencing at its intersection with Hereford Street and extending in a northerly direction for a distance of 18 metres be revoked.

New Intersection – Hereford Street / Latimer Square (West Side)

3.7.     Approve that the stopping of vehicles be prohibited at any time on the west side of Latimer Square (west side) commencing at its intersection with Hereford Street and extending in a northerly direction for a distance of 17 metres.

3.8.     Approve that the stopping of vehicles be prohibited at any time on the east side of Latimer Square (west side) commencing at its intersection with Hereford Street and extending in a northerly direction for a distance of 18 metres.

3.9.     Approve that a Give Way control be placed against Latimer Square (west side) at its intersection with Hereford Street.

Existing Intersection – Hereford Street / Liverpool Street: Traffic Control

3.10.   Approve that all traffic controls at the intersection of Hereford Street and Liverpool Street be revoked.

New Hereford Street- Latimer Square (West Side) to Manchester Street: Parking and Stopping Restrictions

3.11.   Approve that the stopping of vehicles be prohibited at any time on the north side of Hereford Street, commencing at its intersection with Latimer Square (west side) and extending in a westerly direction for a distance of 14 metres.

3.12.   Approve that the parking of vehicles be restricted to a maximum period of 60 minutes on the north side of Hereford Street commencing at a point 14 metres west of its intersection with Latimer Square (west side) and extending in a westerly direction for a distance of 6 metres.

3.13.   Approve that a Bus Stop be created on the north side of Hereford Street commencing at a point 27 metres west of its intersection with Latimer Square (west side) and extending in a westerly direction for a distance of 14 metres.

3.14.   Approve that the stopping of vehicles be prohibited at any time on the north side of Hereford Street, commencing at a point 41 metres west of its intersection with Latimer Square (west side) and extending in a westerly direction for a distance of 8 metres.

3.15.   Approve that the parking of vehicles be restricted to a maximum period of 60 minutes on the north side of Hereford Street commencing at a point 50 metres west of its intersection with Latimer Square (west side) and extending in a westerly direction for a distance of 5 metres.

3.16.   Approve that the stopping of vehicles be prohibited at any time on the north side of Hereford Street, commencing at a point 55 metres west of its intersection with Latimer Square (west side) and extending in a westerly direction to its intersection with Manchester Street.

3.17.   Approve that the stopping of vehicles be prohibited at any time on the south side of Hereford Street, commencing at its intersection with Madras Street and extending in a westerly direction for a distance of 55 metres.

3.18.   Approve that the parking of vehicles be restricted to a maximum period of 60 minutes on the south side of Hereford Street commencing at a point 55 metres west of its intersection with Madras Street and extending in a westerly direction for a distance of 17 metres.

3.19.   Approve that the stopping of vehicles be prohibited at any time on the south side of Hereford Street, commencing at a point 72 metres west of its intersection with Madras Street and extending in a westerly direction for a distance of 10 metres.

3.20.   Approve that a Bus Stop be created on the south side of Hereford Street commencing at a point 82 metres west of its intersection with Madras Street and extending in a westerly direction for a distance of 14 metres.

3.21.   Approve that the stopping of vehicles be prohibited at any time on the south side of Hereford Street, commencing at a point 96 metres west of its intersection with Madras Street and extending in a westerly direction to its intersection with Manchester Street.

New Hereford Street- Manchester Street to Madras : Special vehicle lanes (Cycle Lanes)

3.22.   Approve that a special vehicle lane (Cycle Lane) for east bound cyclists only, be installed on the north side of Hereford Street commencing at its intersection with Manchester Street and extending in an easterly direction to its intersection with Latimer Square (east side).

3.24.   Approve that a special vehicle lane (Cycle Lane) for west bound cyclists only, be installed on the south side of Hereford Street commencing at its intersection with Madras Street and extending in a westerly direction to its intersection with Manchester Street.

3.25.   Approve that a special vehicle lane (Cycle Lane) for west bound cyclists only, be installed on the south side of Hereford Street commencing at its intersection with Madras Street and extending in an easterly direction for a distance of 15 metres.

New Intersection – Hereford Street / Madras Street: Traffic Control

3.26.   Approve that a Give Way control be placed against the Madras Street left turn slip lane into Hereford Street at its intersection with Hereford Street.

3.27.   Approve that a pedestrian crossing (Zebra) be installed across the Madras Street left turn slip lane into Hereford Street at a point approximately 7 metres south of its intersection with Hereford Street.

 

 

4.   Key Points

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

4.1.1   Activity: Road Operations

·     Level of Service: 10.0.31 Protect vulnerable users - minimise the number of fatal crashes involving pedestrians and cyclists e number of trips made by public transport

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

4.2       The cycle lanes option considered is that proposed in the AAC Streets and Spaces Design Guide, Section 5 – Streets.  This defines Hereford Street as an east-west central local distributor street incorporating a bus route and supporting the slow-core of pedestrian and cycle friendly central city streets.  Hereford Street is identified within the Design Guide as one of four streets permitting movement within the city and connecting many of the city’s cultural, event, retail and residential venues and precincts.  The Design Guide provides for on-road cycle lanes on Hereford Street.

4.3       Hereford Street between Manchester Street and Madras Street is delivered via three projects; those being the works forming the connection with the Manchester Street works, the East Frame project, and the Council project for the remaining length to Madras Street.  The portion adjacent to Manchester Street provides for the removal of on-street parking on the northern and southern sides of Hereford Street over the full extent of this 100 metre length.

4.4       The East Frame project provides for a raised, planted central median over the full 100 metre length of the portion of Hereford Street under this project.

 

5.   Context/Background

Extent of Work

5.1       The length of Hereford Street covered by this report includes two distinct projects: The East Frame Anchor Project and the AAC Hereford Street (Manchester – Madras) project

·   East Frame Anchor Project – This is a residential area built around a large park, bounded west and east by Manchester Street and Madras Street, respectively and by Lichfield Street to the south and Armagh Street to the north.  It crosses Cashel, Hereford, Worcester and Gloucester Streets and includes work on these streets.

·   AAC Hereford Street (Manchester – Madras) – This project is identified as a Council project.  Though the project is identified as being bounded by Manchester Street and Madras Street, a significant portion of the project (100 metres) is included in the East Frame project and a shorter portion (28.47 metres) in the AAC Manchester Street project, both being undertaken by Ōtākaro Ltd.  The remaining portion to the east of the East Frame project is 122 metres in length.

Cycle Lanes

 

5.2       Cycle lanes are provided in the East Frame project portion of Hereford Street and tie into cycle lanes provided into the AAC Manchester Street project portion of Hereford Street.

5.3       The cycle lanes in the AAC Manchester Street project portion of Hereford Street were reported to the Council on 10 September 2015 and appropriate resolutions approved.

5.4       The cycle lanes proposed in the East Frame Project portion of Hereford Street and section of Hereford Street east of the East Frame project to Madras Street are a subject of this report.

Removal of Parking

5.5       The section of Hereford Street included in the East Frame project excludes all provision of on-street parking and the remaining length to Madras Street excludes some on-street parking.  A total of 36 of the current 41 car parking spaces are removed.  This is a subject of this report.

Central Median

5.6       The section of Hereford Street included in the East Frame project includes the provision of a raised planted central median.  This is a subject of this reports approval.

Bus Stops

5.7       Two bus stops have been provided immediately east of the East Frame public realm works on each side of Hereford Street for the No. 60 bus route.  Currently the distance between bus stops at this location is approximately 840 metres.  The addition of the bus stops reduces the longest distance to 550 metres.  This is a subject of this report.


 

6.   Option 1 – Cycle lanes in accordance with the AAC City Streets and Spaces Design Guide, removal of parking and provision of raised central median and bus stops (preferred)

Option Description

6.1       The AAC Streets and Spaces Design Guide, Section 5 – Streets, defines Hereford Street as an east-west central local distributor street incorporating a bus route and supporting the slow-core of pedestrian and cycle friendly central city streets.  Hereford Street is identified within the Design Guide as one of four streets permitting movement within the city and connecting many of the city’s cultural, event, retail and residential venues and precincts.  The Design Guide provides for on-road cycle lanes on Hereford Street.  Street trees within standard tree pits are proposed on the north and south sides of Hereford Street, east of the East Frame public realm works.  Two bus stops, to accommodate the No. 60 bus route, are also proposed on the length of Hereford Street east of the East Frame public realm works.  A total of 15 on-street parking spaces are removed to provide for the bus stops, on-street tree pits, entrance ways to the East Frame Superlots and for kerb build-outs at the 30 km/h threshold and Latimer Square intersection.  The kerb build-outs are compatible with the TP30K AAC project.

6.2       The East Frame Project provides for a section of Hereford Street to be constructed to link the public realm each side of Hereford Street.  A raised, planted central median is included to prevent vehicles using the public realm area as a through route across Hereford Street.  A total of 22 on-street car parking spaces are also removed from this section of Hereford Street.

6.3       Alternative off-street car parking is being built as part of the Glasson development in the near vicinity to accommodate the loss of on-street parking in this section of Hereford Street.  The number of off-street car parks is 570 (428 short-term/casual and 142 long-term/lease), significantly exceeding the number of on-street car parks that will be removed.

Significance

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

6.5       Council officers are working with Ōtākaro Ltd which represents the Crown for the Work in Manchester Street and the East Frame.  Properties adjacent to the proposed work in Hereford Street are being developed by Fletcher Living.  Ōtākaro Ltd has been working closely with Fletcher Living regarding the works in the East Frame.  In undertaking the design for the East Frame project, Ōtākaro Ltd have consulted with Fletcher Living on the design in Hereford Street.  Work on the remaining portion of Hereford Street to the east of the East Frame is also bounded by properties owned by Fletcher Living.  Council officers and Ōtākaro Ltd have consulted with key stakeholders.  In addition to this, the proposed inclusion of cycle lanes is in terms of the AAC Streets and Spaces Design Guide which has previously been consulted on widely.

Impact on Mana Whenua

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

Community Views and Preferences

6.7       Users of Hereford Street and those properties bounding this portion of Hereford Street are specifically affected by this option due to the proposed inclusion of on-road cycle lanes, removal of on-street parking and the inclusion of two bus stops.

6.8       Consultation was undertaken from Wednesday 25 January to Wednesday 8 February 2017 after a memorandum was sent to Councillors and copied to Linwood-Central-Heathcote Community Board members.

6.9       Leaflets were hand delivered, posted and emailed to property owners and businesses in the vicinity of the project area, such as the Christchurch Club and Church Property Trustees.

6.10    Information was also sent to key stakeholders including Environment Canterbury, emergency services, New Zealand Blind Foundation, the cycling advocacy group Spokes, Central City Business Association and the Canterbury Employers’ Chamber of Commerce.

6.11    Ten submissions were received, with eight of these generally supporting the project.  Two submissions raised concerns about the loss of parking.

6.12    As a result of further technical advice two bus stops were added to the concept plans because of the distance from the Central Bus Interchange in Lichfield Street, and to service the new residential developments.  Environment Canterbury supports these additions.

6.13    The proposed two bus stops require the removal of a further five car parking spaces in this block. In addition, one car parking space is proposed to be removed for pedestrian access across Hereford Street at the Latimer Square West intersection. The removal of a further car parking space is required to provide the necessary transition for the cycle lane approaching the East Frame on the south side of Hereford Street. This increases the total number of car parking spaces proposed to be removed from 29 to 36.

6.14    Removal of on-street parking was a concern for two submitters, including Church Property Trustees and the Automobile Association (AA).  The AA was sent a copy of the Christchurch Central Parking Plan and a representative received further details about the capacity of new car parking buildings at a drop-in session on Tuesday 31 January 2017.  One of these buildings, located nearby in Hereford Street, across the Manchester Street intersection, will provide 570 car parking spaces.

6.15    As a result of further technical advice the plans recommended for approval have been changed to provide a sharrow, a shared left turn around Latimer Square for cyclists and motorists.  Spokes representatives were advised of the proposed change at the drop-in session.  In its submission the organisation expressed concern about the lack of detail in the consultation leaflet on the width of the cycle lanes and how these fitted into the cycle network.  The proposed cycle lanes which are not on a key cycle route, are in accordance with the AAC Streets and Spaces Design Guide.  The lanes are 1.8 metres wide past car parking spaces, or 1.6 metres wide.

6.16    Discussions were held with a New Zealand Blind Foundation representative who had previously been consulted by Ōtākaro Ltd on East Frame concept plans.

6.17    Changes as a result of consultation and further technical advice are:

6.17.1    The addition of two bus stops - on the north and south sides of Hereford Street west of Madras Street requiring the proposed removal of five car parking spaces;

6.17.2    A shared left turning lane for cyclists and motorists travelling around Latimer Square;

6.17.3    Level access through the island on the Hereford Street/Madras Street intersection for pedestrians; and

6.17.4    A pedestrian crossing from the west side of Madras Street to the island on the Madras Street intersection.

6.17.5    The proposed removal of two additional car parking spaces on the southern side of Hereford Street to provide for improved pedestrian access and cycle lane transition.

Alignment with Council Plans and Policies

6.18    This option is consistent with Council’s Plans and Policies.  There is no departure from the AAC Streets and Spaces Design Guide.

Financial Implications

6.19    Cost of Implementation of the section of Hereford Street east of the East Frame to Madras Street is approximately $1.94M.

6.20    Maintenance / Ongoing Costs are not anticipated to change significantly.  Some additional cost is anticipated for maintenance of new street trees.

6.21    Funding source – The cycle lanes within the East Frame portion of Hereford Street are funded under the East Frame Project.  Those in the remaining section of Hereford Street east of the East Frame to Madras Street are provided for in the Council’s Capital Programme of the 2015-25 Long Term Plan (Project 18335 AAC Manchester Street (Manchester – Madras).  This project has future year funding of $1.94 million that will be brought back at yearend to cover the 2016/17 spend.

Legal Implications

6.22    The resolutions sought in this report are on traffic engineering detail for projects that are part of a transport planning process which has been underway for several years.  It began with the Council’s consultation on the draft Recovery Plan and continued with the Minister’s Recovery Plan for the centre of Christchurch, including anchor projects such as the East Frame, notified in July 2012.

6.23    The amended Transport Recovery Chapter of that Recovery Plan, called An Accessible City, has been in effect since October 2013.  It describes the changes needed to the transport system in central Christchurch so as to facilitate the recovery of the City, including provision of cycle lanes separated from nearby traffic and footpaths.  It states that “The slower speed within the Inner Zone will make it safer for cyclists to share space with cars.  Key cycling routes will be prioritised for cycling and have separated paths where possible to provide safe and comfortable routes” (p10).

6.24    Projects within the Central City, as identified by Plan A of the Register of Delegations, are the responsibility of Council.

6.25 Part 1, Clause 5 of the Christchurch City Council Traffic and Parking Bylaw 2008 provides Council with the authority to install parking restrictions by resolution.

6.26    The installation of any signs and/or markings associated with traffic control devices must comply with the Land Transport Rule: Traffic Control Devices 2008.

Risks and Mitigations

6.27    Key risks identified and the mitigation proposed for this project are:

6.27.1    Insufficient funding for project, resulting in budget overrun and departure from approved design.  This will be managed through design reviews and cost estimates.  The project is expected to be completed within budget.

6.27.2    Project delay causing adverse public reaction and business disruption.  The work is to be undertaken as part of the East Frame project by the contractor already appointed for this work.  The contract conditions will require completion this financial year.

6.27.3    Striking or damage to services disrupting business's and traffic operations.  Contractor as part of tender conditions will be required to submit ground penetration/excavation management plan for CCC review and approval.

6.28    Periodic risk review workshops will continue to be held through to the end of the project which will apply management strategies for identified risks.

Implementation

6.29    Implementation dependencies - staff are working collaboratively with the adjacent project’s team to manage timing and connectivity with this project.  This is the East Frame Project

6.30    Implementation timeframe – the timeframe for implementation of the work has a current schedule start date of February 2017 and a scheduled completion date of 30 June 2017.

Option Summary - Advantages and Disadvantages

6.31    The advantages of this option include:

·   Achieving the principal objective of delivering a separated cycle lane on each side of Hereford Street and providing a delineated area accessing the East Frame public realm

·   Completing the work within the project budgets.

6.32    The disadvantage of this option includes:

·   Removal of on-street parking in the area of the East Frame Project and within the length of Hereford Street between the East Frame and Madras Street.

7.   Option 2 – Do Nothing

Option Description

7.1       Retain Hereford Street at the East Frame Project and east of this to Madras Street in its current form.

Significance

7.2       The level of significance of this option is low as no changes are proposed.

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

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       Consultation on the AAC Streets and Spaces Design Guide indicates a community view that it is presently unsafe to cycle on this section of Hereford Street.

Alignment with Council Plans and Policies

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

7.6.1   Inconsistency - Is inconsistent with the Central Christchurch Recovery Plan and AAC Streets and Spaces Design Guide.  Is inconsistent with the LTP.

7.6.2   Reason for inconsistency - This option fails to fulfil the fundamental project requirement by not providing cycle lanes on Hereford Street.  Do nothing is inconsistent with the LTP, which funds the AAC Hereford Street (Manchester – Madras) in the LTP period.

Financial Implications

7.7       Cost of Implementation - Nil

7.8       Maintenance / Ongoing Costs - As per existing operational street maintenance costs

7.9       Funding source – N/A

Legal Implications

7.10    N/A

Risks and Mitigations

7.11    N/A

Implementation

7.12    Implementation dependencies  - N/A

7.13    Implementation timeframe – N/A

Option Summary - Advantages and Disadvantages

7.14    The advantages of this option include:

·   Does not involve capital outlay

·   Retains existing numbers of car parking spaces on Hereford Street

7.15    The disadvantages of this option include:

·   Fails to meet the fundamental AAC objective of providing cycle lanes on Hereford Street

·   Does not support cycle safety

·   Does not contribute to or support a mode shift to active and public transport – which is an essential to avoid severe network congestion in the future

·   Does not meet the fundamental requirement for a public realm area in East Frame at Hereford Street.

 

Attachments

No.

Title

Page

a 

Final Scheme Plan for Approval

 

 

 

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

Neil Gillon - Senior Project Manager

Jennie Hamilton - Engagement Advisor

Sharon O'Neill - Team Leader Project Management Transport

Steve Dejong - Traffic Engineer

Approved By

Lynette Ellis - Manager Planning and Delivery Transport

Peter Langbein - Finance Business Partner

David Adamson - General Manager City Services

 


Council

23 March 2017

 

PDF Creator


Council

23 March 2017

 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


Council

23 March 2017

 

PDF Creator


Council

23 March 2017

 

PDF Creator


Council

23 March 2017

 

PDF Creator


Council

23 March 2017

 

 

13.    Infrastructure, Transport and Environment Committee Minutes - 8 March 2017

Reference:

17/254350

Contact:

Samantha Kelly

samantha.kelly@ccc.govt.nz

941 6227

 

 

1.   Purpose of Report

The Infrastructure, Transport and Environment Committee held a meeting on 8 March 2017 and is circulating the Minutes recorded to the Council for its information.

 

2.   Recommendation to Council

That the Council receives the Minutes from the Infrastructure, Transport and Environment Committee meeting held 8 March 2017.

 

 

Attachments

No.

Title

Page

A

Minutes Infrastructure, Transport and Environment Committee - 8 March 2017

112

 

 

Signatories

Author

Samantha Kelly - Committee and Hearings Advisor

  


Council

23 March 2017

 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


Council

23 March 2017

 

Report from Regulatory Performance Committee  – 8 March 2017

 

14.    Urban Design Panel Update and Terms of Reference

Reference:

17/237293

Contact:

Ceciel DelaRue

Ceciel.Delarue@ccc.govt.nz

941 5237

 

 

 

 

1.  Staff and Regulatory Performance Committee Recommendation to Council

 

Part A

That the Council:

1.         Notes that the Christchurch Urban Design Panel is a subordinate decision making body of the Council under clause 30(1) of Schedule 7 of the Local Government Act 2002.

2.         Resolves under Clause 30(7) of Schedule 7 of the Local Government Act 2002 that the Christchurch Urban Design Panel not be discharged following triennial general elections.

3.         Approves the Terms of Reference for the Christchurch Urban Design Panel set out in Attachment A, and delegates to the Head of Urban Design, Regeneration and Heritage the authority to make minor changes.

 

 

Attachments

No.

Report Title

Page

1

Urban Design Panel Update and Terms of Reference

122

 

No.

Title

Page

a

Urban Design Panel_Terms of Reference_2017

125

 

 


Council

23 March 2017

 

 

Urban Design Panel Update and Terms of Reference

Reference:

17/136975

Contact:

Ceciel DalaRue

Ceciel.DelaRue@ccc.govt.nz

03 941 5237

 

 

1.   Purpose and Origin of Report

Purpose of Report

1.1       To seek the Regulatory Performance Committee’s recommendation that the Council agrees to a single set of resolutions to support continued operation of the Christchurch Urban Design Panel, including an updated Terms of Reference.

Origin of Report

1.2       This report is staff generated in response to advice from Council’s Legal Services Unit to establish a simplified framework and documentation for operation of the Panel.

2.   Significance

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

2.1.1   The level of significance was determined by the minimal changes sought to the current operating framework for the Christchurch Urban Design Panel (the Panel).

 

3.   Staff Recommendations

That the Regulatory Performance Committee recommends that the Council:

1.         Notes that the Christchurch Urban Design Panel is a subordinate decision making body of the Council under clause 30(1) of Schedule 7 of the Local Government Act 2002.

2.         Resolves under Clause 30(7) of Schedule 7 of the Local Government Act 2002 that the Christchurch Urban Design Panel not be discharged following triennial general elections.

3.         Approves the Terms of Reference for the Christchurch Urban Design Panel set out in Attachment A, and delegates to the Head of Urban Design, Regeneration and Heritage the authority to make minor changes.

 

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: 17.0.17 Provide design review advice for developments across the city  

 

5.   Context/Background

5.1       The Christchurch Urban Design Panel (the Panel) is an independent ‘third-party’ with an advisory role, rather than statutory decision making powers. The Council’s role is in establishing, administering and managing the Panel.

5.2       The establishment of the Panel as a subordinate decision making body of the Council, under clause 30(1) of Schedule 7 of the Local Government Act 2002, reflects the role and purpose of the Panel as advisory to Council, rather than decision-making.

5.3       Design review by the Panel provides independent peer review early in the design process to promote high quality design outcomes and identify ways in which value can be added to development.

5.4       In 2008 the Council resolved to establish a three-year trial of the Panel as a result of public concern over the quality of the design of new developments in the City and their effects on the urban environment. In 2012 the Council resolved to permanently establish the Panel.

5.5       Council passed resolutions for the Panel in 2007 and 2012. The 2012 report to Council was written on the basis that it is read together with the 2007 resolutions, a single set of resolutions and updated Terms of Reference avoids any confusion and sets the Panel up robustly for the coming years.

External review recommendations

5.6       An independent external review of the Panel was completed in late August 2015. Retention of the Panel was supported with minor changes being recommended to achieve improved strategic alignment, resourcing, and processes. Resourcing recommendations focussed on improving and deepening the skill set, experience and breadth of Panel members, in particular increasing the expertise and experience in development and commercial appreciation.

5.7       Staff have worked through the recommendations of the external review over the past year and a membership ‘refresh’ was completed in late 2016.

5.8       Expressions of Interest (EOI) were sought from leading built-environment professionals in September 2016. The process was an open call with nearly 60 expressions of interest received from high-calibre built-environment professionals. This process helped engage with built-environment professionals and promote the role, and profile of the Panel.

5.9       Panel membership may comprise a pool of up to 30 built-environment professionals with specialist skills in the fields of urban design, architecture, landscape architecture, property development. Panel members will also bring their expertise in areas such as planning, cultural values and design, sustainable design and Crime Prevention through Environmental Design (CPTED). The current membership of 20 professionals is on the Council’s website https://ccc.govt.nz/the-council/plans-strategies-policies-and-bylaws/urbandesign/urbandesignpanel.

Financial and legal implications

5.10    Design review by the Panel is provided free of charge to the Applicant to encourage seeking this advice and recognise the wider public benefits of improved urban environments. The Panel operation is funded from within existing budgets.

5.11    The cost to Council includes reimbursing Panellists for their time to attend design reviews and formal training sessions at a rate of $180 per hour. This existing rate remains appropriate. Time spent on site visits, preparation and research is not reimbursed.

Terms of Reference

5.12    The Terms of Reference were adopted in 2008 when the Panel was established. Minor amendments have been made to reflect changes to District Plan zoning and provide further clarity that the Panel is not a decision making body for consents. 

5.13    The Terms of Reference 2017 (Attachment A) has been updated following the external review recommendations and subsequent membership ‘refresh’ to provide a clearer, more cohesive and customer-focussed framework for the Panel and its operational aspects. The amendments are outlined below:

·     Background and benefits of Panel Design Review is included as an introduction to the Terms of Reference.

·     Purpose, role and status of the Panel is clearly stated.

·     Membership section reflects the process of recruiting Panellists, and that a number of Panellists are skilled and available to convene design reviews.

·     Triggers for Design Review (previously titled Urban Design Panel Reviews) notes updated criteria for developments that will be reviewed and provides an outline of the design assessment criteria, rather than including in full.

·     Design review process more clearly outlines the stages of the process, whilst referring to the Council website for more detail.

·     ‘Administration’ content, previously a separate section, is now integrated into the relevant sections of the Terms of Reference.

 

Attachments

No.

Title

Page

a 

Urban Design Panel_Terms of Reference_2017

 

 

 

Confirmation of Statutory Compliance

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

(a) This report contains:

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

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

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

 

Signatories

Authors

Ceciel DelaRue - Team Leader Urban Design

Josie Schroder - Principal Advisor Urban Design

Approved By

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

Brendan Anstiss - General Manager Strategy and Transformation

 


Council

23 March 2017

 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


Council

23 March 2017

 

 

15.    Regulatory Performance Committee Minutes - 8 March 2017

Reference:

17/238540

Contact:

Aidan Kimberley

Aidan.kimberley@ccc.govt.nz

941 6566

 

 

1.   Purpose of Report

The Regulatory Performance Committee held a meeting on 8 March 2017 and is circulating the Minutes recorded to the Council for its information.

 

2.   Recommendation to Council

That the Council receives the Minutes from the Regulatory Performance Committee meeting held 8 March 2017.

 

 

Attachments

No.

Title

Page

A

Minutes Regulatory Performance Committee - 8 March 2017

132

 

 

Signatories

Author

Aidan Kimberley - Committee and Hearings Advisor

  


Council

23 March 2017

 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


Council

23 March 2017

 

Report from Social and Community Development Committee  – 1 March 2017

 

16.    Heritage Incentive Grant and Covenant Consent Approval for 37 Valley Road, Cashmere

Reference:

17/215051

Contact:

Fiona Wykes

fiona.wykes@ccc.govt.nz

941 8052

 

 

 

 

1.  Social and Community Development Committee Consideration

 

The Social and Community Development Committee considered a report on a Heritage Incentive Grant for Ngaio Marsh House, 37 Valley Road, Cashmere.

 

2.  Social and Community Development Committee Recommendation to Council

 

Part A

That the Council:

1.         Approve a Heritage Incentive Grant of up to $39,889 for conservation, strengthening and repair work to the protected heritage building located at 37 Valley Road, Cashmere.

2.         Note that the property is the subject of a conservation covenant and this report seeks covenant consent from Council for the works outlined in section 6 of the report (Attachment 1) which are the subject of this grant application.

 

Secretarial Note:  Further staff advice has been received and it is recommended that the following wording replace the Committee’s recommendation 2:

2.            Approve a covenant consent for the works outlined in section 6 of Attachment 1.

 

 

 

Attachments

No.

Report Title

Page

1

Heritage Incentive Grant and Covenant Consent Approval for 37 Valley Road, Cashmere

136

 

No.

Title

Page

a

Statement of Significance - 37 Valley Road, Cashmere

143

 

 


Council

23 March 2017

 

 

Heritage Incentive Grant and Covenant Consent Approval for 37 Valley Road, Cashmere

Reference:

17/96991

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 Social and Community Development Committee to recommend Council approve a Heritage Incentive Grant and give a Covenant Consent for Ngaio Marsh House at 37 Valley Road, Cashmere.

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 Social and Community Development Committee recommend to Council to:

1.         Approve a Heritage Incentive Grant of up to $39,889 for conservation, strengthening and repair work to the protected heritage building located at 37 Valley Road, Cashmere.

2.         Note that the property is the subject of a conservation covenant and this report seeks covenant consent from Council for the works outlined below which are the subject of this grant application.

 

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 help to ensure the future protection and ongoing use of this significant heritage building as a house museum. The application meets all the criteria for a grant as provided in the Heritage Incentives Grants Policy – Operational Guidelines.

·    A building associated with one of New Zealand’s leading 20th century literary and theatrical figures, Ngaio Marsh, who was a world-renowned crime writer and theatre director, will be retained as a museum dedicated to her memory.

·    The building will continue to have a compatible use which will enable it 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:

·    This is a relatively large grant for a single building, however the sum is not a significant proportion of the total grant funds for the 2016/2017 year.

 

5.   Context/Background

Building Status

5.1       Ngaio Marsh House is scheduled as a Highly Significant (Group 1) Building in the Christchurch District Plan. The building is listed Category I by Heritage New Zealand Pouhere Taonga (HNZPT). The building is of high historical, social, and cultural significance as a New Zealand style bungalow, which reflects the lifestyle of a particular period in time and has an intimate relationship with Dame Ngaio Marsh, world-renowned crime writer and theatre director, and one of New Zealand’s leading 20th century literary and theatrical figures. The dwelling has high architectural and aesthetic significance as predominantly the work of noted Christchurch architect Samuel Hurst Seager. There is craftsmanship significance in the Arts and Crafts detailing, and the building technology of the time. The building is maintained as a museum dedicated to the memory of Dame Ngaio. It remains much as she left it, with her household effects in-situ. 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 charitable trust, The Ngaio Marsh House and Heritage Incorporated. The total costs for the current repair of the building (including heritage and non-heritage related costs) is estimated at $79,777.50, excluding GST. There is no insurance associated with these works as the proposed works are not improvements and are not eligible for an insurance claim. The Trust also have to undertake work (based on a previous resource consent) to remove some trees, at a cost of $15,179.46. These works are not eligible for grant funding, in spite of the gardens being scheduled as Highly Significant in the Christchurch District Plan. The building has had a grant in the past, to assist with the construction of two sections of retaining wall along the south side of the dwelling, and a replacement timber crib wall to link the new sections of retaining wall. There is a full conservation covenant on the property that was put in place in June 2000.

5.3       The Trust maintain the building as a house museum. The proposed works have been suggested as a result of a roof condition and maintenance report from Conservation Architect Tony Ussher, along with outstanding and urgent matters that require attention on fire protection, security and the replacement of the heating system. The latter ensures the interior atmosphere of the building can be maintained at a level that will be conducive to the preservation of the contents and fabric of the building, as is necessary for its ongoing retention as a museum.

Covenant consent

5.4       The proposed works outlined in detail in Section 6 below, will not have an adverse effect on the heritage building and hence Council heritage staff support the granting of a conservation covenant consent. The proposed new heating system will reuse the existing heating ducting and grilles in the building, and will only create one very small hole in the heritage fabric of the building – that is, the outside wall. The fire protection and security measures help to prevent the loss of the building to fire and the loss of significant heritage fabric through damage or theft. The roof is to be returned to its original form and fabric with the reinstatement of the metal roofing system. Overall the proposals assist with protecting this important heritage fabric and retaining it for future generations. All the works are being overseen by a registered heritage professional to ensure they are of a high standard and that the key consideration of the works is the protection of the building’s heritage significance, both in the fabric of the building itself and the valuable contents.

 

 

Photograph Ngaio Marsh House, 37 Valley Road, January 2015, B Smyth

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

Option Description

6.1       Ngaio Marsh House was originally a four room bungalow designed by Hurst Seager. The house was modified in 1948 by the firm Helmore and Cotterill, who extended a bedroom, transforming it into what became known as the ‘Long Room’ and became Dame Ngaio’s living room. In the mid to late 1950s the front bedroom was extended. In 1976 the rear flat was constructed, replacing the previously converted washhouse, and in 1980 a new studio was built below the front bedroom to cater for Dame Ngaio’s failing health. At the same time a lift was installed. This extension was designed by Don Donnithorne Architects.

6.2       After Dame Ngaio’s death in 1982 the house was left to a relative. In 1992 the house was put up for sale and bought by a trust. Today it is run as a museum in memory of Dame Ngaio and contains much of her furniture and objects, as well as retaining the interior decoration schemes that she put in place. As a house museum the former residence illustrates the three main aspects of her life; her writing, her involvement with the theatre and her work as a painter. In 1993 a Conservation Plan was prepared by Jim Espie and this is the basis for all works carried out to the property.

6.3       Repair works have been carried out following the earthquakes. However, there are ongoing problems with the roof, prompting an inspection and report by Conservation Architect, Tony Ussher in 2016. Most of the roofing on the house is now ‘Decramastic’ tiles, dating from c. 1976, fixed directly over the earlier painted corrugated iron roofing. These tiles are made of metal sheet coated with materials so as to resemble more solid tiles. These are in poor condition and need replacing. The metal roofing beneath is also in poor condition as the ‘Decramastic’ tiles have been fixed to it with battens, resulting in a lot of perforations where the battens were nailed on. These areas of roofing require replacement and it is intended to reinstate corrugated metal roofing. There is also some flat metal roofing and existing corrugated metal roofing, which also need repair. The rainwater goods also require some repair and maintenance work. It is important that this work is undertaken to preserve the interiors and collections of the building.

6.4       In addition to this work it is intended to update the existing oil burning heating system, with a new inverter ducted system with integrated temperature sensor to better control and maintain the temperature inside the house for the better preservation of the interiors and collections. The new system will re-use the existing ducting and grilles that are already in the house.

6.5       The fire alarms and security system are also being updated to provide better coverage for the building. All these matters assist with conserving and repairing the heritage building.

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

 

Particulars

Costs

 (GST exclusive)

Roofing works – including rainwater goods and any timber repairs

$70,518.00

Fire and security upgrade

$2,570.00

Heating upgrade

$6,689.50

Total of conservation and restoration related work requiring

assistance

$79,777.50

 

6.7       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 building has high historical, social and cultural significance to Canterbury, as well as architectural, aesthetic and technological significance. Its ongoing repair and retention as a museum 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)

$39,889.00

 

Significance

6.8       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

6.9       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

6.10    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

 

6.11    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

Approved grant to 39 Kahu Road, Christchurch

$62,326.00

Proposed grant to 37 Valley Road, Cashmere

$39,889.00

Total Available Funds 2016/2017

$461,479.00

 

6.12    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.

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

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

Legal Implications

6.15    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.

6.16    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 full covenant already exists on this building, so a covenant consent will be required before the works can take place.

Risks and Mitigations

6.17    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

6.18    Implementation dependencies - The grant recipient is expected to acquire all resource, building and other consents required for the works. No resource consent is required for this work.

6.19    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

6.20    The advantages of this option include:

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

·   A building associated with one of New Zealand’s leading 20th century literary and theatrical figures, Dame Ngaio Marsh, who was a world-renowned crime writer and theatre director, will be retained as a museum dedicated to her memory.

·   The building will continue to have a compatible use which will enable it to be maintained and protected, and allow public access.

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

6.21    The disadvantages of this option include:

·   This is a relatively large grant for a single building, however the sum is not a significant proportion of the total grant funds for the 2016/2017 year.

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 ($23,933) 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

Approved grant to 39 Kahu Road, Christchurch

$62,326.00

Proposed grant to 37 Valley Road, Cashmere

$23,933.00

Total Available Funds 2016/2017

$477,435.00

 

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 highly 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 delay the works or would scale back some of the heritage conservation components.

 

Attachments

No.

Title

Page

a 

Statement of Significance - 37 Valley Road, Cashmere

 

 

 

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

Brendan Anstiss - General Manager Strategy and Transformation

 


Council

23 March 2017

 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


Council

23 March 2017

 

 

17.    Social and Community Development Committee Minutes - 1 March 2017

Reference:

17/215449

Contact:

Liz Ryley

liz.ryley@ccc.govt.nz

941 8153

 

 

1.   Purpose of Report

The Social and Community Development Committee held a meeting on 1 March 2017 and is circulating the Minutes recorded to the Council for its information.

 

2.   Recommendation to Council

That the Council receives the Minutes from the Social and Community Development Committee meeting held 1 March 2017.

 

Secretarial Note:  Item 6 Heritage Incentive Grant and Covenant Consent Approval for 37 Valley Road, Cashmere is a Part A item to the Council at this meeting, 23 March 2017.  Item 8 Botanic Gardens Spatial Plan will be a Part A item to the Council on 6 April 2017.

Attachments

No.

Title

Page

a

Social and Community Development Committee - Minutes - 1 March 2017

150

 

 

Signatories

Author

Liz Ryley - Committee Advisor

  


Council

23 March 2017

 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


Council

23 March 2017

 

 

18.    Council Submission - Government Policy Statement on Land Transport 2018

Reference:

17/193454

Contact:

Nick Lovett

Nicholas.Lovett@ccc.govt.nz

941 5261

 

 

1.   Purpose of Report

1.1       The Ministry of Transport is currently consulting on the draft Government Policy Statement 2018 on Land Transport (the GPS).  Feedback on the draft Government Policy Statement 2018 closes on 31 March 2017. 

1.2       The Government Policy Statement 2018 outlines the Government’s strategy to guide land transport investment over the next 10 years.  It influences decisions on how money from the National Land Transport Fund will be invested across activity classes, such as state highways, local roads and public transport.  Revenue for the Land Transport Fund comes primarily from road users through fuel excise duty, road user charges and from motor vehicle registration and licensing fees.  It guides the New Zealand Transport Agency and local government on the type of activities that should be included in Regional Land Transport Programmes and the National Land Transport Programme. The Government Policy Statement 2018 provides guidance on how approximately $4 billion of New Zealanders’ money is spent through the Fund each year.

1.3       This report highlights the key points of the proposed Council comment to the Government Policy Statement 2018.  The draft Council comment is attached as attachment A.

 

 

2.   Staff Recommendations

That the Council:

1.         Receive the information in this report.

2.         Approve the draft comment to the Ministry of Transport contained in attachment A.

 

 

3.   Key Points

3.1       The Key Points of the draft Council comment are that:

3.1.1   The key priorities should include the social and environmental costs of investment, alongside economic growth.

3.1.2   Travel demand forecasts are over reliant on future Vehicle Kilometres Travelled (VKT) predictions and travel by car.

3.1.3   With respect to economic growth and productivity there should be clearer outcomes (or targets) for mode shift with more focus placed on influencing and managing demand rather than increasing capacity.

3.1.4   Funding for walking, cycling, public transport, and roads and highways should be more balanced to better reflect aspirational increases in their uptake.

3.1.5   With respect to road safety, there should be an emphasis on achieving this by managing demand and providing transport choice.

3.1.6   For urban areas there should be more ambitious targets for road safety encouraging urban areas to strive for a ‘Vision Zero’.

 

Attachments

No.

Title

Page

a

Council Draft Submission on GPS on Land Transport 2018

157

 

 

Signatories

Author

Nicholas Lovett - Policy Planner, Transport

Approved By

Richard Osborne - Head of Planning and Strategic Transport

Brendan Anstiss - General Manager Strategy and Transformation

  


Council

23 March 2017

 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


Council

23 March 2017

 

 

19.    Housing Infrastructure Fund

Reference:

17/178779

Contact:

Bridget O’Brien

bridget.obrien@ccc.govt.nz

941 6438

 

 

1.   Purpose of Report

1.1       The origin of this report is to advise the Council of the appropriateness of the government’s Housing Infrastructure Fund for Council’s purposes.

1.2       This report is to advise Council of staff’s recommendation not to submit an application to the government’s Housing Infrastructure Fund.

 

2.   Staff Recommendations

That the Council:

1.         Receive the information in the Housing Infrastructure Fund report.

 

 

3.   Key Points

3.1       An Indicative Proposal was submitted to the government’s Housing Infrastructure Fund on 29 November 2016.  Staff recommend against submitting a full proposal because the feedback from Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment (MBIE) that the number of houses yielded was low and the cost was high, we are already doing a good job of providing infrastructure for residential housing areas, and the funding would be a loan to be repaid within ten years which would impact on Council’s debt levels and balance sheet.

3.2       In 2016 the government announced a $1 billion Housing Infrastructure Fund to help remove infrastructure barriers to housing development for high growth urban areas, including Christchurch. 

3.3       An Indicative Proposal was submitted to the government’s Housing Infrastructure Fund on 29 November 2016.  This was for water supply and wastewater servicing and the Horner’s Drain upgrade, all for the Highfield residential greenfield area (1,867 new houses) at an estimated cost of $61 million.  Full proposals, including an Indicative Better Business Case, are due by 30 March and would require Council sign-off.

3.4       MBIE received indicative proposals from growth councils totalling $1.8 billion.  Feedback from MBIE on the CCC indicative proposal was that the number of new houses was low and the cost of the infrastructure was high.  It therefore seems unlikely that a full proposal to the fund would be successful.

3.5       In the call for full proposals, MBIE makes it clear that the funding would be a subordinate loan to be repaid within ten years.  It would therefore impact on Council’s debt levels.  The original plan for the fund was to structure it in such a way so as not to constitute a loan, as this is one reason high growth councils are struggling to provide infrastructure for development.  However, this has not been achieved.

3.6       The Council is already in a strong position with providing infrastructure to support residential housing areas, with infrastructure already in place or imminent for all greenfield areas except Highfield.  Therefore, our need for this funding is less than for other high growth councils.

3.7       Staff, therefore recommend against submitting a full proposal to the fund, as the feedback from MBIE indicated that a full proposal was unlikely to be successful, the loan would impact on Council’s debt levels and because we are already doing well in providing infrastructure for growth.

 

Attachments

There are no attachments to this report.

 

Signatories

Authors

Carolyn Gallagher - Programme Director – Strategic Support

Bridget O'Brien - Team Leader Asset Planning

Peter Langbein - Finance Business Partner

John Moore - Manager Planning and Delivery

Approved By

David Adamson - General Manager City Services

  


Council

23 March 2017

 

 

20.    Financial Delegation to the Chief Executive

Reference:

17/266516

Contact:

Vivienne Wilson

Vivienne.wilson@ccc.govt.nz

941 8963

 

 

1.   Purpose and Origin of Report

Purpose of Report

1.1       The purpose of this report is for the Council to approve an amended financial delegation to the Chief Executive.

Origin of Report

1.2       This report is staff generated.

2.   Significance

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

 

3.   Staff Recommendations

That the Council:

1.         For the purpose of performing his or her duties, amends the financial delegation to the Chief Executive in respect of civil defence emergencies as follows:

 

Capital Expenditure – Emergency and Transitional Periods

 

Power of the Chief Executive alone to commit the Council to financial transactions (or projects consisting of multiple transactions) relating to the acquisition, purchase, or provision of assets (including vehicle fleet, plant or machinery), services, property, gifts, guarantees, indemnities and the acquisition or disposal of assets.  This power includes the authority to administer, enforce, and cancel such transactions or to vary them. 

 

This power only applies when a state of national or local emergency exists over Christchurch City, or when a transitional period (either national or local) is in force in Christchurch City.

 

Operational Expenditure – Emergency and Transitional Periods

 

Power of the Chief Executive alone to commit the Council to financial transactions (or projects consisting of multiple transactions) relating to the acquisition, purchase, or provision of assets, (including vehicle fleet, plant or machinery), services, property, gifts, guarantees, indemnities and the disposal of assets.  This power includes the authority to administer, enforce, and cancel such transactions or to vary them. 

 

This power only applies when a state of national or local emergency exists over Christchurch City, or when a transitional period (either national or local) is in force in Christchurch City.

 

 

2.         That the amended delegation comes into force on 23 March 2017.

 

 

4.   Key Points

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

4.1.1   Activity: Civil Defence Emergency Management

·     Level of Service: 2.5.1 Council is prepared for and maintains an effective response capacity to manage civil defence emergencies: CDEM Plans and procedures covering local response and recovery arrangements and specific contingency plans are in place.

4.2       The following feasible options have been considered:

·     Option 1 – Amend the financial delegation to the Chief Executive

·     Option 2 –Do not amend the financial delegation to the Chief Executive

 

4.3       Option Summary - Advantages and Disadvantages (Preferred Option)

4.3.1   The advantages of this option include:

·     There is certainty for the Chief Executive as to her financial delegations during a transitional period following a state of emergency.

4.3.2   The disadvantages of this option include:

·     Elected members may perceive that they have a lack of visibility over financial decisions made during the transitional period.

 

5.   Context/Background

Current financial delegations

5.1       In December 2015 (coming into force on 4 January 2016), the Council gave the following financial delegations to the Chief Executive with respect to emergencies:

Capital Expenditure - Emergency

 

Power of the Chief Executive alone to commit the Council to financial transactions (or projects consisting of multiple transactions) relating to the acquisition, purchase, or provision of assets (including vehicle fleet, plant or machinery), services, property, gifts, guarantees, indemnities and the acquisition or disposal of assets.  This power includes the authority to administer, enforce, and cancel such transactions or to vary them. 

 

This power only applies when a state of national or local emergency exists over Christchurch City.

 

Operational Expenditure - Emergency

 

Power of the Chief Executive alone to commit the Council to financial transactions (or projects consisting of multiple transactions) relating to the acquisition, purchase, or provision of assets, (including vehicle fleet, plant or machinery), services, property, gifts, guarantees, indemnities and the disposal of assets.  This power includes the authority to administer, enforce, and cancel such transactions or to vary them. 

 

This power only applies when a state of national or local emergency exists over Christchurch City.

 

 

5.2       Since this delegation came into force, the Civil Defence and Emergency Management Act 2002 has been amended to provide for transitional periods (both national and local) following a state of emergency.  In the Act a national transition period ends 90 days after the time and date on which the period comes into force, unless extended or terminated earlier.  A local transition period ends 28 days after the time and date on which the period comes into force, unless extended or terminated earlier.

5.3       During a transitional period, a Recovery Manager is appointed.  The Recovery Manager has a number of general and specific powers including:

·   carrying out or requiring to be carried out all or any of the following:

·     works:

·     clearing roads and other public places:

·     examining and marking any property, animal, or any other thing:

·     removing or disposing of, or securing or otherwise making safe, dangerous structures and materials wherever they may be:

·   providing for the conservation and supply of food, fuel, and other essential supplies:

·   disseminating information and advice to the public.

5.4       It is envisaged that a transitional period would only be notified if significant and critical work was required during the recovery phase. 

5.5       It would be desirable to amend the financial delegation to the Chief Executive to also cover transitional periods given that the powers of the Recovery Manager during a transitional period are similar to the powers of a Civil Defence Controller during a state of emergency.

5.6       As happens during a state of emergency, the Council will need to respond to a directive of the Recovery Manager during a transitional period.  This may require instant actions and expenditure.


 

6.   Option 1 – Amend the financial delegation to the Chief Executive (preferred)

Option Description

6.1       The Council amends the financial delegation to the Chief Executive to provide as follows:

Capital Expenditure – Emergency and Transitional Periods

 

Power of the Chief Executive alone to commit the Council to financial transactions (or projects consisting of multiple transactions) relating to the acquisition, purchase, or provision of assets (including vehicle fleet, plant or machinery), services, property, gifts, guarantees, indemnities and the acquisition or disposal of assets.  This power includes the authority to administer, enforce, and cancel such transactions or to vary them. 

 

This power only applies when a state of national or local emergency exists over Christchurch City, or when a transitional period (either national or local) is in force in Christchurch City.

 

Operational Expenditure – Emergency and Transitional Periods

 

Power of the Chief Executive alone to commit the Council to financial transactions (or projects consisting of multiple transactions) relating to the acquisition, purchase, or provision of assets, (including vehicle fleet, plant or machinery), services, property, gifts, guarantees, indemnities and the disposal of assets.  This power includes the authority to administer, enforce, and cancel such transactions or to vary them. 

 

This power only applies when a state of national or local emergency exists over Christchurch City, or when a transitional period (either national or local) is in force in Christchurch City.

 

Significance

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

Impact on Mana Whenua

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

Community Views and Preferences

6.4       The community views and preferences are not specifically affected by this option.

Alignment with Council Plans and Policies

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

Financial Implications

6.6       Cost of Implementation – There is a minimal staff costs to implement this change in delegations

Legal Implications

6.7       Clause 32(1) of Schedule 7 of the Local Government Act 2002 (LGA) provides a general power of delegation as follows: 

Unless expressly provided otherwise in this Act, or in any other Act, for the purposes of efficiency and effectiveness in the conduct of a local authority's business, a local authority may delegate to a committee or other subordinate decision-making body, community board, or member or officer of the local authority any of its responsibilities, duties, or powers except—

(a)       the power to make a rate; or

(b)       the power to make a bylaw; or

(c)       the power to borrow money, or purchase or dispose of assets, other than in accordance with the long-term plan; or

(d)       the power to adopt a long-term plan, annual plan, or annual report; or

(e)       the power to appoint a chief executive; or

(f)        the power to adopt policies required to be adopted and consulted on under this Act in association with the long-term plan or developed for the purpose of the local governance statement; or

(g)       [Repealed]

(h)       the power to adopt a remuneration and employment policy.

 

6.8       There is also a power for any delegations made by Council subsequently to be sub-delegated under clauses 32(3) and 32B of Schedule 7.  However, under the LGA, the sub-delegator may not further sub-delegate. 

Risks and Mitigations

6.9       There are no limits on this amended financial delegation.

6.10    Risk- There is a risk that the delegation could be used inappropriately or excessively.

6.10.1 Treatment: The delegation will only be exercised on advice from the Recovery Manager.  It is envisaged that the Chief Executive will also consult with the Mayor and/or Deputy Mayor before she exercises this delegation.  The delegation can only be exercised during a defined period, and responds to significant and critical work required.

6.10.2 Residual risk rating: the rating of the risk is low.

Implementation

6.11    The amended delegation will be recorded in the Council’s Delegations Register by the legal Services Unit as soon as possible.  The amended delegation will be exercised as and when required.

Option Summary - Advantages and Disadvantages

6.12    The advantages of this option include:

·   There is certainty for the Chief Executive as to her financial delegations during a transitional period following a state of emergency.

6.13    The disadvantages of this option include:

·   Elected members may perceive that they have a lack of visibility over financial decisions made during the transitional period.

7.   Option 2 – Do not amend the financial delegation to the Chief Executive

Option Description

7.1       The Council does not amend the financial delegation to the Chief Executive.

Significance

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

Impact on Mana Whenua

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

Community Views and Preferences

7.4       Community views and preferences are specifically affected by this option.

Alignment with Council Plans and Policies

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

Financial Implications

7.6       Cost of Implementation – There are no implementation costs with this option.

7.7       Maintenance / Ongoing Costs – as above.

7.8       Funding source – as above.

Legal Implications

7.9       See above.

Risks and Mitigations

7.10    The Council does not respond quickly and efficiently to requests or directives from the Recovery Manager.

7.11    Risk – There is a risk that the Council does not respond in a timely manner to deal with significant and critical risks. 

7.11.1 Treatment: institute internal processes to speed up dealing with requests for expenditure.

7.11.2 Residual risk rating: the rating of the risk is low.

Implementation

7.12    Implementation dependencies - as above

Option Summary - Advantages and Disadvantages

7.13    The advantages of this option include:

·   Elected members may have a more visibility over financial decisions made during the transitional period.

7.14    The disadvantages of this option include:

·   The Council does not respond in a timely way in dealing with requests for immediate actions and expenditure required during the transitional period.  

 

Attachments

There are no attachments to this report.

 

Confirmation of Statutory Compliance

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

(a) This report contains:

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

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

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

 

Signatories

Author

Vivienne Wilson - Senior Solicitor

Approved By

Mary Richardson - General Manager Customer and Community

   

 


Council

23 March 2017

 

 

21.  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

23 March 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

22

Public Excluded Council Minutes - 23 February 2017

 

 

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

 

23

Public Excluded Council Minutes - 2 March 2017

 

 

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

 

24

Public Excluded Council Minutes - 9 March 2017

 

 

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

 

25

Audit New Zealand Report to Council

s7(2)(h)

Commercial Activities

A commercial arrangement is discussed in the report.

When the details of the arrangement are also released.

26

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.

27

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.

28

Audit New Zealand Report to Council - update

s7(2)(h)

Commercial Activities

A commercial arrangement is dealt with in this report

Once the activities have been concluded

29

Public Excluded Audit and Risk Management Committee Minutes - 20 February 2017

 

 

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

 

30

Council Controlled Organisation - 31 December 2016 Performance Report

s7(2)(h)

Commercial Activities

Discusses the commercial activities of the entities

When the information is publicly available

31

Overdue Debtors over $20,000 at 31 December 2016

s7(2)(a)

Protection of Privacy of Natural Persons

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

When legal proceedings are commenced.

32

Director Appointments - Christchurch City Holdings Limited

s7(2)(a)

Protection of Privacy of Natural Persons

Until the appointments are approved it is reasonable for the name of people to be kept confidential as it could damage their reputation and personal privacy if the Council chooses not to approve the appointment.

Individiual dates as per the Council resolution

33

Report from Christchurch City Holdings Limited

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

Prejudice Commercial Position, Commercial Activities, Conduct Negotiations

The report contains commercially sensitive information which if disclosed could prejudice the future negotiating position.

Report can be released:  If the project proceeds at the end of the economic life of associated assets, or in perpetuity if it remains a possibility that the project will be considered in the future.

34

Development Christchurch Limited - Land Development Strategy

s7(2)(h)

Commercial Activities

The report refers to matters to be considered by the Council in the public excluded part of the meeting

To be determined by the Council.

35

Development Christchurch Limited - Proposed Land Transfers

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

Maintain Legal Professional Privilege, Commercial Activities

The report contains sensitive commercial information and privileged legal advice

After land transfer to DCL is effected

36

Development Christchurch Limited - Land Development Funding

s7(2)(h)

Commercial Activities

The details of the line of credit proposal is part of Development Christchurch's commercial activity.

The extense of the line of credit can be released once agreed but not the details

37

Development Christchurch Limited - New Brighton Regeneration Project Implementation Plan

s7(2)(h)

Commercial Activities

Report contains commercial information

At the point in time when all the commercial information contained in the report is no longer sensitive.

38

Shared Fleet Report

s7(2)(b)(ii)

Prejudice Commercial Position

The report contains commercially sensitive information which can not be made public.

Date to be determined for the public launch of the initiative

39

Lancaster Park Demolition Options

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

Prejudice Commercial Position, Protection from Improper Pressure or Harassment, Commercial Activities, Conduct Negotiations

Sufficient planning required to inform a tender process

Main contractor awarded

40

Port Hills Recovery - Waterways Protection

s7(2)(i)

Conduct Negotiations

To enable commerical negotiations to take place.

At the conclusion of negotiations