Christchurch City Council

Agenda

 

 

Notice of Meeting:

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

 

Date:                                     Thursday 1 June 2017

Time:                                    10am

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

 

 

Membership

Chairperson

Deputy Chairperson

Members

Mayor Lianne Dalziel

Deputy Mayor Andrew Turner

Councillor Vicki Buck

Councillor Jimmy Chen

Councillor Phil Clearwater

Councillor Pauline Cotter

Councillor Mike Davidson

Councillor David East

Councillor Anne Galloway

Councillor Jamie Gough

Councillor Yani Johanson

Councillor Aaron Keown

Councillor Glenn Livingstone

Councillor Raf Manji

Councillor Tim Scandrett

Councillor Deon Swiggs

Councillor Sara Templeton

 

 

26 May 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

01 June 2017

 

 

 


Council

01 June 2017

 

TABLE OF CONTENTS

 

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

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

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

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

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

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

Audit and Risk Management Committee

5.       Audit New Zealand - Audit Engagement and Arrangement Letters 2017........................... 5

6.       Audit and Risk Management Committee Minutes - 12 May 2017...................................... 33

Infrastructure, Transport and Environment Committee

7.       Infrastructure, Transport and Environment Committee Minutes - 10 May 2017............. 39

8.       Randall Street - Street Renewal Project............................................................................... 75

9.       Sumner Lyttelton Corridor Acquisition of Residential Redzone Properties...................... 85

Regulatory Performance Committee

10.     Review of the Marine and River Facilities Bylaw 2008, and proposed new Marine, River and Lake Facilities Bylaw 2017 (for consultation) ..................................................................... 105

11.     Regulatory Performance Committee Minutes - 10 May 2017........................................... 145

Strategic Capability Committee

12.     Christchurch Economic Development Strategy................................................................. 151

STAFF REPORTS

13.     Development Christchurch Limited - Proposed Property Transfers ............................... 191

14.     Resolution to Exclude the Public......................................................................................... 298  

 

 

 


Council

01 June 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 and approved by the Chairperson.  Additional deputations may be scheduled.

3.2.1

Chris Doudney will present a deputation on his submission on the proposed property transfers to be considered in item 13.  Development Christchurch Limited – Proposed Property Transfers.

 

3.2.2

Stephen Howard will present a deputation on the Keep Our Assets Canterbury submission on the proposed property transfers to be considered in item 13: Development Christchurch Limited – Proposed Property Transfers.

 

3.2.3

Mark Gibson will present a deputation on the New Brighton Union Church submission on the proposed property transfers to be considered in item 13: Development Christchurch Limited – Proposed Property Transfers.

 

3.2.4

Brendan Chase will present a deputation his submission, and the submission of the Central City Business Association, on the proposed property transfers to be considered in item 13: Development Christchurch Limited – Proposed Property Transfers.

 

3.2.5

Stephen Belchef will present a deputation on his submission on the proposed property transfers to be considered in item 13.  Development Christchurch Limited – Proposed Property Transfers.

 

3.2.6

Karol London will present a deputation on the Peterborough Village Inc submission on the proposed property transfers to be considered in item 13: Development Christchurch Limited – Proposed Property Transfers.

 

It is anticipated that deputations relating to item 13: Development Christchurch Limited – Proposed Property Transfers will be heard at the Council meeting from 2pm and the report considered directly after deputations.

 

4.   Presentation of Petitions

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

 


Council

01 June 2017

 

Report from Audit and Risk Management Committee  – 12 May 2017

 

5.        Audit New Zealand - Audit Engagement and Arrangement Letters 2017

Reference:

17/515314

Contact:

Patricia Christie

Patricia.christie@ccc.govt.nz

941 8113

 

 

 

 

1.   Staff Recommendations

 

That the Audit and Risk Management Committee consider the audit engagement and arrangement letters provided by Audit New Zealand.

That after consideration of the audit engagement and arrangement letters the Audit and Risk Management Committee recommend to Council that it:

1.         Approve the content of the draft audit engagement letter received from Audit New Zealand.

2.         Approve the content of the draft audit arrangements letter received from Audit New Zealand with the exception of the audit fee as that is yet to be advised.

3.         Recommend that the Mayor sign the final audit engagement letter once received from Audit New Zealand.

4.         Note that as the Council is yet to be advised of the final audit fee, the signing the final audit arrangements letter is deferred until the audit fee is received and considered.

 

2.  Audit and Risk Management Committee Recommendation to Council

 

That the Council:

1.         Approve the content of the draft audit engagement letter received from Audit New Zealand.

2.         Approve the content of the draft audit arrangements letter received from Audit New Zealand with amended wording with respect to the audit fee that is yet to be advised.

3.         Recommend that the Mayor sign the final audit engagement letter and the amended Audit Arrangements letter once received from Audit New Zealand.

4.         Note that the final audit fee proposal will be received subsequently.

 

 

Attachments

No.

Report Title

Page

1

Audit New Zealand - Audit Engagement and Arrangement Letters 2017

6

 

No.

Title

Page

a

2017 Audit Engagement Letter

9

b

2017 Audit Arrangements Letter

20

 

 


Council

01 June 2017

 

 

Audit New Zealand - Audit Engagement and Arrangement Letters 2017

Reference:

17/400132

Contact:

Patricia Christie

Patricia.christie@ccc.govt.nz

941 8113

 

 

1.   Purpose and Origin of Report

Purpose of Report

1.1       The purpose of this report is for the Audit and Risk Management Committee to confirm with Audit New Zealand on:

·     the terms of the audit engagement for the audit of the financial statements for the years ending 30 June 2017, 2018 and 2019, and

·     the specific audit arrangements for the financial statements for the year ending 30 June 2017.

Origin of Report

1.2       This report is staff generated in response to the receipt of the draft audit engagement letter (Attachment A) and audit arrangements letter (Attachment B) from Audit New Zealand and to fulfil the Audit and Risk Management Committee terms of reference.

2.   Significance

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

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

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

 

3.   Staff Recommendations

That the Audit and Risk Management Committee consider the audit engagement and arrangement letters provided by Audit New Zealand.

 

That after consideration of the audit engagement and arrangement letters the Audit and Risk Management Committee recommend to Council that it:

1.         Approve the content of the draft audit engagement letter received from Audit New Zealand.

2.         Approve the content of the draft audit arrangements letter received from Audit New Zealand with the exception of the audit fee as that is yet to be advised.

3.         Recommend that the Mayor sign the final audit engagement letter once received from Audit New Zealand.

4.         Note that as the Council is yet to be advised of the final audit fee, the signing the final audit arrangements letter is deferred until the audit fee is received and considered.

 

 

4.   Key Points

4.1       The draft audit engagement letter for the audit of the Council’s financial statements for the years ending 30 June 2017, 2018 and 2019 and the audit arrangements letter for the audit of the Council’s financial statements for the year ending 30 June 2017 have been received by management from Audit New Zealand.

4.2       The audit engagement letter is issued once every three years setting out the terms of the audit engagement, the nature and limitations of the annual audit, and Council and the auditors’ respective responsibilities for the financial statements and the performance information for the next three year period. The audit arrangement letter is issued each year outlining audit issues, timetable and fees for that financial year.

4.3       In accordance with the terms of reference of the Audit and Risk Management Committee, it is the role of the Audit and Risk Management Committee to confirm the terms of engagement with the external auditor and to consider the adequacy of the nature and scope of the audit, the timetable and fees.

4.4       Management have reviewed the content of the draft letters and discussed the content with Audit New Zealand. The following points are noted:

Audit Engagement Letter

4.4.1   The terms and engagement and both parties’ responsibilities are similar to the previous audit engagement received in 2014.

Audit Arrangements Letter

4.4.2   The audit issues raised in the draft audit arrangement letter were as expected based on the issues raised in previous audits and management letters.

4.4.3   The audit issues for 2017 include:

·     The valuation of property plant and equipment, in particular the valuation of Roading and Stormwater assets as these asset classes are the only two remaining that are still subject to modified audit opinions.

·     The work in progress balance.

·     Accounting for the Council’s involvement in Regenerate Christchurch, Otautahi Community Housing Trust and the Crossing Car Park.

·     Ongoing accounting issues recognising aspects of the cost sharing agreement with the Crown.

·     A high level review of the Council’s project management and project governance structures and processes that support the large rebuild projects. In particular whether the recommendations in the Office of the Auditor General’s report on the new Central Library have been acted upon.

4.4.4   The timetable in the letter was agreed with Council staff.

4.5       There is a third letter yet to be received from Audit New Zealand; the Audit Proposal letter is issued every three years and sets out the proposed fees for the 2017, 2018 and 2019 audits and the budgeted audit hours expected to complete the audit. At present Audit New Zealand is waiting for the Office of the Auditor General to confirm the fee for negotiation.

4.6       The 2016 audit fee was $320,200 plus disbursements (GST exclusive). This amount included $5,000 for the audit of infrastructure valuations. Audit New Zealand have estimated an additional fee of $25,000 for the additional infrastructure valuation audits for 2017. It is unlikely that the audit proposal for the 2017, 2018 and 2019 audits will be lower than the 2016 fee of $315,200 (excluding audit valuations and GST).

 

 

Attachments

No.

Title

Page

a 

2017 Audit Engagement Letter

 

b 

2017 Audit Arrangements Letter

 

 

 

Confirmation of Statutory Compliance

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

(a) This report contains:

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

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

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

 

Signatories

Author

Patricia Christie - Manager External Reporting and Governance

Approved By

Carol Bellette - General Manager Finance and Commercial (CFO)

 


Council

01 June 2017

 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


Council

01 June 2017

 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


Council

01 June 2017

 

 

6.        Audit and Risk Management Committee Minutes - 12 May 2017

Reference:

17/517281

Contact:

Margaret Henderson

Margaret.henderson@ccc.govt.nz

941 8185

 

 

1.   Purpose of Report

The Audit and Risk Management Committee held a meeting on 12 May 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 12 May 2017.

 

 

Attachments

No.

Title

Page

A

Minutes Audit and Risk Management Committee - 12 May 2017

34

 

 

Signatories

Author

Margaret Henderson - Committee Advisor

  


Council

01 June 2017

 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


Council

01 June 2017

 

 

7.        Infrastructure, Transport and Environment Committee Minutes - 10 May 2017

Reference:

17/495060

Contact:

Samantha Kelly

samantha.kelly@ccc.govt.nz

941 6227

 

 

1.   Purpose of Report

The Infrastructure, Transport and Environment Committee held a meeting on 10 May 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 10 May 2017.

 

 

Attachments

No.

Title

Page

A

Minutes Infrastructure, Transport and Environment Committee - 10 May 2017

40

 

 

Signatories

Author

Samantha Kelly - Committee and Hearings Advisor

  


Council

01 June 2017

 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


Council

01 June 2017

 

Report from Infrastructure, Transport and Environment Committee  – 10 May 2017

 

8.        Randall Street - Street Renewal Project

Reference:

17/495091

Contact:

Kirsty Mahoney

kirsty.mahoney@ccc.govt.nz

941 5330

 

 

 

 

1.  Infrastructure, Transport and Environment Committee Consideration

 

The Committee accepted the staff recommendation without change.

 

2.  Infrastructure, Transport and Environment Committee Recommendation to Council

 

That the Council:

1.         Approve that the Randall Street – Street Renewal (Chrystal Street to North Parade) be included in the 2016/17 Street Renewals Programme, as a high priority due to the land drainage recovery programme project programmed for the street.

2.         Approve that Randall Street – Street Renewal be funded as part of the 2016/17 Medway Street - Street Renewal project to be carried forward to 2017/18.

 

 

Attachments

No.

Report Title

Page

1

Randall Street - Street Renewal Project

76

 

No.

Title

Page

a

Attachment 1 - Overview of Land Drainage Recovery Programme

83

 

 


Council

01 June 2017

 

 

Randall Street - Street Renewal Project

Reference:

17/313781

Contact:

Kirsty Mahoney

Kirsty.mahoney@ccc.govt.nz

03 941 5330

 

 

1.   Purpose and Origin of Report

Purpose of Report

1.1       The purpose of this report is for the Infrastructure, Transport and Environment Committee to consider and recommend to Council that the section of Randall Street (Chrystal Street to North Parade) be included in the street renewal programme, and funded from the Medway Street – Street Renewal Project budget.

Origin of Report

1.2       This report is staff generated for the Infrastructure, Transport, and Environment Committee, with the aim of providing a more efficient and cost effective asset renewal in conjunction with the Land Drainage Recovery Program of works.

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 its consideration as an asset renewal, and the number of people affected.

 

3.   Staff Recommendations 

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

1.         Approve that the Randall Street – Street Renewal (Chrystal Street to North Parade) be included in the 2016/17 Street Renewals Programme, as a high priority due to the land drainage recovery programme project programmed for the street.

2.         Approve that Randall Street – Street Renewal be funded as part of the 2016/17 Medway Street - Street Renewal project to be carried forward to 2017/18.

 

4.   Key Points

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

4.1.1   Activity: Roads and Footpaths – Level of Service: 16.0.19 Maintain Road Infrastructure

4.2       The following feasible options have been considered:

·     Option 1 – the preferred option is to fund the section of Randall Street (Chrystal Street to North Parade) as part of the existing Medway Street budget ($1 million), in conjunction with the current Land Drainage Dudley Creek Bypass project.  

·     Option 2 – do nothing.

4.3       Option Summary - Advantages and Disadvantages (Preferred Option)

4.3.1   The advantages of this option include:

·     An opportunity to provide timely and efficient delivery of the street renewal portion of this project as the land drainage project will impact a 9-metre width of the existing carriageway.  Co-ordination of the two projects will achieve an optimal road profile to residential street standards and remove the existing deep-dish channel.

·     Co-ordination of projects across the Council.

·     Whole of life cost savings for storm water and transport assets.

·     Will deliver a complete rather than an incomplete project for Randall Street.

·     Community benefits because rework and further construction disruption to local residents is not required in future years.

4.3.2   The disadvantages of this option include:

·     Limited consultation opportunity.

 

5.   Context/Background

Street renewal prioritisation and co-ordination

5.1       The Dudley Creek Bypass project, which is part of the land drainage recovery programme (refer Attachment 1), runs along Petrie Street, Randall Street and Medway Street to the Avon River.  The project includes a bypass inlet structure that runs from Dudley Creek at Petrie Street, just south of the Dudley Creek culvert, into a concrete box pipeline, which continues south along Petrie Street to Randall Street, east along Randall Street, across North Parade and along Medway Street to the outlet structure on River Road and into the Avon River.

5.2       The installation of the pipeline for the Dudley Creek Bypass project requires extensive excavation and a trench of approximately 9 metres width at road level along Petrie Street, Randall Street, and Medway Street.  The land drainage bypass project requires re-instatement of the road pavement for this full trench width.

5.3       The road reconstruction of two sections of Petrie Street was consulted on by SCIRT in October 2015, and approved to proceed by the Shirley / Papanui Community Board in December 2015.  The street works funding in the vicinity of the Dudley Creek Bypass work has been passed from SCIRT to the land drainage recovery team to co-ordinate the works for the road reconstruction following the completion of the land drainage work.

5.4       The Council approved funding for the street renewal of Medway Street in September 2016 to enable it to be fully reconstructed following the completion of the Dudley Creek Bypass project.  The street renewal of Medway Street was consulted on in November 2016 and approved to proceed by the Linwood – Central – Heathcote Community Board in December 2016.

5.5       Funding from SCIRT for the road reconstruction of Randall Street between Petrie Street and Chrystal Street has been passed to the land drainage recovery team to complete once the Dudley Creek Bypass work has been completed. Full street renewal of Randall Street (Chrystal Street to North Parade) was excluded from any funding from SCIRT.  No consultation has been undertaken for the street renewal of Randall Street, except for the intersection with Petrie Street.

5.6       Randall Street was not included in the 2015-20 street renewal programme because of uncertainty regarding the extent and timing of utility works.  It was tentatively scheduled for works in the next 5 to 10 year period.

5.7       The current deep-dish channels in Randall Street are set 13 metres apart.  There is an opportunity as part of the wider street renewal project for Petrie Street, and Randall Street (Petrie Street to Chrystal Street) to also install new flat channel to a 9 metre road width with wider berms along the section of Randall Street (Chrystal Street to North Parade) as part of the land drainage project, but funded from the Street Renewals category (Medway Street budget).

5.8       The latest construction estimate for Medway Street is $700,000 as most of the pavement work will be undertaken as part of the land drainage component, leaving kerbing, landscaping, berms and road drainage to be funded from Street Renewals which are considered as betterment. This will give a surplus of $300,000 to fund the Randall Street portion.

5.9       The preliminary estimate for this section of Randall Street (Chrystal Street to North Parade) is $300,000, which can be funded from the surplus Medway Street budget.

Opportunity

5.10    The opportunity to combine works with the Land Drainage Recovery Programme and SCIRT funded work, provides the community with the optimum current and whole of life solution.


 

6.   Option 1 – Deliver Randall Street in conjunction with Medway Street

Option Description

6.1       The preferred option is to fund the section of Randall Street (Chrystal Street to North Parade) from the existing Medway Street budget, in conjunction with the current Land Drainage Dudley Creek Bypass project. 

6.2       The Randall Street carriageway width will be reduced from 13 metres to 9 metres as a consequence of these works.

Significance

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

6.4       The engagement requirements for this level of significance are to consult / inform adjacent property owners.

Impact on Mana Whenua

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

Community Views and Preferences

6.6       Local residents are affected by this option due to the major land drainage project in their street.  Their views have not been sought to date; however, a condition assessment of this section of Randall Street would indicate that a full street renewal in conjunction with the land drainage works would be viewed favourably. 

6.7       It is intended to consult with / inform the local residents of Randall Street affected by these works, upon approval from Council to proceed with this funding proposal.

Alignment with Council Plans and Policies

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

Financial Implications

6.9       Cost of Implementation – estimates indicate a cost of $300,000 for the street renewal of Randall Street (Chrystal Street to North Parade).

6.10    Maintenance / Ongoing Costs – following completion of the works there will be a reduction in maintenance and surfacing renewal costs due to less sealed area and reduced channel cleaning costs.

6.11    Funding source – it is proposed that the project be funded from within the existing budget for Medway Street as part of the existing Street Renewal programme.

Legal Implications

6.12    Not applicable.

Risks and Mitigations   

6.13    There is a risk that the preliminary budget estimate is inadequate.

6.14    Risk is caused by procurement uncertainty.  The options for procurement include pricing and delivery by the land drainage contractor.  This will result in the need to review scope at all stages.

6.14.1 Treatment: Budget management during the design and procurement phases.

6.14.2 Residual risk rating: The rating of the risk is Medium.

Implementation

6.15    Implementation dependencies - Implementation should be in conjunction with, or immediately following the land drainage recovery work along Randall Street.

6.16    Implementation timeframe – Implementation will be in co-ordination with the land drainage construction period, but likely to commence in late 2017.

Option Summary - Advantages and Disadvantages

6.17    The advantages of this option include:

·   An opportunity to provide timely delivery of the street renewal portion of this project, as the land drainage project will impact at least a 9 metre width of the existing carriageway.

·   Co-ordination of projects across the Council.

·   The project will result in whole of life cost savings for storm water and transport assets.

·   The project will deliver a complete rather than an incomplete project for Randall Street.

·   The community benefits from this project because rework and further construction disruption to local residents is not required in future years.

6.18    The disadvantages of this option include:

·   Limited consultation opportunity.


 

7.   Option 2 – Do Nothing

Option Description

7.1       To do nothing.

Significance

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

7.3       Engagement requirements for this level of significance are not necessary.

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       This option does not change the 2016/2017 Annual Plan or 2017/2018 Draft Annual Plan and existing projects are not specifically affected by this option. 

Alignment with Council Plans and Policies

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

Financial Implications

7.7       Cost of Implementation – There is no change from the current programme of work.

7.8       Maintenance / Ongoing Costs – The reduction in maintenance and cleaning costs from street renewal will not be realised. 

7.9       Funding source – No funding is required

Legal Implications

7.10    Not applicable.

Risks and Mitigations   

7.11    There are no risks with the Do Nothing option.

Implementation

7.12    Implementation dependencies - are as per the proposed 2017/2018 Annual Plan dependencies.

7.13    Implementation timeframe – is as per the proposed 2017/2018 Annual Plan timeframe.

Option Summary – Advantages and Disadvantages

7.14    The advantages of this option include:

·   No change from the existing work stream.

7.15    The disadvantages of this option include:

·   The opportunities highlighted for the preferred option will not be realised.

·   The community may voice dissatisfaction when they see other streets in the area being renewed in conjunction with the Land Drainage project.

·   Reduction in costs not realised.

·   Retention of existing deep dish kerb and channel.

 

Attachments

No.

Title

Page

a 

Attachment 1 - Overview of Land Drainage Recovery Programme

 

 

 

Confirmation of Statutory Compliance

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

(a) This report contains:

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

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

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

 

Signatories

Authors

Kirsty Mahoney - Project Manager

Sharon O'Neill - Team Leader Project Management Transport

Lynette Ellis - Manager Planning and Delivery Transport

Approved By

Chris Gregory - Head of Transport

David Adamson - General Manager City Services

 


Council

01 June 2017

 

PDF Creator


Council

01 June 2017

 

Report from Infrastructure, Transport and Environment Committee  – 10 May 2017

 

9.        Sumner Lyttelton Corridor Acquisition of Residential Redzone Properties

Reference:

17/495124

Contact:

Stuart McLeod

stuart.mcleod@ccc.govt.nz

941 8520

 

 

 

 

1.  Infrastructure, Transport and Environment Committee Consideration

 

The Committee accepted the staff recommendations and also noted that clause 5.8 of the staff report had now been resolved to the satisfaction of all parties.

 

2.   Staff Recommendations

 

That the Infrastructure, Transport and Environment Committee:

1.         Recommend to the Council that the request from the Crown accept a transfer of the properties identified in attachment 1 be accepted subject to:

a.         The vendor disclosing to the purchaser any known rock fall or other risk factors that exist on the properties; and

b.         There is a nominal consideration of $1.

2.         Recommend to Council that the General Manager Corporate Services be granted delegated authority to negotiate and enter into an agreement for sale and purchase of the properties (if required) and related documentation on such terms and conditions as she considers appropriate and which are consistent with the above resolutions.

3.         Note that while limited immediate maintenance costs can be met within existing allocations,  specific provisions for the ongoing management, development and maintenance of these sites will need to be referred to future planning processes

 

3.  Infrastructure, Transport and Environment Committee Recommendation to Council

 

That the Council:

1.         Accept the request from the Crown a transfer of the properties identified in attachment 1 subject to:

a.         The vendor disclosing to the purchaser any known rock fall or other risk factors that exist on the properties; and

b.         There is a nominal consideration of $1.

2.         Approves that the General Manager Corporate Services be granted delegated authority to negotiate and enter into an agreement for sale and purchase of the properties (if required) and related documentation on such terms and conditions as she considers appropriate and which are consistent with the above resolutions.

3.         Notes that while limited immediate maintenance costs can be met within existing allocations,  specific provisions for the ongoing management, development and maintenance of these sites will need to be referred to future planning processes.

4.         Notes that clause 5.8 of the report has been resolved to the satisfaction of all parties.

 

 

Attachments

No.

Report Title

Page

1

Sumner Lyttelton Corridor Acquisition of Residential Redzone Properties

87

 

No.

Title

Page

a

Attachment 1 Properties to transfer

94

b

Attachment 2 Site Map

98

c

Attachment 3 Aeiral Photos

100

 

 


Council

01 June 2017

 

 

Sumner Lyttelton Corridor Acquisition of Residential Redzone Properties

Reference:

17/209336

Contact:

Stuart McLeod

stuart.mcleod@ccc.govt.nz

941 8520

 

 

1.   Purpose and Origin of Report

Purpose of Report

1.1       The purpose of this report is for the Infrastructure, Transport and Environment Committee to recommend to the Council to accept a transfer of the properties in the Port Hills Residential Red Zone identified in Appendix I from the Crown to the Council.

Origin of Report

1.2       This report is a response to a letter from Land Information New Zealand (LINZ) dated 9 November 2016 stating the Minister supporting Greater Christchurch Regeneration and the Chief Executive of LINZ have formerly agreed to the disposal of land. (Appendix I).

1.3       A Council decision is required because Council has not delegated the authority to acquire property, even at nominal consideration, when the property acquisition is not included in the Long Term Plan.

2.   Significance

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

2.1.1   The level of significance was determined by completion of the worksheet for recording significance.

2.1.2   It should be noted that some parts of the assessment are regarded as high because risks and liabilities of ownership of these properties and future costs are unknown whilst other are low i.e. acquisition does not impact on the Councils ability to carry out its role and functions.

 

3.   Staff Recommendations 

That the Infrastructure, Transport and Environment Committee:

1.         Recommend to the Council that the request from the Crown accept a transfer of the properties identified in attachment 1 be accepted subject to:

a.         The vendor disclosing to the purchaser any known rock fall or other risk factors that exist on the properties; and

b.         There is a nominal consideration of $1.

2.         Recommend to Council that the General Manager Corporate Services be granted delegated authority to negotiate and enter into an agreement for sale and purchase of the properties (if required) and related documentation on such terms and conditions as she considers appropriate and which are consistent with the above resolutions.

3.         Note that while limited immediate maintenance costs can be met within existing allocations,  specific provisions for the ongoing management, development and maintenance of these sites will need to be referred to future planning processes

 

 

4.   Key Points

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

4.2       The following feasible options have been considered:

·     Option 1 – Purchase the properties (preferred option)

·     Option 2 – Do nothing

4.3       Option Summary - Advantages and Disadvantages (Preferred Option)

4.3.1   The advantages of this option include:

·     Council secure properties upon which it has constructed asset protection infrastructure ensuring future access for maintenance.

·     The nominal purchase price is insignificant.

·     Additional alternative uses (if any) can be considered once the properties are acquired.

4.3.2   The disadvantages of this option include:

·     No specific provision in budgets for future management and maintenance of these properties, although these are expected to be small.

·     Council has incomplete knowledge of these red zoned properties so there may be unknown risks and liabilities associated with these properties.

 

5.   Context/Background

The Properties

5.1       As a consequence of the Christchurch Earthquakes these properties were red zoned because of the life risk posed by rock fall, cliff collapse or land slips. Subsequently they were acquired by the Crown as part of its Port Hills Residential Red Zone acquisition programme. The general location of the properties is shown in appendix II.

5.2       Extensive rock fall mitigation works on the properties have been completed, these works were essential for the protection of the public and assets. The completed works consist mostly of bunds or barriers to protect the road corridor and some nearby properties. City Services have advised that ownership is desirable to ensure access for ongoing maintenance and to restrict future public access.

5.3       The Council and the Crown entered into a cost sharing agreement in June 2013 whereby the Council would meet ½ of the Crowns costs for the purchase of properties subject to high life risk caused by rockfall and or rock roll.

5.4       The Cost Share Agreement anticipates transfer from the Crown to Council, however this is a high level document and only provides a general outline of what may happen, it gives no details on how this is to happen or detail on specific properties.

5.5       It also anticipates that where land purchased adjoins a Council reserve the Crown agreed to transfer up to 50% of the gross land area adjoining the reserve to the Council at no cost.

5.6       After the disestablishment of CERA management of the properties transferred to Land Information New Zealand.

5.7       All the properties in attachment 1 have been identified by the Crown to be transferred to the Christchurch City Council. Whilst the land at 98 Wakefield Avenue adjoins a reserve the others do not.

5.8       Council staff have been advised that the Minister supporting Greater Christchurch Regeneration and the CEO of LINZ have formally agreed to the disposal of the land. Staff are unaware of any proposed terms and conditions despite repeated requests for information from LINZ, the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet and the Crown’s solicitors.

5.9       The transfer of the properties is primarily for the purposes of mitigating natural hazards and the protection of network infrastructure.    

5.10    Background documentation is desirable to ensure the appropriate agreements between Council and the Crown can be or have been entered into, to assist with planning for future maintenance and development and to ensure Council does not expose itself to any unknown risk i.e. will Council inherit any liabilities and future costs of management and maintenance.  

 

Legal Considerations

5.11    Section 107 of the Greater Christchurch Regeneration Act 2016 authorises the Crown to dispose of land held under the said act or under the Christchurch Earthquake Recovery Act 2011. It is assumed the Crown has met its statutory obligations under the aforesaid acts and the land can be disposed of by the Crown direct to Council.

5.12    It is usual practise to obtain written agreements for sale and purchase, these agreements give certainty by placing terms and conditions on the vendor and purchaser and obligate them to complete the transaction as per the agreement.  A Sale and Purchase contract will be negotiated with the Crown.

 


 

6.   Option 1 – Purchase the properties (preferred)

Option Description

6.1       This options involves Council (purchasing) accepting the transfer of properties from the Crown.

Significance

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

6.3       The nature and circumstances of this option in terms of implementing the Cost Share Agreement with the Crown is such that the Council does not have the opportunity to engage with or consult the community.   This option merely implements what has already been agreed in the Cost Share Agreement.

6.4       Council may consider engagement with the community over future additional uses.

Impact on Mana Whenua

6.5       The property located at 8A Balmoral Lane incorporates what is known as Moa Bone Cave which is an archaeological site and of interest to Ngai Tahu. The cave remains fenced off and is a safety hazard. Any future use decisions must include Heritage New Zealand and should include consultation with Ngai Tahu.

6.6       This option, a straight forward property purchase and does not impact of Ngai Tahu, it simply changes ownership and does not propose to alter or develop the site and therefore, does not involve a significant decision in relation to ancestral land or a body of water or other elements of intrinsic value.

Community Views and Preferences

6.7       The community is likely to be supportive of the acquisition of this property as it allows for the long term provision of assets intended to mitigate natural hazards and protect network infrastructure.

Alignment with Council Plans and Policies

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

6.8.1   Inconsistency – There is no provision in the Annual plan LTP for this purchase.

6.8.2   Reason for inconsistency – This acquisition was not considered in the LTP consultation process because which properties to be transferred to Council were unknown.

6.8.3   Amendment necessary – none.

Financial Implications

6.9       Cost of Implementation –nominal.  Council’s legal costs will be meet through existing budgets.

6.10    Maintenance / Ongoing Costs – unknown.

6.11    Funding source – none specific although there is potential to fund future maintenance of the properties through operating expenditure in the LTP, for example funds from resilient communities, Transport or Parks and open spaces Vol 1 page 45 may be available.

Legal Implications

6.12    Land owners have the right to ordinary use and enjoyment of their land, however adjoining property owners also have this right. Therefore it is the land owner’s responsibility to ensure that any activity or potential source to interfere with other land owner’s rights is managed.

6.13    An assurance should be obtained from the Crown that to the best of its knowledge all hazards within the properties have been mitigated prior to transfer to Council.

Risks and Mitigations    

6.14    Risks associated with this transaction are considered high because financial implications and risk factors associated with the land are unknown. Staff have however been involved in the risk mitigation assessment and works.

6.15    Rock fall risk has been assessed (hence the red zone classification) but this can be mitigated. Rock fall caused by future natural events could result in rock fall from or onto the properties and could endanger the public, hence the need to restrict public access.

6.15.1 Treatment: Rock fall bunds are being constructed.

6.15.2 Residual risk rating: the rating of the risk is low after this work has been completed.

Implementation

6.16    Implementation dependencies - Council approval to purchase.

6.17    Implementation timeframe – 6 months.

Option Summary - Advantages and Disadvantages

6.18    The advantages of this option include:

·     Council secure properties upon which it has constructed bunds ensuring future access for maintenance.

·     The nominal purchase price is insignificant.

6.19    The disadvantages of this option include:

·   No specific provision in budgets for future management and maintenance of these properties.

·   Background documentation has not been made available, there may me unknown risks and liabilities associated with these properties.


 

7.   Option 2 – Do nothing

Option Description

7.1       Do not acquire the properties.

Significance

7.2       The level of significance of this option is low which differs from section 2 of this report due to the Council not inheriting any potential liability.

7.3       Engagement requirements for this level of significance are low.

Impact on Mana Whenua

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

Community Views and Preferences

7.5       The community are not specifically affected by this option due to there being no change in ownership.

Alignment with Council Plans and Policies

7.6       This option is consistent with Council’s Plans and Policies because there is no provision for this specific acquisition.

Financial Implications

7.7       Cost of Implementation - Nil

7.8       Maintenance / Ongoing Costs – Unknown, Council may still be liable to maintain its assets built on land it does not own.

7.9       Funding source - none specific although there is potential to fund future maintenance of the properties through operating expenditure in the LTP, for example funds from resilient communities, Transport or Parks and open spaces Vol 1 page 45 may be available.

Legal Implications

7.10    Because Council do not own the properties it may not have rights to access them for future maintenance nor any long term protection of essential assets.

Risks and Mitigations    

7.11    The risk in not purchasing is medium as Council have no automatic right to access Council owned infrastructure for maintenance.

7.12    This could result in future failure of infrastructure and could result in an intolerable risk to the public.

7.12.1 Treatment: Negotiate access to Council owned infrastructure with the Crown by way of easement or

7.12.2 Purchase the properties.

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

Implementation

7.13    Implementation dependencies - negotiation of access.

7.14    Implementation timeframe – 1 year.

Option Summary - Advantages and Disadvantages

7.15    The advantages of this option include:

·   No decision necessary.

7.16    The disadvantages of this option include:

·   Uncertainty over future access.

 

Attachments

No.

Title

Page

a 

Attachment 1 Properties to transfer

 

b 

Attachment 2 Site Map

 

c 

Attachment 3 Aeiral Photos

 

 

 

Confirmation of Statutory Compliance

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

(a) This report contains:

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

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

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

 

Signatories

Author

Stuart McLeod - Property Consultant

Approved By

Angus Smith - Manager Property Consultancy

Robert O'Connor - Senior Solicitor

Bruce Rendall - Head of Facilities, Property and Planning

Andrew Rutledge - Head of Parks

Mary Richardson - General Manager Customer and Community

David Adamson - General Manager City Services

 


Council

01 June 2017

 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


Council

01 June 2017

 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


Council

01 June 2017

 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


Council

01 June 2017

 

Report from Regulatory Performance Committee  – 10 May 2017

 

10.    Review of the Marine and River Facilities Bylaw 2008, and proposed new Marine, River and Lake Facilities Bylaw 2017 (for consultation)

Reference:

17/482604

Contact:

Teena Crocker

Teena.Crocker@ccc.govt.nz

941 8851

 

 

 

 

1.  Staff and Regulatory Performance Committee Recommendation to Council

 

That the Council:

1.         Notes that:

a.         this report concerns the review of the Christchurch City Council Marine and River Facilities Bylaw 2008 (the current bylaw)

b.         the review of the current bylaw has resulted in the development of a replacement bylaw, the Christchurch City Council Marine, River and Lake Facilities Bylaw 2017 (the proposed replacement bylaw)

c.         in order to complete the review, revocation and replacement process, legislation requires the Council to consider and determine certain things, and to consult on the proposed replacement bylaw.

2.         Receives the attached section 155 analysis report.

3.         Resolves to replace the current bylaw with the proposed replacement bylaw as a result of the review and section 155 analysis, in accordance with section 160 of the Local Government Act 2002 (subject to changes as a result of the consultation process).

4.         Resolves that the proposed replacement bylaw meets the requirements of section 155 of the Local Government Act 2002, in that:

a.         a bylaw is the most appropriate way of addressing the perceived problems; and

b.         the proposed bylaw (subject to the outcome of the consultation process) is the most appropriate form of bylaw; and

c.         the proposed bylaw gives rise to some implications under the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990 but is not inconsistent with that Act.

5.         Adopts the proposed replacement bylaw set out in Attachment B for public consultation.

6.         Notes that a consultation process for the replacement of the current bylaw with the proposed replacement bylaw will be undertaken in a manner that gives effect to the requirements of section 82 of the Local Government Act 2002.

7.         Notes that public consultation on the proposed replacement bylaw is planned for the period 3 July 2017 to 6 August 2017, with public hearings planned for late August 2017.

8.         Notes the attached indicative consultation information, which is subject to change.

9.         Recommends that a hearings panel be appointed to hear submissions on the proposed replacement bylaw, to deliberate on those submissions, and to report back to the Council on the final form of the Bylaw. 

 

 

Attachments

No.

Report Title

Page

1

Review of the Marine and River Facilities Bylaw 2008, and proposed new Marine, River and Lake Facilities Bylaw 2017 (for consultation)

107

 

No.

Title

Page

a

Clause-by-clause and issues analysis report (section 155)

116

b

Proposed Marine, River and Lake Facilities Bylaw - for consultation

132

c

Indicative consultation information

142

 

 


Council

01 June 2017

 

 

Review of the Marine and River Facilities Bylaw 2008, and proposed new Marine, River and Lake Facilities Bylaw 2017 (for consultation)

Reference:

17/237867

Contact:

Teena Crocker

Teena.Crocker@ccc.govt.nz

941 8851

 

 

1.   Purpose and Origin of Report

Purpose of Report

1.1       The purpose of this report is for the Regulatory Performance Committee to consider the review of the Marine and River Facilities Bylaw 2008, and to recommend the proposed replacement bylaw (the Marine, River and Lake Facilities Bylaw) to Council for adoption for public consultation.

Origin of Report

1.2       The Council has an agreed ten-year timetable for coordinating the review of bylaws. The review of this bylaw aligns with the timetable and ensures the review will comply with legislative review requirements under Section 159 of the Local Government Act 2002 (LGA 2002).

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 bylaw’s purpose is to facilitate the fair and safe use of, and access to, Council marine, river and lake facilities (including those around the estuary), and to protect them from damage. It largely addresses concerns about activities in relation to Council wharves and boat ramps, and does not cover privately owned facilities, activities on the water, or maintenance of the facilities. Its coverage is confined to matters that can be regulated via bylaw under the LGA 2002.

2.1.2   This report concerns the review of the existing bylaw and proposes a replacement bylaw for public consultation. The community engagement and consultation outlined in this report reflect the ‘low significance’ assessment.

 

3.   Staff Recommendations

That the Regulatory Performance Committee recommends that the Council:

1.         Notes that:

a.         this report concerns the review of the Christchurch City Council Marine and River Facilities Bylaw 2008 (the current bylaw)

b.         the review of the current bylaw has resulted in the development of a replacement bylaw, the Christchurch City Council Marine, River and Lake Facilities Bylaw 2017 (the proposed replacement bylaw)

c.         in order to complete the review, revocation and replacement process, legislation requires the Council to consider and determine certain things, and to consult on the proposed replacement bylaw.

2.         Receives the attached section 155 analysis report.

3.         Resolves to replace the current bylaw with the proposed replacement bylaw as a result of the review and section 155 analysis, in accordance with section 160 of the Local Government Act 2002 (subject to changes as a result of the consultation process).

4.         Resolves that the proposed replacement bylaw meets the requirements of section 155 of the Local Government Act 2002, in that:

a.         a bylaw is the most appropriate way of addressing the perceived problems; and

b.         the proposed bylaw (subject to the outcome of the consultation process) is the most appropriate form of bylaw; and

c.         the proposed bylaw gives rise to some implications under the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990 but is not inconsistent with that Act.

5.         Adopts the proposed replacement bylaw set out in Attachment B for public consultation.

6.         Notes that a consultation process for the replacement of the current bylaw with the proposed replacement bylaw will be undertaken in a manner that gives effect to the requirements of section 82 of the Local Government Act 2002.

7.         Notes that public consultation on the proposed replacement bylaw is planned for the period 3 July 2017 to 6 August 2017, with public hearings planned for late August 2017.

8.         Notes the attached indicative consultation information, which is subject to change.

9.         Recommends that a hearings panel be appointed to hear submissions on the proposed replacement bylaw, to deliberate on those submissions, and to report back to the Council on the final form of the Bylaw. 

 

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: 17.0.19 (non-LTP) Bylaws and regulatory policies are reviewed to meet statutory timeframes and changing needs

4.2       The following feasible options have been considered:

·     Option 1 – Review the current bylaw and recommend an updated, replacement bylaw. Undertake public consultation on the proposed replacement bylaw.

·     The LGA 2002 requires that all ‘reasonably practicable options’ are assessed (section 77). In this case, only one structural option has been explored in this report (reviewing and replacing the bylaw).  This is because revoking the bylaw, or keeping the existing bylaw, are not reasonably practicable options as a result of the review.  Revoking the bylaw would reduce the tools that the Council has to manage the problems identified in the review, and result in a lack of regulatory options to manage issues. Keeping the existing bylaw is not a reasonably practicable option either, as improvements and alignments with current practice have been identified through the review, and it would be inadvisable to maintain the status quo when known improvements have been identified. Additionally, the Level of Service for bylaws requires reviewing them to meet changing needs.

·     However, in terms of assessing options, within the bylaw review process itself, each clause has been examined, and new issues have been identified and assessed, and this, in essence, provides the analysis of options. This analysis is attached as the ‘section 155 report’. Section 155 of the LGA 2002, which is specific to bylaws, requires an assessment of whether regulating the identified issues via bylaw is appropriate.

4.3       Option Summary - Advantages and Disadvantages (Preferred Option)

4.3.1   The advantages of this option include:

·     Meets legislative requirements for review (timeliness, analysis and consultation)

·     Updates the existing bylaw so it is fit for purpose in the current context.

4.3.2   The disadvantages of this option include:

·     None.

 

5.   Context/Background

Review of the current bylaw

5.1       The Council has a bylaw regulating activities associated with marine and river facilities and structures – the Marine and River Facilities Bylaw 2008. 

5.2       Legislation requires that bylaws are reviewed within certain timeframes (normally at least once every ten years, under section 159 of the LGA 2002).   

5.3       When a council reviews a bylaw, it is required to undertake a section 155 analysis, as set out in section 160 of the LGA 2002. The first part of this analysis requires establishing what problems (actual and perceived) exist. The next part requires determining whether or not a bylaw is the most appropriate way of addressing the problems. In practice, this is established by undertaking a clause-by-clause analysis of the current bylaw, and then identifying and assessing potential new problems, or areas that might benefit from regulation via bylaw.  The final part of the analysis is to determine whether or not the bylaw gives rise to any implications under the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990 (NZBoRA). The section 155 analysis is attached to this report. 

5.4       Section 160 goes on to provide that, if a council considers that a bylaw should be amended, revoked, or revoked and replaced, as a result of reviewing it, the council must consult on the proposed bylaw in accordance with section 156 of the LGA 2002.

5.5       The review, prepared by staff, concludes that a bylaw is still needed and a proposed replacement bylaw has been drafted (attached). 

Bylaw-making powers and enforcement options

5.6       The proposed new bylaw would be made under the same bylaw-making powers as the current bylaw.  These are sections 145 and 146 of the LGA 2002 :

·   section 145(a): protecting the public from nuisance; and (b) protecting, promoting, and maintaining public health and safety; and

·   section 146(b)(vi) … managing, regulating against, or protecting from, damage, misuse, or loss, or for preventing the use of, the land, structures, or infrastructure associated with… reserves, recreation grounds, or other land under the control of the territorial authority.

5.7       The proposed new bylaw would have the same penalties and enforcement provisions as the current bylaw (namely, a fine on conviction of up to $20,000, as set out in section 242 of the LGA 2002). 

5.8       There is no infringement regime available at this time for breaching a bylaw made under the LGA 2002.  However, there is a range of enforcement options and tools available in that Act (for example, seizing offending equipment, applying for injunctions in the District Court). Other than encouraging compliance through public education and signage, any issues may also be able to be addressed through other legislative means, including the Summary Offences Act 1981, the Litter Act 1979 and the Trespass Act 1980.

Exclusions and other jurisdictions

5.9       Maritime New Zealand (a Crown entity), has a wide role in the safety, security and environmental protection of coastal and inland waterways throughout New Zealand.

5.10    At a local level, activities on the water are regulated by Environment Canterbury via the Canterbury Regional Council Navigation Safety Bylaw 2016.

5.11    The Environment Canterbury bylaw was made under the Maritime Transport Act 1994.  It is enforced by the Harbour Master and applies in all navigable waters in the Canterbury region.  It aims to improve safety for all water-users, covering a wide range of issues and activities on the water. The only area of potential overlap is its prohibition on fishing, jumping, swimming and diving near landing places (such as wharves), when vessels are approaching or otherwise manoeuvring. As Environment Canterbury regulates this issue, both the current and proposed replacement bylaw do not duplicate it.

5.12    Activities in the port are regulated by port-specific legislation, and all facilities, structures or land owned or operated by Lyttelton Port of Christchurch are excluded from the current and proposed replacement bylaw.

5.13    A council can make bylaws ‘for its district’ under section 145 of the LGA 2002 and for ‘land under the control of the territorial authority’ in its district under section 146 of the LGA 2002.  The district boundaries of the Christchurch City Council extend outward from the land to the line of mean low water springs along the Christchurch coastline. The boundary crosses the mouths of all harbours, bays, streams, inlets and estuaries, including Lyttelton and Akaroa Harbours. As the New Brighton Pier is seaward of the mean low water springs line, it is technically outside of the Council’s district, and the Council does not have the legal power to make a bylaw that applies to it. The boundaries are explained in the explanatory note at the end of the proposed replacement bylaw.

5.14    The bylaw only relates to facilities that are owned or managed by the Council (not privately owned facilities) and does not have any impact on maintenance or repairs of the facilities. Information on funding for maintenance is part of the Council’s annual and long term planning decision-making processes (notably, section 11 of the Harbours and Marine Structures Activity Management Plan, Long Term Plan, 2015–2025).

Changes between the current bylaw and the proposed new bylaw

5.15    Detailed information on the review of the current bylaw is in the attached section 155 analysis.  This analysis evaluates each clause in the current bylaw, and then identifies new issues and explores whether regulation via bylaw is appropriate.

5.16    Information and evidence for the clause-by-clause and issues analysis was sought from staff with operational involvement in marine, river and lake facilities (regional parks and local parks), as well as from all Community Boards.  Additionally, information from the Residents Survey was used to understand current tensions relating to the facilities.

5.17    In summary, the changes from the current bylaw are:

·   Commercial use of facilities: Still requires permission from the Council. Extends the definition to include hiring of equipment that utilises facilities and to ensure all other known commercial activities are included.

·   Vehicles on wharves: Moves to place tighter controls on vehicle use to balance commercial and recreational / pedestrian access, and to ensure alignment with structural tolerances. Vehicles are only allowed if ‘actively involved’ in servicing a business or undertaking maintenance. Vehicles cannot be left unattended on a wharf.

·   Time limits and attendance requirements for mooring vessels: Moves to place tighter controls on mooring at the four busiest wharves to balance commercial and recreational access (Akaroa, Daly’s, Wainui and Diamond Harbour Wharves).  Places time limits on mooring to access points (one hour and only when actively using the access point), and mooring to wharves generally (two hours), for the four busiest wharves. Retains the requirement that vessels must be attended when moored at any wharf or jetty.  Allows exceptions with written approval. 

·   Obstruction of facilities: Increased clarity by expanding the current clause on obstruction to cover storage in, on, around or near facilities. Aligns with a similar clause in the Parks and Reserves Bylaw. Storage restriction linked to obstruction or health and safety concerns.

5.18    The new areas of coverage for the proposed replacement bylaw are:

·   Organised events: Requires anyone wanting to undertake an organised competition, lesson, club or training event that utilises a facility to get permission from the Council, if that use is likely to reduce access for the general public, or raise any health and safety issues due to the anticipated participant or supporter numbers.  Similar to a clause in the Parks and Reserves Bylaw. Protects health and safety, prevents damage and balances fair use.

·   Signage at facilities: Requires permission to advertise or otherwise display signage in connection with a facility. To prevent obstructions, protect health and safety, prevent damage (from affixing to facilities). Also to avoid proliferation. Links to commercial activities and to organised events. Also to coordinate signage from other regulators.

·   Refuelling: Requires those refuelling to take all reasonably practicable steps to ensure it does not endanger facility users or contaminate or damage the facility. Requires written permission to refuel a vessel for commercial purposes. Protects health and safety, protects facilities from damage.  

·   Storage at facilities: Increased clarity by expanding the current clause on obstruction to cover storage in, on, around or near facilities. Aligns with a similar clause in the Parks and Reserves Bylaw. Storage restriction linked to obstruction or health and safety concerns.

·   Closing or restricting access to facilities: To prohibit public access when the Council has closed a facility (for example, due to structural damage) and has put up signage.  Allows access for assessments, repairs and maintenance. Protect health and safety.

·   Damage: New clause to prevent damage. Similar to a clause in Parks and Reserves Bylaw.

·   Fishing from facilities and no fishing zones: New requirements when fishing from a facility, and new ability to create ‘no fishing zones’ to protect health and safety or against nuisance. Proposes a ‘no fishing zone’ in the Central City (from facilities, not the riverbank as a whole).

·   Permissions: New section to cover all permissions required under the bylaw.

5.19    There are no substantial changes to the coverage of:

·   Size of vessels (mooring): Remains 10 metres for vessels and 15 metres for yachts, or permission.

·   Adverse weather conditions: No mooring if it could cause damage.

·   Obstruction of facilities: Continues to prevent obstructing reasonable access to facilities.

Relationship with other Council bylaws 

5.20    The proposed new Marine, River and Lake Facilities Bylaw has two main areas of overlap with other Council bylaws. 

5.20.1 Parks and Reserves Bylaw 2016: This bylaw regulates activities in greenspace areas that are under the ownership or management of the Council, including reserves, parks and the foreshore.  Marine, river and lake facilities are generally surrounded by or adjoin land that may be regulated by this bylaw.  Some new clauses have been included in the proposed new replacement bylaw to mirror clauses in the new Parks and Reserves Bylaw.  These are noted in the attached clause-by-clause, and explanatory notes have been used in the proposed new bylaw to clarify this.   There are no inconsistencies between the bylaws.

5.20.2 Public Places Bylaw 2008 (currently under review): This bylaw regulates commercial activities (including advertising) and obstructions in public places.  Wharves, boat ramps, etc., can be considered public places, and are therefore covered by both bylaws. The Public Places Bylaw is very broad, while the Marine, River and Lake Facilities Bylaw is more specific.  There are no inconsistencies between the bylaws.

5.20.3 There are also minor some overlaps with the Freedom Camping, Dog Control and Traffic and Parking Bylaws.  There are no inconsistencies of note.

Consultation

5.21    Staff have been working on the bylaw review for some time, working across Council to ensure a whole-of-Council approach to identifying, assessing and regulating issues.

5.22    Staff attended Community Board seminars from January to April 2017 to present on the bylaw reviews underway this year, including the Marine and River Facilities Bylaw 2008.  Where time allowed, discussion with Board Members provided an opportunity to raise any issues.

5.23    Staff engaged with the Banks Peninsula Community Board a second time in late March 2017 as the majority of marine structures are in the bays and harbours of the Peninsula, including busier wharves with commercial use. Board Members were generally supportive of the proposal and made some considered suggestions for improvement, which have been incorporated where possible.

5.24    Public consultation on the proposed new replacement bylaw is scheduled for 3 July – 6 August 2017, with hearings to be held in late August. 

5.25    The LGA 2002 requires councils to consult the public on new bylaws and bylaw amendments using either the special consultative procedure (sections 83 and 86) or 'other' consultation (section 82).  For proposals of low to medium significance, section 82 'other' consultation is generally considered appropriate.  When carrying out consultation that gives effect to the requirements of section 82, the Council must comply with the requirements of section 82A (which relates to information required for consultation). 

5.26    Staff recommend that the Council follow a similar process to a special consultative procedure, but with more user friendly, simple documents.  The proposed consultation process will include:

·     public notices in relevant newspapers

·     sending a summary of the proposed changes and bylaw to identified stakeholders, inviting written comments

·     making copies available on the website and in libraries for anyone with an interest

·     holding public hearings. 

5.27    As such, consultation information for the consultation has been prepared and is attached to this report, along with a copy of the proposed replacement bylaw. 

6.   Option 1 – Review existing bylaw and consult on replacement bylaw (preferred)

Option Description

6.1       Staff have reviewed the current Marine and River Facilities Bylaw 2008, and recommend consulting on a replacement bylaw - the Marine, River and Lake Facilities Bylaw 2017. 

Significance

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

6.3       Engagement requirements for this level of significance are consistent with a standard bylaw public consultation process.

Impact on Mana Whenua

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

6.5       The Mahaanui Iwi Management Plan 2013 has catchment sections on Whakaraupō (Lyttelton Harbour) and Akaroa Harbour.  Both acknowledge the significance of the harbours for recreational activity, but note that recreational use should not compromise customary values and interests.  Iwi have an interest in ensuring that structures in the coastal marine area do not affect mahinga kai resources.  The Plan notes the need to ensure there are not inappropriate or too many structures in the coastal marine area.

6.6       The proposed new replacement bylaw does not cover activities on the water (such as speed limits or boating lanes, which could impact on mahinga kai resources - these are covered by Environment Canterbury’s Navigation Safety Bylaw) and it does not cover the establishment or maintenance of facilities, but, rather, regulates activities on existing structures, so it will not have a significant impact on Mana Whenua. 

Community Views and Preferences

6.7       Information from the 2015-2016 Residents Survey that related to satisfaction with harbour and marine structures was used to understand some of the current tensions relating to access to, and use of, the facilities. (The results of the 2016-2017 survey were not yet available.)

6.8       Commercial and recreational users of marine, river and lake facilities would be affected by this option due to the bylaw’s coverage.  The proposed replacement bylaw aims to balance commercial and recreational access to the facilities, while protecting facilities from damage and protecting health and safety.  This report concerns the adoption of a proposed replacement bylaw for public consultation.  Users’ views will be sought through the public consultation process.

Alignment with Council Plans and Policies

6.9       This option is consistent with Council’s Plans and Policies, and Community Outcomes.

6.9.1   Harbours and Marine Structures Activity Management Plan, Long Term Plan 2015–2025: ‘The Council provides marine structures to facilitate access to the marine environment for residents, visitors and commercial operators for recreation, sport, tourism, commercial activities, and transport.’

6.9.2   Strong Communities: People participate in a wide range of recreational activities (participation, equitable access), and Communities are safe (Injuries and risks to public health are minimised).

6.9.3   Good Governance: Effective stewardship of Council resources (well-managed infrastructure).

6.10    This option aligns with Community Board plans. Prior to the recent election (October 2016), the previous Community Boards produced their first Community Board Plans.  The plans were informed by local community aspirations and needs, and were intended to inform Council work programmes.  Of the previous Boards, five referred to marine and river facilities. Akaroa-Wairewa and Lyttelton-Mt Herbert emphasised the importance of investment and maintenance, accessibility and access, recreational use, and cruise ship facilitation and impact management.  Ferry access and investment also featured in the Lyttelton-Mt Herbert Plan. The Lyttelton Master Plan 2012 also refers to the redevelopment of Naval Point, particularly for the boating community and allowing good access between the water and the town. Both Hagley-Ferrymead and Spreydon-Heathcote Board Plans raised increased recreational access to and use of the Heathcote-Ōpāwaho River, the Avon-Ōtākaro River and the Estuary. Water quality issues also featured, but are outside of the scope of this bylaw, which is focused on managing access to facilities.

Financial Implications

6.11    Cost of Implementation – Public consultation and hearings on the proposed replacement bylaw are business as usual. 

6.12    If the Council decides to adopt a new bylaw, there will be associated promotional / public education costs, as well as some signage costs (for example, on wharves). Signage costs will depend on the form of the bylaw that is ultimately adopted, and whether signs can be generic (and mass produced) or need to be bespoke for each facility, and what time pressures there are on installation.  More information on costs will be included when the bylaw is reported back to Council after consultation, when the final form of the proposed bylaw is known.  

Legal Implications

6.13    The legal considerations relating to a review have been identified in paragraphs 5.1 to 5.5 of this report.

6.14    In addition to these considerations, the law requires that any bylaw must be intra vires (within the statutory powers that authorise the bylaw), certain and reasonable. There is a considerable body of case law on ‘reasonableness’ in the bylaw context. The Courts have noted that in ascertaining the reasonableness of a bylaw, they will look to the surrounding facts, including the nature and condition of the locality in which it is to take effect, the problem it seeks to solve or proposes to remedy, and whether public or private rights are unnecessarily or unjustly affected.

6.15    The Legal Services Unit has considered both the section 155 analysis, as well as the proposed new bylaw.  It is the view of the Legal Services Unit that the proposed new bylaw is within the authorising provisions of the LGA 2002, and is certain and reasonable.  It is also the view of the Legal Services Unit that the attached section 155 analysis report shows how the Council has considered its section 155 obligations for the purposes of the review of the bylaw (together with assessing options under section 77 of the LGA 2002 in relation to the various clauses). 

6.16    In addition, the review prepared by staff lead to the conclusion that other options such as ‘do nothing’ or ‘retain the current bylaw without amendment’ were not reasonably practicable options.  On this basis the Legal Services Unit consider that the Council has correctly identified one reasonably practicable option which is to replace the current Bylaw with a new Bylaw. 

6.17    The recommendations in this report reflect that the requirements in section 155 and 160 of the LGA 2002 have been met.

Risks and Mitigations   

6.18    The risks of adopting a proposed replacement bylaw for consultation are low. The consultation process will allow the public to have their say on the proposal.

6.19    The purpose of the proposed replacement bylaw is to facilitate the fair and safe use of, and access to, facilities, and to protect them from damage.  It updates the current bylaw and does not propose any major changes. It does propose some increased or new restrictions on the use of facilities (in order to balance commercial and recreational access), but all permissions allow approvals outside of the scope of the restrictions, meaning there is a level of flexibility and discretion built into the bylaw. 

 

 

Attachments

No.

Title

Page

a 

Clause-by-clause and issues analysis report (section 155)

 

b 

Proposed Marine, River and Lake Facilities Bylaw - for consultation

 

c 

Indicative consultation information

 

 

 

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

Teena Crocker - Senior Policy Analyst

Vivienne Wilson - Senior Solicitor

Kay Holder - Operations Manager Regional Parks

Approved By

Claire Bryant - Team Leader Policy

Helen Beaumont - Head of Strategic Policy

Brendan Anstiss - General Manager Strategy and Transformation

 


Council

01 June 2017

 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


Council

01 June 2017

 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


Council

01 June 2017

 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


Council

01 June 2017

 

 

11.    Regulatory Performance Committee Minutes - 10 May 2017

Reference:

17/482769

Contact:

Aidan Kimberley

Aidan.kimberley@ccc.govt.nz

941 6566

 

 

1.   Purpose of Report

The Regulatory Performance Committee held a meeting on 10 May 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 10 May 2017.

 

 

Attachments

No.

Title

Page

A

Minutes Regulatory Performance Committee - 10 May 2017

146

 

 

Signatories

Author

Aidan Kimberley - Committee and Hearings Advisor

  


Council

01 June 2017

 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


Council

01 June 2017

 

Report from Strategic Capability Committee  – 11 May 2017

 

12.    Christchurch Economic Development Strategy

Reference:

17/506703

Contact:

Gavin Thomas

gavin.thomas@ccc.govt.nz

941 8834

 

 

 

 

1.  Strategic Capability Committee Consideration

 

1.         Anna Elphick, Strategy and Performance Manager of Canterbury Development Corporation, joined staff at the table to present the report to the Committee.

2.         During the discussion of the Strategy the Committee requested staff present an updated attachment, to take into account the changes requested regarding education and young people in the city. This is now Attachment A..

 

2.  Strategic Capability Committee Recommendation to Council

 

That the Council:

1.         Approves the Christchurch Economic Development Strategy for implementation.

2.         Approves that the Strategic Capability Committee receive progress reports on implementation of the Christchurch Economic Development Strategy.

3.         Agrees that further detailed progress reporting be undertaken annually through the Council’s Strategy Progress Report.

4.         Notes that Council officers are already working with ChristchurchNZ to establish an appropriate senior officials steering group to oversee the implementation of the Strategy.

 

 

Attachments

No.

Report Title

Page

1

Christchurch Economic Development Strategy

152

 

No.

Title

Page

a

CEDS Revised Economic Development Strategy 2017

158

 

 


Council

01 June 2017

 

 

Christchurch Economic Development Strategy

Reference:

17/304065

Contact:

Gavin Thomas

Gavin.thomas@ccc.govt.nz

941-8834

 

 

1.   Purpose and Origin of Report

Purpose of Report

1.1       The purpose of this report is for the Strategic Capability Committee to consider the Christchurch Economic Development Strategy 2017.

Origin of Report

1.2       This report is being provided to fulfil a level of service requirement included in the Council’s Long Term Plan 2015 requiring Canterbury Development Corporation (CDC) to review and update the Christchurch Economic Development Strategy.

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 analysis using the Council’s significance assessment template

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

 

3.   Staff Recommendations 

That the Strategic Capability Committee:

1.         Recommends to the Council that it:

a.         Approves the Christchurch Economic Development Strategy for implementation

b.         Approves that the Strategic Capability Committee receive progress reports on implementation of the Christchurch Economic Development Strategy

c.         Agrees that further detailed progress reporting be undertaken annually through the Council’s Strategy Progress Report

d.         Notes that Council officers are already working with ChristchurchNZ to establish an appropriate senior officials steering group to oversee the implementation of the Strategy

 

 

4.   Key Points

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

4.1.1   Activity: Christchurch Economic Development Leadership and Coordination

·     Level of Service: 5.1.2 CDC provides economic development leadership for Christchurch

4.2       The following feasible options have been considered:

·     Option 1 – The Council approves the Christchurch Economic Development Strategy 2017 (preferred option)

·     Option 2 – Do nothing

4.3       Option Summary - Advantages and Disadvantages (Preferred Option)

4.3.1   The advantages of this option include:

·   The Strategy gives effect to the views and aspirations of the range of stakeholders who engaged in the Strategy review process.

·   The Strategy provides a clear work programme to coordinate and focus the efforts of a range of key organisations to assist economic development in Christchurch.

·   The Strategy provides ChristchurchNZ with a clear work programme within its economic development functions and with opportunities to enhance integration through its legacy arms working collaboratively to deliver Strategy actions.

4.3.2   The disadvantages of this option include:

·   There are costs associated with ChristchurchNZ, the Council and other stakeholder organisations delivering the actions identified in the Strategy.

 

 

5.   Context/Background

Christchurch Economic Development Strategy (CEDS)

5.1       A prosperous economy improves the economic wellbeing of residents through jobs and business opportunities and contributes to the development of the social and public amenities that make Christchurch an attractive place to live.

5.2       The Strategy is prepared and monitored by ChristchurchNZ (previously CDC), in support of the Council’s community outcomes framework and in particular the outcomes associated with a prosperous economy.

5.3       The first CEDS was launched in 2013 to identify the city’s long term growth goals and priorities to 2031 that would contribute to Christchurch having a stronger economy and better quality of life.

5.4       Strategy development and implementation is collaborative, with the CEDS having over 20 partners across the private and government sectors. At its outset CEDS encompassed over 70 economic development projects with a combined value of over $8.2 billion to our local economy over 15 years.

5.5       The timing of the CEDS review has enabled the Council’s emerging strategic priorities to be incorporated, providing strong linkages to the Council’s high level direction settings.

 

CEDS Review Process

5.6       A background paper on the Christchurch economy and a review of progress against the current strategy were prepared to provide baseline information and inform participants in the strategy review process. These documents are available on the CDC website http://www.cdc.org.nz/what-we-do/economic-strategy/.

5.7       Four thematic workshops were held involving representatives of Christchurch’s business community, local government, education and research institutions and other stakeholders. These workshops provided opportunities for key stakeholders to understand the wider local economy and to put forward their thoughts regarding future direction and priorities. The findings of these workshops have strongly influenced the final CEDS document. Supporting documents associated with these workshops are available from the CDC website.

5.8       The CEDS review has taken longer to complete than originally planned due to the need for the Strategy to effectively align with the direction of the newly formed ChristchurchNZ organisation. Launching the reviewed strategy during the transitional stage of the forming of ChristchurchNZ provides valuable direction and momentum, in tandem with the Christchurch Visitor Strategy adopted by the Council in 2016. 

Action Plan and Implementation

5.9       The CEDS action plan is in two parts – 5 Big Game Changers (a range of initiatives intended to have a transformational impact on our local economy) and Keeping the City Competitive (actions that maintain and/ or build on what we do well in the economic sector).

5.10    There are 80 projects included in the action plan, some of which are already underway, some are planned and budgeted and some are aspirational (not yet planned or budgeted).

5.11    The Council is the lead agency or co-lead agency for 33 of the projects in the action plan. Some of the projects are existing, or planned and budgeted. There are, however, some new initiatives which the Council will need to consider through its Long Term Plan preparation process.

5.12    ChristchurchNZ’s coordination and oversight functions will be undertaken by their in-house Programme Management Office (PMO). The PMO will have two key roles in implementation:

·    Monitor and report to Council and other stakeholders on delivery progress of the whole economic development programme. PMO progress reports provide a view of all economic development projects, their status and interdependencies and progress against strategic priorities.

·    Facilitate dialogue and action with city leaders where opportunities, challenges and trends require action.

5.13    With the CEDS having a large number of organisations delivering on projects and a large number of projects, staff have already commenced planning for an implementation steering group to monitor progress and facilitate project progression. This steering group will meet quarterly and include ChristchurchNZ (3 representatives), Council (2 representatives) and the other key stakeholders (3 representatives), giving 8 members in total.

5.14    The steering group will ensure stakeholders have quarterly progress reports and that opportunities to improve project delivery are identified and put in place.

5.15    The Council has been allocated actions to lead or co-lead implementation with other key agencies and will be involved in other actions being led by other key agencies.

5.16    Some of the actions allocated to Council are effectively business as usual or projects already agreed by the Council. Any new actions will be prioritised and scoped before being proposed to the Council in the Long Term Plan or Annual Plan work programmes.

Reporting

5.17    Formal reporting to the Council on progress made in CEDS implementation is recommended to be through the Strategic Capability Committee (as it is monitoring progress against the strategy as opposed to monitoring organisational progress).

5.18    It is also recommended that ChristchurchNZ provides progress information to the Council’s Head of Strategic Policy and that this be included in the annual Strategy Progress Update Report to that committee.

5.19    The Board of ChristchurchNZ may require additional reporting if they consider that appropriate.

5.20    Council-led projects will be reported through the usual Council reporting processes.

6.   Option 1 – Approve the CEDS (preferred)

Option Description

6.1       The Council formally approves the CEDS as being complete for implementation

Significance

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

6.3       Engagement requirements for this level of significance have been met through the stakeholder engagement process detailed above.

Impact on Mana Whenua

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

Community Views and Preferences

6.5       The key stakeholders involved in the CEDS review are specifically affected by this option due to their ability to contribute to CEDS implementation.  Their views have been captured through the key stakeholder engagement process.

Alignment with Council Plans and Policies

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

Financial Implications

6.7       Cost of Implementation will depend on the Council-funded initiatives the Council includes in its work programme and budget.

6.8       Maintenance / Ongoing Costs – The Council provides annual operating grant funding to ChristchurchNZ at a rate decided by Council each year. A significant portion of this funding is likely to be required to undertake the functions associated with implementing CEDS.

6.9       Funding source – will vary depending on the initiative. Most will ultimately be rate funded.

Legal Implications

6.10    None identified.

Risks and Mitigations   

6.11    The Council could decide at a later date that it does not want to implement the CEDS.

6.12    Risk – investment is lost caused by inability to complete strategy projects.  This will result in lost economic opportunities.

6.12.1 Treatment: Council should be as clear as possible at the earliest opportunity as to what it will and won’t undertake.

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

Implementation

6.13    Implementation dependencies - some projects included in the action plan require collaboration with other agencies.

6.14    Implementation timeframe – will vary according to each project.

Option Summary - Advantages and Disadvantages

6.15    The advantages of this option include:

·   The Strategy gives effect to the views and aspirations of the range of stakeholders who engaged in the Strategy review process.

·   The Strategy provides a clear work programme to coordinate and focus the efforts of a range of key organisations to assist economic development in Christchurch

·   The Strategy provides ChristchurchNZ with a clear work programme in its economic development function and with opportunities to enhance integration through its legacy arms working collaboratively to deliver Strategy actions.

6.16    The disadvantages of this option include:

·   There are costs associated with ChristchurchNZ, the Council and other stakeholder organisations delivering the actions identified in the Strategy.

7.   Option 2 – Do nothing

Option Description

7.1       The Council could decide not to approve the CEDS.

Significance

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

7.3       Engagement requirements for this level of significance are not applicable for this option.

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       Key stakeholders are specifically affected by this option due to their commitment to the review process.  Their views are unknown at this time regarding this option. If the Council wishes to pursue this option their views could be sought and reported back.

Alignment with Council Plans and Policies

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

7.6.1   Inconsistency – doesn’t give effect to a Long Term Plan level of service.

7.6.2   Reason for inconsistency – level of service specifically requires the CEDS to be reviewed.

7.6.3   Amendment necessary – provide explanation and rationale of the decision not to deliver on the level of service in the Annual Report 2017.

Financial Implications

7.7       Cost of Implementation – Nil.

7.8       Maintenance / Ongoing Costs – Nil.

7.9       Funding source – Not applicable.

Legal Implications

7.10    None identified.

Risks and Mitigations    

7.11    ChristchurchNZ has no overarching direction to its economic development work programme.

7.12    Risk - inefficiencies caused by lack of direction.  This will result in reduced value for money for the community.

7.12.1 Treatment: approve the CEDS.

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

Implementation

7.13    Implementation dependencies - not applicable.

7.14    Implementation timeframe – not applicable

Option Summary - Advantages and Disadvantages

7.15    The advantages of this option include:

·   May result in short term cost savings (avoiding implementation costs).

7.16    The disadvantages of this option include:

·   Does not provide economic development future direction for the city (not doing this will cost in the long run).

·   Would leave ChristchurchNZ with an uncertain forward work programme.

·   Doesn’t provide a framework for key organisations to work collaboratively to achieve economic development goals for the city.

 

 

Attachments

No.

Title

Page

a 

CEDS Revised Economic Development Strategy 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

Author

Gavin Thomas - Principal Advisor Economic Policy

Approved By

Helen Beaumont - Head of Strategic Policy

Brendan Anstiss - General Manager Strategy and Transformation

 


Council

01 June 2017

 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


Council

01 June 2017

 

 

13.    Development Christchurch Limited - Proposed Property Transfers

Reference:

17/502812

Contact:

Angus Smith

Angus.smith@ccc.govt.nz

941 8502

 

 

1.   Purpose and Origin of Report

Purpose of Report

1.1       The purpose of this report is to follow up on the Council resolution, CNCL/2017/00077 (refer following section 1.2 for details), of 23 March 2017 by:

1.1.1   Providing a report on the outcome of the consultation process;

1.1.2   Presenting the information requested from Christchurch City Holdings Limited (CCHL); and

1.1.3   Seeking a decision on whether to proceed with the proposed transfer of properties to Development Christchurch Limited (DCL), or not.

Origin of Report

1.2       This report initially arises from a request received from Development Christchurch Limited (“DCL”) for the Council to transfer certain land to it. Council considered that request at its meeting of 23 March and resolved as follows.

1.2.1   To meet its Local Government Act 2002 obligations in respect of the proposed transfer of its properties at:

a)     82 & 84 Peterborough Street/ 95 Kilmore Street (Peterborough Quarter);

b)     Milton Street (excluding those areas required for existing operational uses referred to above).

c)      Beresford Street to Development Christchurch Limited,

approve an expedited consultation process to be commenced as soon as practicable;

 

1.2.2   Note that those parts of the Milton Street property that are required for the existing greenspace’, water infrastructure and social housing uses are not included in Development Christchurch Limited’s request or in Council’s decision.

1.2.3   Defer the request from DCL to transfer 80 Owles Terrace at this time as there are concerns about the suitability of the land for residential development.

1.2.4   Defer the request from DCL to transfer 70 Kilmore Street at this time and request staff to report back with DCL with options for a process to optimise outcomes including land ownership, consultation and international interest, with the Council making the final decision.

1.2.5   Hear any submissions received.

1.2.6   Request staff to provide a further report to the Council at the completion of the consultation process with a view to then considering whether to proceed with the proposed transfer of properties to Development Christchurch Limited, or not.

1.2.7   Request Christchurch City Holdings Limited provide a report to the Council to accompany the transfer of properties report that outlines:

a)     The expected returns non-financial and financial which will be generated by the transfer of the properties over both the short and long term;

b)     Outlines the risks from capitalising Development Christchurch Limited to purchase the tranche one properties; and

c)      Provides the basis of the staff recommendation to Council.

2.   Significance

2.1       The substantive decision, to transfer the land requested by DCL, detailed in this report has been assessed as being of high significance in relation to the Christchurch City Council’s Significance and Engagement Policy.

2.2       The level of significance as determined by applying the Council’s Significance and Engagement Policy, taking into consideration (amongst other things) the number of people affected and/or with an interest, the potential to generate community interest, possible costs/risks to the Council, ratepayers and wider community of carrying out the decision, whether the impact of the decision can be reversed, and the value of the property portfolio proposed to be transferred (the initial request was for property in excess of $26 million excluding GST).

2.3       A community engagement and consultation process reflecting this assessment and Council’s statutory obligations has been undertaken and the results of this are set out in this report.

3.   Staff Recommendations 

In view of the deputations to be made to the Council at the meeting at which this report is to be considered, it is recommended, depending on the Council decision made, that the Council adopt one or other of the following forms of resolution:

TRANSFER

1.         That Council:

a.         Having received a request from Development Christchurch Limited to transfer to it the following properties:

·    82 and 84 Peterborough Street/ 95 Kilmore Street (Peterborough Quarter); and

·    Milton Street (excluding those areas required for existing Council operational uses, i.e. the existing greenspace, water infrastructure & social housing uses), and

·    25-31, 33-39 and 53-61 Beresford Street, 11 Mafeking Street and 17 Union Street;

(“Properties”)

b.         And that request constitutes an unsolicited proposal that would provide the following unique benefits:

·    to the community by enabling and supporting Development Christchurch Limited to meet the purposes and objectives as set out in its Statement of Intent; and

·    to Development Christchurch Limited by supporting that company’s Land Development Strategy;

c.         And having considered the public submissions received and heard by the Council;

d.         And noting the information from Christchurch City Holdings Limited;

e.         Resolves to transfer the Properties to Development Christchurch Limited;

f.          Delegates the authority to determine the price for the transfer to the Chief Executive Officer (or her delegate).  In exercising this authority the Chief Executive Officer (or her delegate) must take into consideration the current market value of the properties and any adjustments required to appropriately allocate the risk associated with remediating them;

g.         Authorises the Head of Facilities, Property and Planning (or his delegate), working with Development Christchurch Limited, to undertake the following tasks relating to the  Milton Street property:

i.          Apply for a resource consent to subdivide those areas required for existing operational uses (and to retained by the Council) from the balance of the property to be transferred to Development Christchurch Limited;

ii.         Registering easements over the property to protect the Council and Orion infrastructure; and

iii.        Negotiate a lease being between the Council and City Care Limited on terms and conditions acceptable that may subsequently be assigned to Development Christchurch Limited;

h.         Directs officers to work with Development Christchurch Limited to find ways of ensuring that the impact of the transfer does not result in an increase in rates and allows Development Christchurch Limited to fulfil the expectations set by Council);

i.          Delegates to the Head of Facilities, Property and Planning (or his delegate)  authority to negotiate and enter into such legal documentation with Development Christchurch Limited and to do such other things relating to the land transfers as generally set out in this report and otherwise as he shall consider appropriate and expedient to give effect to this resolution (including, but not limited to, the giving of any landowner consents or approvals required as part of the Milton Street subdivision process, the negotiating of the lease with City Care Limited of Milton Street and registering the caveats required by Schedule 9 of the Local Government Act 2002);

j.          Agrees to acquire shares in Christchurch City Holdings Limited equivalent to the sale price of the properties once the other conditions in resolution 1 (a –j) are met; and

k.         Delegates to the General Manager Finance and Commercial authority to enter into such documentation as is necessary to acquire the shares in Christchurch City Holdings Limited and to do such other things relating to the issue of shares as she shall consider appropriate and expedient to give effect to this resolution.

Do not transfer:

2.         That Council

a.         Having received a request from Development Christchurch Limited to transfer to it the following properties:

·    82 and 84 Peterborough Street/ 95 Kilmore Street (Peterborough Quarter); and

·    Milton Street (excluding those areas required for existing operational uses, i.e. the existing greenspace, water infrastructure & social housing uses), and

·    25-31, 33-39 and 53-61 Beresford Street, 11 Mafeking Street and 17 Union Street,

(“Properties”);

b.         And having considered the public submissions received and heard by the Council;

c.         And noting the information from Christchurch City Holdings Limited;

d.         resolves not to transfer the Properties to Development Christchurch Limited and retain them in Council ownership.

 

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: 17.0.4 Advice is provided to Council on priority urban regeneration issues that affect the City

4.2       This report does not recommend a preferred option. The Council in the course of its decision-making process in relation to this matter, needs to give consideration to the views and preferences of persons likely to be affected by, or to have an interest in, the matter with an open mind.

4.3       Those views and preferences have been obtained through the consultation process outlined in section 6 below. The written submissions are detailed in attachment C to this report and need to be considered along with the submitters to be heard at the beginning of the meeting at which this report is to be considered.

4.4       The following feasible options have been considered:

·     Option 1 - Transfer the three properties to DCL

·     Option 2 – Not transfer the three properties to DCL

Option Summary - Advantages and Disadvantages

4.5       Option 1 - Transfer the three properties to DCL:

 

4.5.1   The advantages of this option include:

·    Provides general economic and social benefits to the people of Christchurch by providing DCL with the means to deliver on the outcomes sought by the Council when it established DCL.

·    Facilitates and incentivises DCL to deliver on the outcomes sought by the Council when it established DCL.

·    Provides DCL with an initial portfolio of land to enable it to commence the implementation of its Land Development Strategy.

 

4.5.2   The disadvantages of this option include:

·    The loss to the Council of the Land for possible future alternative uses or development.

·    The loss to the Council of the existing income generated from the land and the loss of potential future income.

·    Land transferred to DCL will cease to be available to fund the revenue budgeted in the Long Term Plan/ Annual Plan to be received from Fixed Assets Sales related to property, and will therefore reduce the capacity of the Council to achieve that budgeted revenue.

·    Negative impact on rates as set out in more detail in section 8 Financial Considerations.

 

4.6       Option 2 – Not transfer the three properties to DCL:

 

4.6.1   The advantages of this option include:

·    Retains in Council ownership those properties that are still required for the operational use or public work for which they were acquired or used.

·    The land will be retained for possible future alternative uses or development.

·    The existing income generated from the land and the potential future income will be retained.

4.6.2   The disadvantages of this option include:

·     Would not support DCL’s Land Development Strategy.

4.7      

 

5.   Context/Background

DCL Proposal

5.1       DCL’s Land Development Strategy relies on the transfer of a number of Council owned properties and the establishment of a line of credit through Christchurch City Holdings Limited. To initiate this DCL requested the transfer of properties, which resulted in the resolution set out above in section 1.2.

5.2       The resolution supported consultation on the proposition of transferring to DCL three of the initial proposed five properties at market value.  The three specific properties were: 

·   82 & 84 Peterborough Street/ 95 Kilmore Street (Peterborough Quarter);

·   The City Care Deport site at Barnet Avenue and Milton Street (excluding those areas required for existing operational uses referred to above,  i.e. the existing greenspace’, water infrastructure and social housing uses) (Milton Street);

·   carparks located at 25-31 Beresford Street, 11 Mafeking Street; 33-39 Beresford Street and 17 Union Street; and 53-61 Beresford Street (Beresford Street)

5.3       Details of the properties and their market valuations are included in Attachment A and the confidential Attachment B respectively.

5.4       This report includes the written submissions received through consultation.  Oral submissions will be made at the meeting at which this report is being considered.  In terms of process Council will need to consider both the contents of this report (particularly the written submission) and the information presented in the oral submissions when making its decision.

5.5       Council also requested CCHL to provide a report on the risks, and financial and non-financial returns of the proposal.  This report is attached as confidential Attachment D.

6.   Consultation Outcomes

6.1       This section presents a summary of the information received through consultation.  Copies of the written submissions are included in attachment C.

6.2       Twelve of the submitters indicated that they wish to be heard in support of their submissions and this will occur by way of deputations at the start of the meeting at which this report is considered.

Process

6.3       Community consultation on the proposal to transfer three properties to Development Christchurch Limited (DCL) was undertaken from Thursday 6 April to Friday 5 May 2017.

6.4       A total of 820 consultation leaflets were hand delivered to properties in the immediate vicinity of the Peterborough, Milton and Beresford sites. 311 leaflets were sent to property owners within the area. Information about the consultation was also sent to 169 key stakeholders.

6.5       Additional leaflets were available at Civic Offices, Peterborough St Library and on signage that was installed on the Peterborough and Beresford Street sites.

6.6       A public notice advertising the consultation ran in The Press on Wednesday 12 and Saturday 15 April 2017.

Results Summary

6.7       During the course of the engagement, Council received 67 submissions.  Of the 67 submissions, 39 submitters were in support, 16 were in support but had some concerns, and 12 did not support the proposal.

6.8       A key theme from the supportive submissions was acknowledgement of the importance of capitalising DCL to enable it to achieve its objectives.  Example quotes illustrate this theme:

6.8.1   “For DCL to fulfil its objectives it needs to be able to operate on a commercial basis . . . “

6.8.2   “We believe Development Christchurch has the capacity, skills and experience and focus to ensure these land holdings return the required value.”

6.8.3   “I see that it is critical that DCL be resourced to allow the agency to undertake the needed revitalisation work in New Brighton.”

6.8.4   “DCL needs to be financially secure and credible in order to effect the commercial outcomes it seeks. This transfer of land helps to enable that.”

6.9       Of the sixteen submissions that had some concerns about the proposal, eight mentioned concerns about the form of residential development (social, affordable, high density).  Submitters who did not support the proposal also raised concerns about the form of development.  The following comments demonstrate this theme:

6.9.1   “. . . it is vital that the property in Beresford Street is not designated for affordable housing . . . We already have a high proportion of affordable housing in the area and there is no need for any more.”

6.9.2   “Do not want affordable housing on Milton St site.”

6.9.3   “I like the idea of the development of these sites into residential housing . . . but worry about places being built with no one interested in buying in New Brighton because of the current state of the shops and neighbourhood is rather poor.”

6.9.4   “I do support the transfer to DCL and believe this will act as a catalyser to the development of the area. I don’t however see that dense, solely residential development is the answer.”

6.10    A secondary theme raised by submitters with concerns was related to the impact on car parking in New Brighton.  This was the primary theme raised in the twelve submissions that did not support the proposal, with nine mentioning the Beresford Street site and eight of these specifically raising concerns about parking.  Illustrative comments include:

6.10.1 “Land is used for parking by those who shop and work in Brighton.”

6.10.2 “These 3 car parks are in good order and get used by lots of parking on every day of the week . . . They are not broken, so don’t fix them.”

6.10.3 “The land is in use already as a carpark for a number of businesses in New Brighton i.e. Doctor’s on Union St, WINZ on Beresford St, Point Break Backpackers as well as numerous other businesses in the area.”

6.10.4 “We operate a veterinary clinic and our patients and clients require easy access to our facilities.”

6.11    Other issues raised by those who did not support the proposal include opposition to asset sales and a desire for private sector development.  Example comments include:

6.11.1 “I totally oppose this plan to transfer the ownership of the assets at Beresford Street.”

6.11.2 “KOA opposes the sale and/or give away etc. of council assets that have an ongoing ability to be used in the best interests of the citizens of Christchurch.”

6.11.3 “Board members believe that the private sector has the expertise and capability to develop the land proposed to be transferred.”

Discussion

6.12    The consultation process has revealed a plurality of views about the proposal.  Importantly, it has not revealed any compelling reasons not to proceed with the proposed transfers.  It has revealed some key themes that Council, when making its decision on the matter, and DCL, should the transfer be approved, might consider and respond to.  These themes are car parking at Beresford Street and the form of development at all sites (but particularly Beresford Street and Milton Street).

6.13    Should the Beresford Street transfer occur, DCL may need to undertake parking and traffic studies as part of their development approval process.  Additionally DCL will be undertaking parking and traffic studies as part of their wider regeneration in New Brighton.  These steps will allow a better understanding of both normal and peak parking demand, and assessment of the impact of changes to parking supply.  Based on these responses, it would be advisable for DCL to undertake targeted engagement with businesses in proximity to the Beresford Site.

6.14    Concerns about the form of development relate particularly to the introduction of social and affordable housing.  DCL has indicated that it will consult the community on the final form of development.  This issue can be addressed through that process. 

7.   Transfer Proposal

7.1       It is proposed to transfer by way of a standard commercial sale and purchase agreement the three properties detailed below for the consideration outlined in the public excluded attachment B to this report.

7.2       The Beresford Street carparks and the Peterborough / Kilmore Street properties are held in discrete parcels and titles without any complicating use / lease issues. The transfer process is therefore reasonably straight forward and could happen immediately following a Council decision.

7.3       Whilst the transfer of Milton Street will happen by the same mechanism there are a few issues that will need to be resolved, namely subdivision of the portions to be retained in Council ownership and protection of the Council and Orion infrastructure (see Attachment B for more information about Orion’s requirments). The subdivision process is likely to take three to four months, depending on the method employed. Should Council approve the transfer, the process, timing and funding of the subdivision will be negotiated with DCL.

Dealing Unilaterally with DCL

7.4       The Council’s standard process to dispose of land is to adopt a transparent disposal process, usually by public tender or auction. The Council does this to meet the requirements of section 14(1)(f) of the Local Government Act 2002 to undertake its business activities in accordance with sound business practice and to comply with Council policy (listed in the Council’s Policy Register as 'Property - process for disposal of Council property within the central city area) to "publicly tender properties for sale unless there is a clear reason for doing otherwise".  The Auditor-General’s ‘Procurement Guidelines’, which are not mandatory, also support transparent processes for major transactions.

 

7.5       On this occasion it is open for the Council not to dispose of the land in this manner as it has effectively received a unique unsolicited proposal for the transfer of land to DCL that would provide significant benefits to the people of Christchurch by supporting the purposes and objectives of DCL, a wholly owned subsidiary of Christchurch City Holdings Limited and ultimately of the Council.

 

7.6       Council staff have considered the Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment 'Unsolicited Unique Proposals - How to deal with uninvited bids;' guidance for government entities dated May 2013 when evaluating the unsolicited proposal to ensure that there is a sound business case to support the decision to accept the unique unsolicited proposal.

 

7.7       The purpose of the MBIE Guidance on Unsolicited Proposals is to provide a methodology for considering unsolicited proposals in a way that:

·   is transparent and fair to everyone;

·   encourages the supplier community to put forward good ideas;

·   promotes objectivity;

·   supports decisions based on sound fact and evidence.

7.8       The proposal from DCL is an 'Unsolicited Unique Proposal'.  Council staff have evaluated the proposal and its other options for the Land and are satisfied:

 

·   the proposal would provide benefit to the community by enabling and supporting DCL to meet the purposes and objectives as set out in its Statement of Intent;

·   the proposal would provide a benefit to DCL by supporting that company’s Land Development Strategy;

7.9       On this basis, Council staff are of the view that the unique offering and the benefits to the community outweigh any benefits that may be realised from an open tender process.

Section 40 Public Works Act 1981 considerations

7.10    Section 40 requires that where land is held by the Council for a public work and it is no longer required for that public work, or any other public work, then, subject to certain exceptions, the land must be “offered back” at market value to the person from whom it was acquired, or their successor.

7.11    Clause 2 of Schedule 9 of the Local Government Act 2002 provides that nothing in s40 applies to the transfer of land from a local authority to a CCO, such as DCL, but it does provide that s40 will apply to the land after such a transfer as if the CCO was the Council.  Thus the “offer back” obligation is postponed and passes to the CCO which receives the land. This is an issue that will need to be managed carefully by DCL in the medium to long term.

7.12    If the Council decides to transfer the properties to DCL clause 3 of Schedule 9 of the Local Government Act 2002 requires the Council to lodge a caveat on the titles to the properties to protect the right of those persons from who the land was originally acquired or their successors to receive an ‘offer back’ of the land in the event that it is no longer required for a public work.

8.   Financial Considerations

Funding

8.1       The preferred option for funding the purchase of the properties by DCL was discussed in the 23 March 2017 paper and remain unchanged.

8.2       The two options available are:

8.2.1   Council/CCHL to advance the purchase price to DCL by way of a loan.  DCL’s funding model does not allow them to service a loan.

8.2.2   DCL issuing shares to CCHL and CCHL to Council.  This option is not ideal for Council because of the uncertainty of the timing and quantum of return.

8.2.3   Of the two options, the preferred option is DCL issuing shares to CCHL and CCHL to Council equivalent to the fair market value at which the properties are purchased.  The funds generated from the issue of shares will be used by DCL to purchase the properties from Council.

8.2.4   It is anticipated that each of the three properties could transfer to DCL at different dates.  If that is the case, shares will be issued for each transfer.

8.3       Financing costs will have an impact of 0.04% on rates.

Sale of properties

8.4       The Council’s draft annual plan and LTP have included the disposal of surplus properties ($21.1 million over 2017 – 2019). Typically specific properties were not identified with the exception of the Peterborough Quarter properties of $8.6 million. The disposal of these properties was planned to provide funds for the repayment of debt or to fund capital projects (In effect reducing the group’s net debt and the rating requirement needed to service this debt). Transferring these properties to DCL mean this reduction will not occur as planned.

8.5       The transfer of the three properties will also reduce Council’s revenue by net $590,000. This reflects the loss of rental income on the properties (principally Milton Street) offset by the savings in direct property holding costs. As was highlighted in the report to Council on 23 March 2017, the revenue Council receives from the rental of Milton Street to City Care offsets the rates requirement for all Council activities. The loss of the net revenue will have a 0.15% increase in rates for 2018.

8.6       It is currently estimated that there will be a reduction in the Council’s taxable income as a result of the proposed transaction. The quantum of this will be dependent on the final transfer values.

8.7       The overall impact on rates of transferring the three properties detailed this this paper is an increase of 0.18% (noting the impact of rounding on the 0.04 % financing costs and 0.15% revenue loss).  

8.8       The increase above is based on the 2018 draft annual plan as issued for public consultation and does not take into account any changes as a result of submissions.

8.9       The significant issue for Council is the loss of the Milton Street revenue. This was highlighted in the report to Council of 23 March. DCL had acknowledged this cost and proposed that the income from the property remain with Council and that the mechanism for doing so was to be discussed.  If the income remains with Council there is no impact on rates.

8.10    Discussions on the mechanism have advanced, however in parallel it has become apparent that DCL will require some or all of the potential revenue stream from the Milton Street property to  fund property holding (mainly rates and insurance) and development costs (e.g. feasibility studies; engagement; master planning; remediation etc.).

8.11    A potential mechanism previously reported to Council was for CCHL to provide a line of credit to DCL to fund the holding and development costs.  Use of the rental revenue rather than the line of credit has a positive impact on DCL’s overall financial position, and reduces the overall Christchurch City Council Group borrowing requirement.

8.12    In addressing this issue officers have been guided by two aims.  Firstly, the transaction should have no impact on rates.   Secondly, the transaction should allow DCL to fulfil the expectations set by Council.

8.13    Rather than finalise the specific solution to this issue, it is recommended that, if Council supports the transfer of the properties to DCL, it confirms its preferred expectations (assumed to be that the transaction does not result in a rates increase and that it allows DCL to fulfil the expectations set by Council) and delegates responsibility for developing a specific solution that complies with these expectations.  The specific solution will require both parties to look at cost saving initiatives to offset the impact of the loss of revenue.    

Advice received from CCHL

8.14    Attached as Attachment D is the advice that was received from CCHL which outlines the expected financial and non-financial returns expected over both the short and long term and the risks of capitalising DCL.

8.15    The CCHL report also discusses the impact on DCL’s financial forecasts from it retaining the net revenue from the properties.

8.16    CCHL have assessed the risk from capitalising DCL in this manner. The risks identified were:

·   DCL is unable to secure suitable development partners

·   The market demand is low for the planned development outcomes

·   The planned developments take longer and cost more relative to the business cases supporting the proposal

·   DCL development partners experience financial or reputational failure

·   As a consequence of any of these risks occurring DCL is unable to service/repay the CCHL line of credit and/or the value of DCL is impaired.

8.17    CCHL have stated that DCL has developed appropriate mitigations for each risk. These mitigations include board reporting, shareholder monitoring, robust milestone based decision making processes and contingent options.

8.18    CCHL also make a comment regarding the market value at which the properties are transacted, noting that the market value should take into account the land contamination risk.

8.19    Where there is a risk that property being transferred is possibly contaminated, Council has three approaches that it has used.  Firstly, it can provide the information that it has on the possibility of consultation and let potential purchasers include the risk into the price they are prepared to pay.  Secondly, Council has adjusted the value to reflect known costs of remediation.  Thirdly, Council has remediated sites before putting them on the market, so that the final value is for a remediated site.

8.20    In this case the first option is not possible as the transfer is not “on market”.  The third option is also not possible as the transfer is required in a timely manner to help achieve DCL’s regeneration objectives.

8.21    This leaves the second option, which is consistent with CCHL’s view.  At this time, the likely costs for remediation are not known.  A suggested process that allows for remediation costs and calculation of the impacts on the value is:

8.21.1 Undertake a preliminary site investigation (including current/historic use and earlier contamination assessments) for each site.

8.21.2 Determine whether the preliminary site investigation is sufficient to inform purchase price.  If yes, arrange for a valuer to assess the fair market “value” based on the environmental report.

8.21.3 If no, arrange for a detailed site investigation to determine the extent of contamination and likely cost of remediation

8.21.4 Arrange for a valuer to assess the fair market “value” based on the detailed site investigation report.

8.21.5 For each site, a decision would need to be made whether Council undertakes the remediation or transfers at a lower price (with DCL taking risk that these the reduction in value is sufficient to fund the remediation).

8.22    The preliminary site investigation can happen relatively quickly and would allow timely resolution of the issues and transfer of sites to DCL.  Both DCL and Council believe that, based on known information, this approach will be all that is required for Beresford St and Peterborough Quarter.

8.23    The detailed site investigation is a longer and more expensive process and, based on knowledge of the site, is likely to apply to the Milton Street site.  This process may delay the transfer of Milton Street to DCL.  DCL is aware of this potential delay.

Costs

8.24    The costs of undertaking investigations (Section 40 offer back and valuations) relating to the transfer of land to DCL is currently $74,300.00 and excludes staff time and consultation costs.  These costs have been absorbed by Council.  The expenditure, particularly on offer backs, will assist DCL going forward.

8.25    Additional costs going forward will need to be negotiated and shared with DCL.  The aim of these negotiations will be to achieve a balance between impact on rates and impacting on DCL’s ability to meet their objectives.

8.26    Additional costs, particularly those relating to remediation may be significant. 

9.   Option 1 – Agree to transfer the three properties to DCL

Option Description

9.1       Agree to transfer the following three properties to DCL on the terms and conditions generally set out in this report:

9.1.1   Peterborough Quarter;

9.1.2   Milton Street; and

9.1.3   Beresford Street.

Significance

9.2       This report arises following completion of the consultation process required by the Council resolution of 23 March 2017.  This decision is of high significance, as discussed earlier in this report.

9.3       The engagement requirements for this level of significance have been met by the consultation undertaken as set out in this report.

Impact on Mana Whenua

9.4       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

9.5       A summary of the public submissions, together with staff comments, is attached in Schedule C.

Alignment with Council Plans and Policies

9.6       The Long Term Plan budgets for certain revenue to be received from Fixed Assets Sales related to property.  Budgeted revenue from Fixed Asset sales is approximately $19.4 million by 30 June 2019.  Land transferred to DCL will therefore cease to be available to fund this revenue.

Financial Implications

9.7       Cost of Implementation – the costs of the transfer process are unbudgeted and it is proposed that these costs are met by DCL and/or absorbed within existing Council budgets.

9.8       Maintenance / Ongoing Costs – This issues are set out in section 8 Financial Considerations above.

9.9       Funding source - This issues are set out in section 8 Financial Considerations above.

 

Legal Implications

9.10    The Council has met its obligations under sections 78 and 138 of the Local Government Act 2002 by consulting with the community as detailed in this report.  Appropriate legal advice will be obtained as required to support and facilitate the transfer transaction.

Risks and Mitigations   

9.11    All of the commercial and statutory risks associate with these properties will transfer to DCL along with the property and its interests.

Implementation

9.12    Implementation dependencies - the only transfer that has a dependency is Milton Street. That dependency is the subdivision and its associated requirements.

9.13    Implementation timeframe – Approximately three to four months.

Option Summary - Advantages and Disadvantages

9.14    The advantages of this option include:

·    Provides general economic and social benefits to the people of Christchurch by providing DCL with the means to deliver on the outcomes sought by the Council when it established DCL.

·    Facilitates and incentivises DCL to deliver on the outcomes sought by the Council when it established DCL.

·    Provides DCL with an initial portfolio of land to enable it to commence the implementation of its Land Development Strategy.

·    Removes from the land transfer process those properties that are either unsuitable, unavailable or inappropriate to transfer to DCL.

9.15    The disadvantages of this option include:

·    Land transferred to DCL will cease to be available to fund the revenue budgeted in the Long Term Plan/ Annual Plan to be received from Fixed Assets Sales related to property, and will therefore reduce the capacity of the Council to achieve that budgeted revenue.

·    The loss to the Council of the Land for possible future alternative uses or development.

·    The loss to the Council of the existing income generated from the land and the loss of potential future income.

·    Negative impact on rates as set out in more detail in section 8 unless Council is compensated for the lost revenue.

10. Option 2 – Not transfer the three properties to DCL

Option Description

10.1    Council declines the request to transfer the three proposed properties to DCL and maintains the status quo by retaining them.

Significance

10.2    This report arises following completion of the consultation process required by the Council resolution of 23 March 2017.  This is decision of high significance, as discussed earlier in this report.

10.3    The engagement requirements for this level of significance have been met by the consultation undertaken as set out in this report.

Impact on Mana Whenua

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

Community Views and Preferences

10.5    A summary of the public submissions, together with staff comments, is attached in Schedule C.

Alignment with Council Plans and Policies

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

Financial Implications

10.7    Cost of Implementation – Nil, maintains the status quo.

10.8    Maintenance / Ongoing Costs - Nil, maintains the status quo.

10.9    Funding source - Nil, maintains the status quo.

Legal Implications

10.10  The Council has met its obligations under sections 78 and 138 of the Local Government Act 2002 by consulting with the community as detailed in this report.

Risks and Mitigations    

10.11  None

Implementation

10.12  Implementation dependencies  - None

10.13  Implementation timeframe – Not applicable

Option Summary - Advantages and Disadvantages

10.14  The advantages of this option include:

·   Retains in Council ownership those properties that are still required for the operational use or public work for which they were acquired or used.

·   The land will be retained for possible future alternative uses or development.

·   The existing income generated from the land and the potential future income will be retained.

·   Ongoing management and decision making will reflect Councils normal business as usual practices.

10.15  The disadvantages of this option include:

·   Would not support DCL’s Land Development Strategy.

 

Attachments

No.

Title

Page

a

Attachment A Details of Properties Proposed for Transfer

205

b  

Attachment B Market Value of Properties - Confidential

 

c

Attachment C Consultation Written Submissions with Staff Comment

211

d  

Attachment D CCHL Report - Confidential

 

 

 

Confirmation of Statutory Compliance

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

(a) This report contains:

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

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

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

 

Signatories

Author

Bruce Rendall - Head of Facilities, Property and Planning

Approved By

Anne Columbus - General Manager Corporate Services

  


Council

01 June 2017

 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


Council

01 June 2017

 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


Council

01 June 2017

 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


Council

01 June 2017

 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


Council

01 June 2017

 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator 

 


Council

01 June 2017

 

 

14.  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

01 June 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

15

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.

16

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.

17

Internal Audit Draft Plan

s7(2)(c)(ii)

Prevent Damage to the Public Interest

Information contained may jeopardise effective delivery of internal audit services if released.

Upon finalisation of the Internal Audit Plan

18

Public Excluded Audit and Risk Management Committee Minutes - 12 May 2017

 

 

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